FLD2013-05019. �
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATI0�1:
ITEM: F1
CASE: FLD2013-05019
ADDRESS: 880/900 NORTH OSCEOLA AVENUE
a
� le�.��Y�.���
C
,J
MEETIIVG DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
CASE:
���
COMMUNITI( DEVELOPMENT
:..-.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
July 16, 2013
F.1.
FLD2013-05019
REQU�ST: Flexible Development application to amend a previously approved Flexible
Development application to permit the addition of 200 dry slips and 14 new wet slips
to an existing 66 wet-slip marina (87-wet slips originally approved) including a 53,727
square foot high and dry storage building with a height of 53 feet as measured from
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to roof deck with an additional 12 feet to rooftop
architectural embellishments; 95 parking spaces (including two handicap spaces) (0.68
spaces per two slips); and a 1,000 square foot retaiUofiice building as accessory to the
marina with a height of 14 feet (as measured from BFE) in the Downtown (D) District
- and the Old Bay Character District of the Clearwater powntown Redeveloprnent Plan
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-903.D.
GENERAL DATA:
Agent ........................... Richard Kelley, P.E.; AVID Group
Applicant/ Owner ..... ........ David McComas; Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC.
L oca tion . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .
Property Size ...................
Future Land Use Plan......
880/900 North Osceola Avenue; west side of North Osceola Avenue at the terminus of
Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet north of Seminole Street
5.10 acres (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged)
Central Business District (CBD) and Water
Zoning .. .. ....... .. ............. Downtown (D) and Preservation (P) Districts
SpeCial Area Plan .............. Old Bay; Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan
Adjacent Zoning...
Existing Land Use
No►th: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) Districts
South: Downtown (D) and Preservation (P) Districts
East: Downtown (D) District
West: Preservation (P) (Clearwater Harbor)
........... Marina (66 wet slips)
Proposed Land Use......... Marina (80 wet slips and 200 dry slips); retaiUo�ce (1,000 square feet)
� ��
�� � �
�
��9 �•... : �_��
� li���� 1t �ll,l Level II Flexible Development Application Review
��-��� 'vw+zr:r.f+➢ • _.. � � . _
�,�✓v�r�-�J
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 5.10-acre site (3.55 acres uplan� and 1.55
acres submerged) is located on the west side of
North Osceola Avenue at the terminus of
Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet north
of Seminole Street. The former r?orth Ward
Elementary is located across Nicholson Street,
northeast of the subject property. A mix of
single-family and small multi-family buildings
are located along the northeast property
boundary. The Seminole Street boat-launching
facility and the Francis Wilson Playhouse are
located to the south of the site. The subject site
consists of one parcel with approximately 415
feet of frontage along North Osceola Avenue.
The property is within the D and P districts,
CBD and Water FLUP classifications (which
correspond to the D and P Districts) and the Old
Bay Character District (District) of the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan
(Plan).
The property is currently developed with a 66-
slip marina. It should be noted that the site was
approved for an 87-slip marina as discussed in
detail, below. The primary access point onto the
site is at the southeast corner of the site from
Osceola Avenue that leads to a 50-space parking
lot centrally located along the south side of the
site. Emergency access is provided at the
northeast corner of the site from Osceola
Avenue and at the southwest corner of the site
from the Seminole Street boat launching facility.
Both emergency access points are gated at all
times with access only from a knox box padlock.
The primary access is gated when the marina is
closed and also provides access from a knox box
padlock when necessary.
Landscaping and a six-foot wrought iron fence
with columns are located along the front (east)
side of the property.
In summary, the site has been developed in
accordance with the site plan approved in
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
_ , � � ___. .-�: I — -- � r
'... R1AqSMALL:_ ...
:....
3 � u
W� � W 1�� �- ��
; � ! —
�
�� .. °j ENGWAIN E�WEI ''�J —
sr �`
r ero`v�i _ � „L
¢ ;�
PuM BLUFF Or.. I: " —
5.
PAIM BIUFF
��V PROJECT ., :-�� : � � . ���
��, sirE ;� , �—, —�
� MERO ST.
4 CEOAR ST _ _
�' � , �
ar wwco
V ' . _ _ _ � .'MC�KKSON _S7 � � I —
- - - �«�a�
,- - _ I � -
. .$--�.� . - — — �-- —5
�- � __ _;��_r
- - .- _ ,� �.�� I � __ " _
- 'I y �R�� MAPLE C._ _
�; � �,.-l�: - _
LOCATION MAP
Communiry Development Board July ] 6, 2013
FLD2013-05019 - Page 1
� ^ p t�T }p � �� PLANNRJG & DEVELtIPMENT
���1,�� 11' �ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPM1tENT REVIEW DIVISION
= -.Mi`i.�� �rt-
u ,�/�N�./ti/��'_ _ . . .
association with FLD2009-08030 with the exception of the number of built wet slips (87
approved with 66 built) and the small retail/office accessory building (approved but not built) the
details of which are provided below.
Site History:
➢ In 2000, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FL 00-10-
46) which requested approval to increase the height of attached dwellings from 35 feet to 100
feet and to reduce the (north) side setback from 10 feet to three feet (to an emergency access
aisle), with a Comprehensive Landscape Program. The proposal included the redevelopment
of the then existing Clearwater Marina to include a 140-unit condominium, 112-slip marina,
a 7,000 square foot restaurant, a 2,000 square foot retail shop, and a 4,500 square foot office.
That case was approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) on December 12,
2000 with 12 conditions. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit was
required to have been made within one year of Flexible Development approval (by December
12, 2001). In addition, all required Certificates of Occupancy were to have been obtained
within three years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. Building permits
were not obtained within the required timeframe nor was a time extension requested
therefore, the application expired.
➢ In 2003, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2002-
10036) which requested approval to increase the height of a building with attached dwellings
from 30 feet to 138 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of (then) Section 2-903.C, in conjunction with a
120-slip marina (62 slips public; 58 slips for condo use) and to reduce the buffer width along
the north property line from 10 feet to five feet (to fire access drive), as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. That case was denied by the
Community Development Board (CDB) on June 17, 2003 with the following bases:
l. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.B.
2. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.
3. The development is incompatible with the surrounding area.
➢ In 2005, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2004-
07053) which requested approval to permit 133 attached dwelling units and an increase in the
permitted height from 30 feet to 100 feet (as measured from base flood elevation and the
mean elevation of the site) under the provisions of (then) Section 2-903.B. That case was
approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) on January 18, 2005 with 15
conditions. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit was required to
have been made within one year of Flexible Development approval (by January 18, 2006).
In addition, all required Certificates of Occupancy were to have been obtained within three
years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. Building permits were not
obtained within the required timeframe nor was a time extension requested therefore, the
application expired.
Community Development Board July 16, 20l 3
TLD2013-050 ] 9 — Page 2
� p �T +p�+ �� � � - PLANNING & DEVELOPIVIEN'C
r C�L�� ►1' aLl.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPME;YT REVIEW DIVISION
� �N�� ., . . . � . . . .
➢ In 2009, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2009-
08030) which requested approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the Downtown (D) District
with a dock master building height of 1733 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the provisions
of Community Development Code (then) Section 2-903.H. The proposal was to establish a
marina with 87 boat slips, where the primary users lease dock space for private recreational
boats: No commercial boats, boat rentals or jet ski rental spaces were proposed. No covered
boatli�s, roof structures or vertical walls were proposed as part of this project either.
Pedestrian access to the existing slips was to be provided by an onsite golf cart along a
proposed cart path. A 400 square foot dock master building was proposed west of the
proposed parking lot. This structure has not been constructed. The Community
Development Board (CBD) approved the application on November 17, 2009 despite a
recommendation of denial from Staff because the proposed marina was similar in scale and
scope to the City-owned and -operated Seminole Boat Ramp facility. The CDB found that
proposal would have minimal impacts on adjacent properties. To ensure that the marina
would operate at the desired lower intensity of activity 23 conditions were attached to the
approval of the application (as amended) including (original numbering has been retained):
15. That live aboard vessels be prohibited;
16. That there be no fueling facilities, boat launching or dry storage of boats;
17. That the slips be limited for private recreational boats, that there are no boat rentals,
no jet ski rentals and that no commercial boats conduct any business at the marina;
and
19. That no servicing of boats or motors is permitted other than necessary minor repairs
and maintenance.
➢ In 201 l, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2011-
01001) which requested approval to amend condition of approval (#2 on Development Order
FLD2009-08030 dated December 16, 2009) as follows: That, prior to the issuance of any
permits, ��ee�e�—l���e �'ea��� ,� . r,r,,,.:�„ �e*�-�
�, *�r ��-, �����;.� ��� � the owner of the sub�ect property shall execute and record a
per�etual access easement over and across the proposed easement area shown on the
+• � ,.�;,,�
��roved site plan, to the ��benefit of the owner of Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1,
so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue e� and'�° °°^^~a°a ���' a copy of the
recorded easement shall be provided to the City. That case was approved by the Community
Development Board (CDB) on March 15, 2011. No other changes were requested or
granted.
➢ On March 13, 2013, a Business Tax Receipt (BTR-0031633) was issued for a 66-slip maxina
to Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC. Note that a site plan was approved by the CDB as part of
application FLD2009-08030 with up to 87 wet slips.
Development Proposal:
The current proposal is to effectively remove one of the conditions of approval of FLD2009-
08030 and construct a 53,725 square foot building with 200 dry berths. This building will be
located near the north property line just south of the existing driveway. This building will be 53
feet in height as measured from BFE to the roof deck with an additional 12 feet for architectural
embellishments. A second, smaller 1,000 square foot building is proposed south of the high and
Community Development Board July 16; 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 3
� r�T pi� � PLANNiIJG & DEVELOPMENT
�� e�i ►1' ��l.l Levei II Flexible Development Appiication Review �EVELOr:.�Nr a�v�w DivisioN
_ �.-�.v._�..�� .,� .t ..
�,_�.....��� ..
dry building. This building will be 14 feet in height as measured from the BFE to the peak of the
highest roof structure. This building will include the marina office as well as a small retail
component and restrooms. This component is similar in size, scope and scale of the small
building included in the original approval (FLD2009-08030).
The existing access points from North Osceola Avenue at the northeast and southeast corners of
the site will be maintained with the pr�;�osal as will the access point from the Seminole Boat
Ramp facility to the south.
Additional parking will be provided on the west and south sides of the high and dry building as
well as to the south and east of the office/retail building. Where 140 spaces are required, (one
space per two slips) 95 parking spaces are provided (0.68 spaces per two slips). The proposed
office/retail building is considered an accessory use and therefore does not require any dedicated
parking.
The proposed building can be characterized as a modern interpretation of the traditional Key
West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof and finish treatments commonly
found in tropical vernacular architecture such as stucco, wood (faux) and horizontal siding and
projecting overhangs. The high and dry building has been designed to incorporate large bay
doors on the west and south side. Five exterior colors are proposed including pale sand, yellow,
blue, white and gray (see color samples included in the submittal packet).
Perimeter landscape buffers are not required within the Downtown district per CDC Section 3-
1202.D. However, landscaping is proposed along the east and north property lines. The existing
six-foot wrought iron-style picket fence with columns along the front (east) side of the property
as well as the six-foot wooden fence along the north property line will remain with the proposal.
A six-foot wrought iron-style picket fence along the south side of the site will also remain. The
proposed landscape plan meets the requirements of the Plan's Design Guidelines and is
discussed in detail further in this document. While perimeter landscape buffers, as mentioned,
are not required within the Downtown district interior landscape requirements per CDC Section
3-1202.E must be rnet. The proposal includes 7,771 square feet of interior landscaped area
which constitutes 13.27 percent of the vehicular use area where 10 percent (5,854 square feet) is
required. This CDC Section also provides that interior islands provide a minimum dimension of
eight feet from back of curb to back of curb. In addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E also limits the
number of consecutive parking spaces which may be in a row to 10 although Staff may increase
that number to 15 spaces in a row. The proposal meets these CDC provisions.
A sidewalk, as required by CDC Section 3-1701, is not provided adjacent to the site along North
Osceola Avenue. The Engineering Department has determined that extenuating circumstances
make the inclusion of a sidewalk adjacent to the site is impracticable and that a payment in-lieu
of providing a sidewalk is acceptable. Such payment would be required prior to the issuance of
any permits and the amount of such will determined by the Engineering Department in the event
of an application for a building permit.
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 4
� p i��T +pr � � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
� C�l.�i 11 �ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVE�op;�rrr a�v�w oivisiov
- ����-�.�v �
G w�,-,_- �� v
Special Area Plan: Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan; Old Bay Character
District
The subject property is l��ated within the Clearwater powntown Red�velopment Plan area the
intent of which is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a
place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The Plan is divided into six character
districts. The subject site is located within the Old Bay character district. The Plan states that
the Old Bay character d:strict is envisioned to be a mixed-use nei;hborhood supporting the
Downtown employment base with residential, [imited neighborhood commercial and office
uses. A variety of densities and housing styles are encouraged throughout the District, as well as
renovations of existing older structures. While the development pattern in most of the District is
expected to remain urban in character reflecting the low-rise scale (two to three stories) of the
existing neighborhood, greater heights in the higher density residential area west of North
Osceola Avenue may be considered. The Plan further states that this District provides an
opportunity for higher-density residential uses along Clearwater Harbor west of North Osceola
Avenue provided such development is sensitive to the established low-rise historic character of
the District.
The proposal, a significant expansion of a commercial marina, is inherently inconsistent with the
Plan and condition 16 of the previous site plan approval granted by the CDB. The CDB
determined that a limited-use marina fit the definition of a"limited neighborhood commercial
use". Hence the inclusion of 23 conditions of approval including the prohibition of live aboard
vessels, fueling facilities, boat launching and the dry storage of boats. Therefore, a marina with a
200-berth dry storage facility and 80-wet slips no longer meets the definition of a neighborhood
commercial use and is therefore, inconsistent with the Vision of the Plan as well as the Vision
and Function of the District.
A thorough review of the Plan was conducted and a myriad of Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies were identified as applicable to the proposal and are discussed and explored in detail
below.
Plan Visions:
The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan have been articulated into a
series of Visions many of which are applicable to the analysis of proposal as follows:
Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and
recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new
residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown.
The development proposal more than doubles the intensity of use of an approved marina (87
slips) with 200 dry berths located within a 53-foot tall (65 feet including rooftop architectural
features) approximately 54,000 square foot building. As stated above, a residential component in
Old Bay is seen as a critical component to the success of Downtown. The proposal is not
considered a retail, residential or office use. The CDB acknowledged, through their approval of
the aforementioned FLD application, that a marina (along with a small office/retail building)
consisting solely of wet slips fit the definition of a limited neighborhood commercial use.
However, the CDB drew a sharp distinction between the approved marina and what constitutes a
full-service marina facility which could include fueling and dry storage capacities by prohibiting
those very activities. A dry storage facility, as proposed does not support this Vision statement.
Community Developme�rt Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 5
� p r {. '. P!.!u'�NING & DEVELOPMENT
> C l.�l ��C�A Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION
-��.``-r:,�'`�,.�.�^%V ... �.
Vision: An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses.
The development proposal requires one parking space per two slips. Assuming a total of 280
slips (per the application) the site will require 140 spacEa (one space per two slips) where 95 are
proposed (0.68 spaces per two slips). A parking demand study is included with the application
which examined the actual parking demand of the subject site and a second marina located in
Tarpon Springs. The marina in Tarpon Springs includes 72 wet slips and 210 dry storage berths.
The overall capacity of this facility is very similar to that as proposed for the subject site. The
demand for the site in Tarpon Springs was 0.21 spaces per slip (0.42 per two slips). Applying
this figure to the subject site 60 spaces will be required for 80 wet slips and 200 dry berths where
95 spaces are proposed. Therefore, the proposal supports this Vision statement.
Plan Goals and Obiectives:
In order to guide the revitalization of Downtown, three overriding goals are established with
supporting Objectives and Policies developed to aid in reaching these goals. The following
Goals and Objectives are applicable to the proposal.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation.
The Ciry shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a
recreation, entertainment and shopping destination.
The proposal is inconsistent with the vision of the district; a mixed-use neighborhood supporting
the Downtown employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office
uses. This project provides no provisions for living or employment which are key elements of
the Old Bay district. In addition, the proposed dry dock component functionally and
aesthetically is a warehouse. The proposal will not further the goal of creating a vibrant
downtown. Therefore, the proposal does not support this Goal.
Obiective lA: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and
policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the Downtown
Design Guidelines and the Downtown zoning district.
This Objective will be found to be unfulfilled as the following Goals, Objectives and Policies
are explored.
Ob�ective 1G: Residential uses in Downtown are encouraged with a variety of densities,
housing types and affordability consistent with the character districts.
The proposal includes an expansion of an existing marina with 200 dry slips housed with a
53-foot tall 54,000 square foot building. The key component of the Old Bay District is the
provision of residential uses. This proposal does not provide any residential component.
Therefore, the proposal does not further this Objective.
Plan Policies:
Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinfo�ced through the site plan and design
�evietiv process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the
character district in which it is located.
As stated above, a residential component in Old Bay is critical to the success of Downtown.
While the existing marina was considered consistent with the concept of limited neighborhood
commercial uses the proposed expansion with a 54,000 square foot building 65 feet in height
(including rooftop features) crosses the threshold of intensity that is outside the scope of a
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 6
r C�l-�� YT' �ll.l level II Flexible Devel ment A IICdYIOfI ReVIE?W PLA.*INING & DEVELOPMENT
OP PP DEVELOPM1�NTREVIEWDIVISIOti
o �i�i�i . . . .. . .. .
limited neighborhood commercial use. In fact, the CDB specifically placed certain conditions of
approval to ensure that the character of the site remains consistent with a limited neighborhood
commercial use through the implementaticn of the condition (among others) that specifically
prohibits the dry storage of boats on site. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with the
approved Level II Flexible Development application, inconsistent with the Vision and Intent of
the Old Bay character district and inconsistent with a number of the overall Visions of the Plan.
Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with �.his Policy.
Policv 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the
pedestrian environment through site and building design.
The proposed high and dry building, as inherent to its purpose, will have no meaningful
relationship with the pedestrian environment. The fa�ade includes no active commercial or
residential space along North Osceola Avenue. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this
Policy.
Policy 9: Projects located at or near the border of the Downtown Plan area shall use effective
site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the
different areas.
To mitigate possible negative impacts on properties adjacent to certain character districts of the
Plan but not within the Plan area, the Design Guidelines establish a set of requirements which
provide a reasonable relationship between building height and setback. With regard to the
subject site, the Design Guidelines provide that buildings or portions of buildings exceeding 15
feet in height that provide a minimum setback (from the northern Plan Area Boundary) of 75 feet
plus one additional foot of horizontal distance as measured from that boundary for each 2.25 feet
of height above 15 feet. The proposed building is 53 feet in height which results in a required
setback from the northern boundary of the Plan area (which is also the north property of the site)
of 91.E9 feet ��he;e a setback of 30 feet is provideu�. Therefcre, the p:opcsal is incons�stent ���ith
this Policy. -
Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be inconsistent with the Vision,
Goals, Objectives and Policies governing development within the Old Bay character district and
the Plan axea as a whole. In addition, the proposed 54,000 square foot dry berth building 53 feet
in height is contrary to the spirit and intent by which the current site plan was approved. That
approval specifically prohibited the dry storage of boats the inclusion of which is the heart of this
application.
Development Parameters
Intensity of Use:
Pursuant to the Old Bay character district of the Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
properties within the Old Bay character district is 0.5. The proposed FAR is 0.35. The proposal
is consistent with this parameter of the Plan.
Maximum Building- Hei�ht:
Pursuant to the Old Bay character district of the Plan the maximum height for properties west of
North Osceola Avenue between Eldridge Street and the Old Bay northern boundary is 100 feet.
The proposed high and dry building will be 53 feet as measured from BFE to the roof deck with
an additional 12 feet to the peak of architectural roof embellishments for a total effective height
Community Development Board July 16; 2013
FLD2013-05019 -- Pa;e 7
' l��Lal 1'��ll,l Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review r�,vvm�c�DEVELOrti�vT
- .�,\��-��� _ DEVELOPIvtENTREVIEWDIVIS[ON
' �_�.ti�.�-�_��. . . . . .., . . . , .
of 60 feet. The proposal is consistent with the overall permitted height however; the location of
the building given the proposed height is inconsistent with the Transitional requirements of the
Plan's Design Guidelines. This aspect of the proposal is discussed in de*.ail elsewhere in this
document.
Minimum O,fff-StreetParkin�
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-9C�3, there is no minimum off-street parkin;; requirement for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Parking standards for Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects may be determined by the community development coordinator based
on the specific use andlor ITE Manual standards. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant
to CDC Table 2- 903, the minimum required parking for Marinas is one space per two slips is
based on the specific use requirements. In this case, the proposal includes 280 slips requiring
140 parking spaces where 95 spaces (0.68 spaces per two slips) are provided.
A parking demand study is included with the application that examined the actual parking
demand of the subject site and a second marina located in Tarpon Springs. The marina in Tarpon
Springs includes 72 wet slips and 210 dry storage berths. The overall capacity of this facility is
similar to that as proposed for the subject site. The study compared occupied slips against the
number of utilized parking spaces to determine actual parking demand at both sites. The actual
parking demand for the subject site is 0.51 spaces per slip and the actual demand for the marina
in Tarpon Springs is 0.21 spaces per slip. This suggests that dry berths require fewer parking
spaces per berth than wet slips. While the parking demand study did not explore the minutia of
parking demand at the Tarpon Springs facility vis-a-vis spaces occupied for wet slips versus dry
berths the fact that the overall number of wet slips and dry berths is close enough to the proposal
to suggest that 0.42 spaces per two slips (wet and dry combined) should be adequate to serve the
site, In short, 60 spaces (0.42 spaces per two slips) would be adequate to serve the site as
proposed where 95 spaces are proposed. Therefore, the proposal meets this CDC section.
Mechanical Equi ment:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as
not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The mechanical equipment for
the building will be located within the building. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this
CDC section.
Sight Visibili Triangles:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on North
Osceola Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a
level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and
been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to
be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this
CDC section.
Utilities:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities
including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 8
>��et41 1"1' �ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review pL^xr�R�c & Da��LOr��vT
DEVELOPMENT REVSEW DIVISION
u ��i�r� � . - . � . . �
is not practicable. Most utilities which serve the site are currently underground. There is some
limited overhead wiring along the north and a portion of the west sides of the site which will be
placed underground with this proposal. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this CDC
section.
Landscapin� •
Perimeter lands:ape buffers are not required within the Downtown district per CDC Section 3-
1202.D however, landscaping is proposed along the east and north property lines. The existing
six-foot wrought iron-style picket fence with columns along the front (east) side of the property
as well as the six-foot wooden fence along the north property line will remain with the proposal.
A six-foot wrought iron-style picket fence along the south side of the site will also remain. The
proposed landscape plan meets the requirements of the Plan's Design Guidelines and is
discussed in detail further in this document. While perimeter landscape buffers, as mentioned,
are not required within the Downtown district interior landscape requirements per CDC Section
3-1202.E must be met. The proposal includes 7,771 square feet of interior landscaped area
which constitutes 13.27 percent of the vehicular use area where 10 percent (5,854 square feet) is
required. This CDC Section also provides that interior islands provide a minimum dimension of
eight feet from back of curb to back of curb. In addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E also limits the
number of consecutive parking spaces which may be in a row to 10 although Staff may increase
that number to 15 spaces in a row. The proposal meets these CDC provisions.
Solid Waste:
An existing dumpster is located near the southeast corner of the site and this facility will remain
in place. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire
Departments.
Si na e:
The proposal does not include signage. The applicant is aware that any proposed signage must
be permitted through the Planning and Development Department and will need to meet the
requirements of CDC Section 3-1807 and the Plan's Design Guidelines.
Comprehensive Plan:
The proposal is contrary to the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Element
Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial oY collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into
residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip
commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths aYe maintained and by zoning for
commercial development at major intersections.
The proposal includes a commercial use that is not located at the intersection of arterial or
collector streets. In addition, the proposal does not meet the required transitional requirements of
the Old Bay character district which were specifically designed to minimize negative impacts on
adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this Policy.
Community Development Board July 16; 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 9
� C�l.�l fl�11,1 level II Flexible Develo ment A IlCdil0fl ReVIeW PLANNING&DEVELOPb1ENT
- P PP DEVELOPM1�NTREVIEWDIVIS70N
.�^��`�i-�.� .
",J�_�.-��,-�i . , . .. . . .
Objective A.5.5 - Prornote high qualiry design standards that support Clearwater's image and
contribute to its identiry. •
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
As discussed, the proposal provides for the significant expansion of a marina within the Old Bay
character district. The Old Bay district is envisioned to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting
the Downtown employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office
uses. Specifically, higher-density residential development along Clearwater Harbor along the
west side of North Osceola Avenue is the desired use. The proposal is contrary to the envisioned
character of the neighborhood and contrary to the intensity of use as approved by the CDB in
2009. In addition, the placement of the proposed 53-foot tall building 30 feet from the northern
property line (which is also the north edge of the Plan area) is approximately one-third as
otherwise required by the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. In short, the site design
is inconsistent with the intent of the development parameters set by the Clearwater powntown
Redevelopment, the Old Bay character district and the Design Guidelines. Therefore, the
proposal is not in support of this Objective and Policy.
Goal A.6 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering
practices, and urban design standards in Order ta protect historic resources, ensure
neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development;
Objective A.6.2 — The Ciry of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development
that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
As mentioned previously the site was approved as part of a recent Level II Flexible Development
application with 23 conditions including the prohibition of any dry storage component. The
current request essentially seeks to nullify that condition by revising the site plan to more than
double the intensity of use and locate a 54,000 square foot building 65 feet in height (including
architectural rooftop features) 30 feet from the northern boundary of the Plan area. The proposal
is contrary to the Vision and Intent of the Plan and Old Bay district, the approval for the marina
use in the first place and the transitional regulations of the Design Guidelines. The area is
characterized by low- to mid-rise residential uses with the notable exception of the City-owned
and -operated boat launch facility on the south side of the site. The proposal is therefore
inconsistent with the sort of project envisioned as an appropriate recipient of flexibility from the
minimum development parameters as provided by the above Goal, and Objective. Therefore, the
proposal is not in support of this Goal and Objective.
Community Development Code:
The proposal does not support most of the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives
of this Code as follows:
Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through
innovative and creative redevelopment.
The proposed expansion of an existing marina with a 54,000 square foot building up to 65 feet in
height located 30 feet from the northern boundary of the Plan area is inconsistent with the
character of the area along North Osceola Avenue, with the intent and Vision of the Plan and the
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 -- Page 10
� C��L�I ��61.1 Level II Flexible Develo ment A IICdtlOfl R2V12W PLANNiNG Rc DEVELOPMENT
_\��`^�� P PP DEVELOPMENT REViE\�/ DIViSION
o �.�/��w fi���:�: .. . . . � . . . . .
Old Bay character district with regard to use and location of the proposed building. In addition,
the proposal is neither innovative or creative. The proposal is also inconsistent with various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposal null�:ies the condition
prohibiting the dry storage of boats on the site and will broaden the use of the site beyond that of
a limited neighborhood commercial use. Therefore, the proposal does not support this Code
section.
Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative
impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development
and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties.
Surrounding properties include a variety of residential and non-residential uses include detached
dwellings to the north and the Seminole Boat Ramp facility to the south. The proposed
development includes an expansion of a commercial use in an area where the preferred uses
include higher density residential uses. Limited neighborhood commercial uses are also
permitted within the District. The CDB determined, through their 2009 approval of the existing
marina, that a limited-use marina iit the definition of a limited neighborhood commercial use.
This is evidenced through the inclusion of 23 conditions including the prohibition of live aboard
vessels, fueling facilities, boat launching and the dry storage of boats. The proposal includes a
54,000 square foot building 65 feet in height (including architectural embellishments) 30 feet
from the northern boundary of the Plan area where the transitional requirements provide for a 90-
foot setback. The transitional requirements were specifically created, with significant input from
representatives from the neighborhood, to ensure that adjacent and surrounding properties would
not have their values negatively impacted. The intensity of use will more than double from the
approved 87 boat slips to 280 wet and dry slips. As such, the characteristics of the proposed
development do not meet the definition of a limited neighborhood commercial use. It is
anticipated that surrounding properties will have their values negatively affected by the proposal.
Therefore, the proposal does not support this Code section.
Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
The proposal includes the increase in intensity of an existing marina which will likely result in an
increase in its value thereby positively affecting the City's tax base. However, the use is not a
desired use as provided by the Plan and the Old Bay district and does not meet the transitional
requirement of the Plan's Design Guidelines. The purpose of this special area plan is to
recognize the existence of a unique area of the City and provide additional design and
development guidance in order to realize a net improvement within the plan area vis-a-vis
aesthetics and property value. Special area plans, such as this one, while resulting in additional
scrutiny and design considerations, do provide a defined set of expectations with regard to the
ultimate provided product whether that product be a marina, restaurant or mixed use
development. They also provide assurances to neighboring property owners, whether in the Plan
area or adjacent to it, with regard to what sorts of uses can be expected to be developed and the
physical form those development may take and how they will fit into the fabric of the
neighborhood.
The marina, as currently approved, was considered consistent with the desire to redevelop and
improve the Old Bay district with, among other uses, limited neighborhood commercial
development. The application was approved with the understanding that its impact on adjacent
properties would the same as or less than the boat ramp to the south, which is to say minimal.
Coirununity Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-OSOl9 — Page 1 1
� p 1+�cI� }pr � �� PLAl`NiNG & DEV'ELOPbfENT
� C�I.�A ?T�lt,l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DsvE�or�rrraEV�wn�visiov
� ����v� �
The condition that, among others, the dry storage of boats would not and could not be a
component of the marina provided that vital assurance to adjacent property owners that the
marina would never. �xceed a certain level of impact on their property(ies). Approval of the
current proposal would essentially negate any assurance that the approved special area plan can
and will effectively and appropriately guide development andlor redevelopment as desired by the
City and its shareholders (i.e. citizens) in this or any other area of the Plan. In a broader, more
holistic view, an abr�pt reversal or significant change of any prcvided condition of approval to
specifically negate or prevent negative impacts of any development on adjacent properties and its
surrounding neighborhood without any discernable cause calls into question the dedication of the
City to effectively guide and foster development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan,
CDC and applicable special area plans. A lack of such assurances will likely lead to uncertainty
which in turn can ultimately negatively affect the City's economy and its tax base as a whole.
Therefore, the proposal does not support this Code section.
Section 1-103.D_ It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of
the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures
in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law.
The proposal includes a new 54,000 square foot building incorporating a Key West-style of
architecture. The building, when taken in isolation of the appropriateness of its use, is
reasonably attractive. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
The proposal does not support most of the General Applicability requirements of this Code as
follows:
Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
As �reviousl;� discussed ir. detail, ±he desired uses in this area of the Old 3ay character district of
the Plan include primarily higher-density residential development. The proposal, a significant
expansion of a commercial marina, is inherently inconsistent with the Plan and the previous
approval granted by the CDB. The CDB determined that a limited-use marina fit the definition
of a limited neighborhood commercial use. Hence, the inclusion of 23 conditions of approval
including the prohibition of live-aboard vessels, fueling facilities, boat launching and,
importantly, the dry storage of boats. Therefore, a marina with a 200-berth dry storage facility
and 80-wet slips no longer meets the definition of a limited neighborhood commercial use and is
therefore, inconsistent with the Vision of the Plan as well as the Vision and Function of the
District.
The proposed building is also contrary to the required locational provisions of the transitional
regulations for the Old Bay district. The result will be the more than doubling of the intensity of
the existing marina and a building out of scale with adjacent properties to the north. Therefore,
the proposal does not support this Code section.
Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed develop�nent will not hinder or discourage development and
use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereo.f.'
The proposal is inconsistent with the character of adjacent properties and inconsistent with the
Plan and Design Guidelines. As mentioned, the Plan provides certain assurances and
predictability with regard to potential development and redevelopment. Eliminating those
Communiry Development Board July 16, 2013
FLll2013-05019 — Page 12
��ll,�l ltttlt,l Level II Flexible Develo mentA GC8t1011 ReV�eW PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
p PP DEVELOPMENTREViEWDIVISION
° �.-..v.M. '
assurances and predictability will likely discourage the appropriate development and use of
adjacent lands and buildings. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of '
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
The proposal will result in the expansion of an existing marina. The proposal will likely have no
effect on the health and/or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, ,
the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The proposal will likely have minimal effect, negative or otherwise, on traffic congestion.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
As discussed in detail, the desired uses in this area of the Old Bay character district of the Plan
include primarily higher-density residential development. The proposal includes an extensive
expansion of an existing marina to include 200 dry berth slips within an approximately 54,000
square foot building 65 feet in height (including rooftop architectural embellishments}. The
proposed building is contrary to the required locational provisions of the transitional regulations
for the Old Bay district. The result more than doubles the intensity of the existing marina and
provides for a building out of scale with adjacent properties to the north. Therefore, the proposal
does not support this Code section.
Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and
acoustic impacts on acijacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
The proposal does not support most of the specific Comprehensive Iniill Redevelopment Project
criteria of this Code as follows:
Section 2-903.D. Comprehensive infill redevelopment projects.
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use
and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
The site has been effectively developed with a 66-slip marina. The primary deviations are to
provide less than half the required parking, effectively establish a use not supported by the
intent of the Old Bay district, eliminate a condition of approval (prohibition of dry storage of
boats) which permitted the construction of the current marina and violate the transitional
requirements of the Plan's Design Guidelines. It has not been effectively shown how
development of the site is impractical without deviations from the development standards set
forth in the zoning district. Furthermore, deviating from the Plan with regard to the
transitional requirements is simply not an option. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that
the redevelopment of the site is and was practical without any additional deviations from the
development standards as otherwise provided in the D district. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FI_D2013-05019 — Page 13
� 1p�1 r�il} r ��' � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
� Cll.til r1' �t��l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVE�op;���r x�v�w Div�siorv
- �����
-._�_r.�.� r-_�
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning
objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district.
The redevelopment of the site, as shown in detail in this document, is inconsistent with a
variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the
general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding properties.
While the marina is not a desired use as discussed in great detail earlier in this document it
was approved with the understanding that its impact on adjacent properties, as approved,
would the same as or less than the boat ramp to the south, which is to say minimal. The
condition that, among others, the dry storage of boats would not and could not be a
component of the marina provided the assurance to adjacent property owners that the marina
would never exceed a certain level of impact on their property(ies). Approval of the proposal
would essentially negate any assurance that the approved special area plan can and will
effectively and appropriately guide development andlor redevelopment as desired by the City
and its shareholders (i.e. citizens) in this or any other area of the Plan. Eliminating those
assurances and predictability will likely discourage the appropriate development and use of
adjacent lands and buildings. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
As discussed in detail, the proposal will be inconsistent with the pattern of development in
area, is inconsistent with the Plan, Design Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan and the intent of
tre CDC. The proposal in also inconsistent with at 1_east one of the conditions of approval
associated with the development of the site as a marina (prohibition of dry storage of boats)
and violates the required transitional area setback requirements as provided for by the Design
Guidelines of the Plan. Adjoining properties will likely not beneiit from the proposal.
Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be
compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use
characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of
six objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible
standard or flexible development use;
The proposed use is permitted as a Flexible Development use in the D District.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
6. Flexibiliry with regaYd to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are
justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district.
The proposal is inconsistent with the character of adjacent properties and inconsistent
with the Plan, Old Bay character district and Design Guidelines. As mentioned, the
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FL,D2013-05019 — Pa�e 1�1
o p i��Tr� } f� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
: C l.�l 11' Ll6�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP;vIENT REVIEW DIVISION
� �r�^���� :• _
Plan provides certain assurances and predictability with regard to potential
development and redevelopment. Eliminating those assurances and predictability will
likely discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent lands and
buildings. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the
city.
As examined in detail previously in this report, the proposal does not comply with the
Plan's Design Guidelines vis-a-vis transitional area regulations pertaining to setbacks
from the northern boundary of the Plan area. The proposed 53-foot tall building (not
including rooftop architectural embellishments) requires an 89.66-foot setback from
the north property line where 30 feet is provided. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established
or emerging character of an area.
As discussed, the proposal provides for the signiiicant expansion of a marina within
the Old Bay character district. The Old Bay district is envisioned to be a mixed-use
neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited
neighborhood commercial and office uses. Specifically, higher-density residential
development along Clearwater Harbor along the west side of North Osceola Avenue
is the desired use. The proposal is contrary to the envisioned character of the
neighborhood. In addition, the placement of the proposed 60-foot tall building 30
feet from the northern property line (which is also the north edge of the Plan area) is
approximately one-third as otherwise required by the Clearwater powntown
Redevelopment Plan. In short, the site design is inconsistent with the intent of the
dev�lcpmen± parameters set by the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment, the Ql�
Bay character district and the Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attf-active appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
• Changes in horizontal building planes;
• Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.,-
• Variety in materials, colors and textures;
• Distinctive fenestration patterns;
• Building stepbacks; and
• Distinctive roofs forms.
While, the development proposal incorporates a contemporary take on the Key West-
style of architecture the building is still, in essence, a large monolithic structure
devoid of horizontal building plane changes, distinctive fenestration patterns or
building stepbacks. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
e. The proposed development provides for appYOpriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropYiate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Pa�e I S
� p�1 rt�T�1 +pt� � � PLAIQNR�IG & DEVELOPMENT
� C l.Gtl 1YLill,l Level II Flexibie DevelopmentApplication Review DEVELOP�iENTREVIEWDIVISION
_ `�^^�i`�i �� �
., .,✓�__� �, . rr_
While perimeter landscape buffers are not required within the Downtown district per
CDC Section 3-1202.D however, minimal landscaping is proposed along the east and
nortr: property lines. The placement of the building, as discussed in detail elsewhere
in this document, violates the required setback from the north property line as
provided by the Design Guidelines of the Plan. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by
substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested.
The applicant has not adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent
evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4-
206.D.4.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES: The following table depicts
the development proposals level of inconsistency with the applicable Downtown Design
Guidelines as per the Plan:
1. Building Placement
� See analysis in Staff Report
Consistent Inconsistent
X'
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for
Marinas per CDC Table 2-903, the Old Bay character district and the Design Guidelines:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Fioor Area Ratio 0.5 0.35 X
Minimum Setbacks Buildings or portions of 30 feet X`
buildings exceeding 15 feet
in height that provide a
minimum setback (from the
northern Plan Area
Boundary) of 75 feet plus one
additional foot of horizontal
distance as measured from
that boundary for each 2.25
feet of height above I S feet
(75 feet plus 14.66 = 89.66
feet).
Maximum Height 100 feet 65 feet (53 feet to roof X�
structure with an additional
12 feet to the top of rooftop
architectural features)
Minimum One space per two slips (140 0.68 spaces per two slips (95 X'
Off-Street Parking spaces) spaces)
� See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 16
� C�qr�) }p1+ � � PLAMQING & DEVELOPMENT
til tl �Ll+l Level II Fiexibie Development Application Review DEVELOPIviF_.NT REV�W DIVISION
- ./�/�/�,/\/�J , .
.r \ ^ ;,.�� , . . . . .
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
critPria as per CDC Section 2-903.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
l. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from
X�
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goais and policies of X�
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X�
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of
an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevetopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;
X�
�
or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of
a working waterfront use.
� 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X�
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normat and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted
in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development suppores the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following
design elements:
❑ Changes in horizontal building planes;
❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures;
❑ Distinctive fenestration pattems;
❑ Building stepbacks; and
❑ Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. __
� See analysis in Staff Report
Convnunity Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — Page 17
>�1pr} r PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
j1.�1. ��l�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOrr�rrr aEV�w Div�sioN
= w'.^�.�:��-��-
� ��_�.-._. -.r_.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
Consistent Inconsistent
X'
X�
X'
X'
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X�
visual. acoustic and olfactory and hours of o eration im acts on ad'acent ro erties.
� See analysis in Staj/ Report
X'
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of June 6, 2013 and deemed the development proposal to be legally insufficient,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the
applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial
competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1. That the 5.10 acre site (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged) is located on the west
side of North Osceola Avenue at the terminus of Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet
north of Seminole Street;
2. That the subject site is located within the D district;
3. That the subject property is located within the CBD FLUP category;
4. The subject site consists of one parcel with approximately 415 feet of frontage along North
Osceola Avenue;
5. That the subject property is located in the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan special plan area;
6. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay character
district;
7. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the transitional area requirements of the
Downtown Design Guidelines;
8. That on November 17, 2009, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application
(FLD2009-08030) which requested approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the Downtown
(D) District with a dock master building height of 17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the
provisions of Community Development Code (then) Section 2-903.H;
9. That the approved FLD application included 23 conditions including (15) That live aboard
vessels be prohibited, (16) That there be no fizeling facilities, boat launching or dry storage of
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLll2013-05019 -- PaQe I 8
° Clearwater P PP ' PLe4'�`NING & DEVELOP:v1ENT
Level II Flexibie Develo ment A lication Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
; ���-,_�J
boats, (17) That the slips be limited for private recreational boats, that there are no boat
rentals, no jet ski rentals and that no commercial boats conduct any business at the marina
and (19) That no serv��ing of boats or motors is permitted other than necessary minor repairs
and maintenance;
10. That a BTR (BTR-0031633) was issued for a 66-slip marina to Clearwater Basin Marina,
LLC on March 13, 2013;
11. That the surroundin� area is dominated by a variety of residential and non-residential
development;
12. That the proposal is to expand the existing marina use with 200 dry berths within a 53,725
square foot building 53 feet in height with an additional 12 feet to rooftop architectural
features contrary to condition 16 of the approved application associated with FLD2009-
08030;
13. That the application also includes a 1,000 square foot marina ofiice/retail use in a separate
building; and
14. That there are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law
The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the
following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of development of the
surrounding neighborhood;
2. That the proposal is inconsistent with two visions of the Clearwater powntown
Redevelopment Plan;
3. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan including Goal 1 and Objectives 1 A, and 1 G and
Policies 2, 3 and 9;
4. That the proposal is inconsistent with the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan Design
Guidelines specifically with regard to the transitional rules associated with the Old Bay
character district;
5. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan
including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.5.5, and A.6.2 and Policies
A.2.2.3 and A.5.5.1;
6. That the proposal inconsistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives
of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 — 3;
7. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-902 of the
Community Development Code with regard to parking;
8. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One and
Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A.1, 2 and 5 of the Community Development Code;
9. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
903.D.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Community Development Code; and
10. That the application is inconsistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the
Flexible Development application to amend a previously approved Flexible Development
application to permit the addition of 200 dry slips and 14 new wet slips to an existing 66 wet-slip
Communit�� Development Board July 16, 201 �
FLD2013-05019 — Page 19
>����1 1►�6�1 Level II Flexible Dt.�lopment Application Review
��✓�v�� ..'. ��..-. . . . . . . . .
- �`iw.� � � .
pL.AIv'NING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
marina (87-wet slips originally approved) including a 53,727 square foot high and dry storage
building with a height of 53 feet as measured from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to roof deck with
an additional 12 feet to rooftop architectural embellishments; 95 parking spaces (including two
handicap spaces) (0.68 spaces per two slips); and a 1,G00 square foot retail/office building as
accessory to the marina with a height of 14 feet (as measured from BFE) in the Downtown (D)
District and the Old Bay Character District of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-903.D.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs
�
,,
��'�---�__---�----_ �--?
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
Community Development Board July 16, 2013
FLD2013-05019 — PaQe 20
� � MARK T. PARRY �
16�5 Linwood Drive Tel: (7?7) 742.2461
Clearwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry@tampabay.rr.com
SUIVIMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning
experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact
with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various
aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting.
OBJECTIVE
To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my
community through sound and innovative planning and design principals.
EDUCATION
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ
B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification
B.S. Environmental Planning and Design
Certificate Urban Planning
Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha
American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member
AICP #020597
40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training
PLANNER III PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER
04112 - Present
08/98 — 04/05
• Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting.
• Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code.
• Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments.
• Land Development Code development, interpretation and application.
• Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design.
• Acting Development Review Manager 9/99 —11/99 and 01/05 — 03/05.
• Manage and direct Associate Planners.
• Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation
applications at in-house and public review meetings.
• Principle Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines.
Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan.
SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12
. Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair.
. Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-fami�y site plan review and permitting.
. Perform site design and inspections.
. Provide technical planning support for engineering department.
. Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments.
• Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports.
• Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes.
. Provide CADD support.
. Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material.
. Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling.
DesignerlOwner GREEN� PES-GLD, M.4RLBOR�, NJ 9/92 - 6/98
• Founded and established a i...,dl garden and landscape business.
• Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residentiai landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD
and photo-manipulation programs.
• Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics.
• Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs.
• Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment.
• Manage, train and schedule installation crews.
Program Supervisor LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM,
HOLMDEL, NJ
• Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed").
• Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups.
• Supervised several other programs throughout the year.
• Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year.
COMPUTER SK/LLS
6/87 - 8/93
Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan,
Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher