The URL can be used to link to this page

05/16/2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER May 16, 2006 Present: David Gildersleeve Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch Board Member Kathy Milam Board Member J. B. Johnson Board Member Thomas Coates Board Member Dana K. Tallman Board Member Jordan Behar Board Member Absent: Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: April 18, 2006 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 2006, motion as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. D. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1 – 2): 1. Case: FLD2005-09093 – 279 Windward Passage Level Two Application (Request for Continuance to June 20, 2006) Owner/Applicant: Harbour Estates, LLC. Representative: Bill Woods/Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting, Inc. (1714 County Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail: billwoods@woodsconsulting.org). Location: 1.45 acres located on the south side of Windward Passage, approximately 300 feet west of Island Way. Atlas Page: 267B. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 1,818 square-foot multi-use dock for eight boat slips in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east) setback from 22.4 feet to 1.5 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Multi-use dock for eight boat slips. Neighborhood Associations: Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #239, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237); Islander Condo Inc. (Rex Clark, President, 113 Island Way, Apt. 245, Clearwater, FL 33767); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Community Development 2006-05-16 1 Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Senior Planner Wayne Wells requested the item be continued to June 20, 2006. The issue of concern involves submerged lands. Member Johnson moved to continue Item D1, Case FLD2005-09031 for 279 Windward motioncarried Passage to June 20, 2006. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2. Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-09103 - 121 N. Osceola Ave. and 118 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. (Request for Continuance to a Date Uncertain) Owners: Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. and Arnold Brown Properties. Applicant: Arnold Brown Properties. Representative: Timothy A. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, & Burns, LLP. (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; e- mail: timj@jpfirm.com). Location: 1.56 acres located on the south side of Drew Street between North Osceola and North Fort Harrison Avenues. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning District: Downtown (D) District. Request: Flexible Development request for a mixed-use development consisting of 161 attached dwelling units, 60 overnight accommodation (hotel) units with ancillary facilities, 3,600 square-feet of retail floor area, and 13,700 square-feet of indoor recreation/entertainment facility (museum) floor area within the Downtown (D) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (Attached Dwellings, Overnight Accommodations, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment Facility, and Retail Sales and Services). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Pierce 100 Condo Association (Terry Sue, 100 Pierce Street, Clearwater, FL 33756). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton requested a continuance to a date uncertain to allow staff time to work with the applicant. Member Coates moved to continue Item D2, Case FLD2005-09103 for 121 N. Osceola motion Avenue and 118 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue to a date uncertain. The was duly seconded carried and unanimously. E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1 – 6) Community Development 2006-05-16 2 1. Case: FLD2006-03012 – 202 Windward Passage Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Windward Passage Condominiums LLC. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-mail: nestech@mindspring.com). Location: 1.83 acres located on the north side of the western terminus of Windward Passage. Atlas Page: 267A. Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District. Request : Flexible Development approval in the High Density Residential District to reduce the rear (north) setback from 15 feet to three feet (to pool deck - where a 13-foot rear pool deck setback was previously approved) for a previously approved attached dwelling project (FLD2003-11059, approved by the CDB (Community Development Board) on May 18, 2004), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-504.F. Proposed Use: Revised pool deck location for a 55-unit attached dwelling project. Neighborhood Associations: Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237); and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. The 1.83-acre site is located on the north side of the western terminus of Windward Passage. The site previously was developed with a high and dry marina, with the building approximately 40 feet in height. On May 18, 2004, the CDB approved, with six conditions, the redevelopment of the site for 55 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building 60 feet high with five living floors over ground level parking (Case FLD2003-11059). On October 19, 2004, the CDB approved, with four conditions, a proposal to permit a multi-use dock for 20 slips for use by the residents and guests of the condominiums (Case FLD2004-05035). The residential building currently is under construction, with the roof deck already completed. Offices, the Clearwater Marine Institute, and boat repair businesses are to the southeast. Townhomes of two stories above ground level with individual garages are directly to the south. The Sunset Sam Park also is to the south, west of the townhomes. A wet marina exists to the west, at the western terminus of Windward Passage (Island Yacht Club). The Village on Island Estates condominiums is to the east and the north, which are two stories above ground level, individual garages. The attached dwelling proposal approved in 2004 included a reduction to the rear setback from 15 feet to 13 feet to the pool deck. The applicant has reviewed the prior approved pool and deck area and determined it to be inadequate for the number of residents who would be living in these condominiums. This redesign of the pool and pool deck area places the pool deck closer to the rear property line/seawall, requiring this request to further reduce the rear setback from the required 15 feet to three feet for the pool deck only. Section 4-406 of the Code does not allow staff the ability to determine the reduction to setbacks to be a Minor Revision to that originally approved, thereby requiring the filing of this application. All other improvements as approved in 2004 remain the same. Current development practices generally place the pool area at the rear of the property, which is usually the most private area of the property, with a pool deck at a zero setback. This project includes a community room and deck for the residents located in the middle of the first living floor on the west end of the building. In this case, the pool area is on the west end of the residential building, operating as an extension of the building and community room/deck. The Community Development 2006-05-16 3 redesigned pool deck still exceeds the required setback to the side property line adjacent to the marina to the southwest. The upland portion of the marina, which is primarily a parking lot, has pavement at the common property line. The applicant is constructing a wall along this common property line along the southwest for privacy and buffering purposes. Many, if not all, of the newer developments along the water in the City have been approved with the pool deck at a similar or zero rear setback. Had this redesigned pool and pool deck area (non-building structure) been included in the original proposal, it most likely would have been approved at that time (FLD2003- 11059). As originally approved, the applicant will be fencing the pool along the edge of the pool deck adjacent to the seawall, respecting the waterfront sight visibility triangle. There is no landscaping, other than sod, proposed within the waterfront sight visibility triangle, in accordance with Section 3-904.B of the Code. Landscaping is planned between the pool deck and the seawall. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks is still justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding development. The redesign of this pool area will still improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential Infill Project criteria (Section 2- 504.F) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 1.83 acres is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) District and has 495 feet of lot width along Windward Passage; 2) The site currently is being developed with 55 attached dwellings (condominiums), approved by the CDB on May 18, 2004 (Case FLD2003-11059), in a five-story over ground-level parking residential building; 3) Under FLD2003-11059 the pool and deck area was approved at a reduced rear setback of 13 feet to the seawall; 4) The applicant redesigned the pool and deck area to be adequate in size for the number of residents who would be living in these condominiums and has modified the rear setback to the seawall for the pool deck to three feet; 5) The proposed pool deck still meets the required side (west) setback of 10 feet (approximately 11.5 feet); 6) Current development practices generally place the pool area at the rear of the property, which is usually the most private area of the property, with a pool deck at a zero setback. In this case the pool area is on the west end of the residential building, operating as an extension of the building and community room/deck; 7) This redesigned pool and pool deck area (non-building structure) at a three-foot rear setback would have been approved had been included in the original proposal; 8) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 9) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill Project per Section 2-504.F; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, staff recommends approval of this application. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application in the High Density Residential District to reduce the rear (north) setback from 15 feet to three feet (to pool deck - where a 13-foot rear pool deck setback was previously approved) for a previously approved attached dwelling project (FLD2003-11059, approved by the CDB on May 18, 2004), as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2- 504.F for the site at 202 Windward Passage, with the following bases and conditions: Community Development 2006-05-16 4 Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill Project per Section 2-504.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That all conditions of approval adopted by the CDB for Case FLD2003-11059 are still in effect, and 2) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks. See motion of approval on page 22. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2006-02010 – 940 Court Street Level Two Application Owner: Senior Citizens Services. Applicant: The Clarkson Group. Representative: Michael M. English, WilsonMiller, Inc. (1101 Channelside Drive, Suite 400 N, Tampa, FL 33602; phone: 813-223-9500; fax: 813-223-0009; e-mail: michaelenglish@wilsonmiller.com). Location: 2.22 acres located on the north side of Court Street between South Prospect and Ewing Avenues. Atlas Page: 287A. Zoning District: Downtown (D) District. Request: Flexible Development request to construct 115 overnight accommodation units within the Downtown (D) District pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, and to allow four parking spaces to encroach within the required sight visibility triangles along South Prospect and Ewing Avenues. Proposed Use: Overnight Accommodations. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Member Johnson declared a conflict of interest. Member Tallman moved to accept Neil Thompson as an expert witness in the fields of development code, transportation system planning, system development changes, and motion carried comprehensive plans. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Planning Manager Neil Thompson reviewed the request. The subject property (approximately 2.22 acres) is on the north side of Court Street, between South Prospect and Ewing avenues. The property is within the Downtown (D) District and is more specifically situated within the Town Lake Residential character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The subject property presently consists of three single-story masonry buildings and accessory surface parking lots. The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including offices, retail sales and services, attached dwellings, an assisted living facility, and Prospect Lake Park. The development proposal consists of the demolition of the existing on-site improvements and the construction of a 115-unit hotel with accessory swimming pool and surface parking. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable density for overnight accommodations within the Town Lake Residential character Community Development 2006-05-16 5 district is 40 units per acre. Therefore, the 2.22-acre subject property can accommodate 88 overnight accommodation units. However, the development proposal consists of 115 overnight accommodation units. Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the use of 20 dwelling units (in the form of 27 overnight accommodation units) from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan. The development proposal’s compliance with the requirements for this additional density from the Pool is discussed later in the staff report. Pursuant to Section 2-903, the maximum allowable height within the Downtown (D) District is 100 feet. However, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan permits those properties within the Town Lake Residential character district a maximum height of only 75 feet. The proposed hotel development will have a building height of 67 feet to roof deck and approximately 74 feet to top of parapet. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan with regard to height. Pursuant to Section 2-903, parking is required to be provided at a rate of one space per unit for overnight accommodations. Based upon the above, the 115-unit hotel requires 115 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 119 parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, 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. The plans submitted incorrectly depict the required sight visibility triangles where the driveways intersect South Prospect and Ewing avenues as well as where the various rights-of-way intersect one another. It has been attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development Order that site and landscape plans are revised to correctly depict the sight visibility triangles. Four proposed parking spaces encroach within the sight visibility triangles on the north and south sides of the driveways intersecting South Prospect and Ewing avenues. While these parking spaces themselves will not encroach into the sight visibility triangle in a manner conflicting with Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, when the parking spaces are in use, the visibility will be impacted and the sight visibility triangles reduced from 20 feet to approximately 15 feet. The applicant has requested that the sight visibility triangles be reduced accordingly. From the perspective of the driver within a vehicle stopped at the stop bar on Ewing Avenue, there will be between 60 and 80 feet of visibility, while under similar circumstances on South Prospect Avenue, there will be visibility in excess of 100 feet. Granting the reductions will not result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere under similar circumstances. It is noted that the City’s Engineering Department has indicated support for this request. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to reducing the sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code. Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. All on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are required to be placed underground as part of the Community Development 2006-05-16 6 redevelopment of the site. A notation has been provided on the Site and Utilities Plan that states “all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.” This notation must be amended to include the undergrounding of the existing utilities and has been attached as a condition of approval. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, one interior tree is required for every 150 square-feet of required interior green space. As the development proposal requires 4,874 square-feet of interior green space, a total of 32 interior trees are required. However, only 28 interior trees are proposed. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development Order the landscape plan is revised to provide a minimum of four additional interior trees, or palm equivalent. The development proposal includes the provision of a 15-foot by 10-foot refuse enclosure adjacent the northwest corner of the building. The proposed solid waste facility has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The subject property is located within the Town Lake Residential character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan states that intense commercial and office development may be permitted along major streets such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Myrtle avenues, and Cleveland, Court and Chestnut streets. The Plan further states that commercial development on the major streets should be constructed with a build-to line close to the street and parking/service areas located to the rear. To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non- residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 20 dwelling units (in the form of 27 overnight accommodation units) from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of streetscape improvements within the Court Street, South Prospect Avenue and Ewing Avenue rights-of-way as well as on the subject property where conflicts with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) right-of-way would have prevented the installation of some improvements. In all cases, the streetscape improvements proposed are consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of the above referenced amenities, which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 20 dwelling units (in the form of 27 overnight accommodation units) from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported. A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and ?? recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The development proposal consists of the provision of 115 overnight accommodation units along one the Downtown’s major vehicular corridors in Court Street, which is also the primary means of access to the beach. As such, the establishment of 115 overnight accommodation units on Community Development 2006-05-16 7 the subject property will attract visitors for both business and tourism to the Downtown area. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Goal. Objective 1A: 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. As previously stated, the development proposal will provide for 115 overnight accommodation units along a major Downtown vehicular corridor. The provision of these units will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will be consistent with the Town Lake Residential character district, the Design Guidelines, and the Downtown (D) zoning district. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Objective. Objective 1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown ?? to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. The proposed 115-unit overnight accommodation development (hotel) will provide for increased employment opportunities on the subject property over what currently exists. There is also the reasonable expectation that the visitors attracted for business and tourism through the development will patronize existing Downtown businesses and help create demand for additional services in the Downtown area, both of which would likely result in increased employment opportunities. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Objective. Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to ?? pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements within the Court Street, South Prospect Avenue and Ewing Avenue rights-of-way that are consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus a positive finding can be made with regard to this Objective. Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features ?? expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in the Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. As discussed in greater detail below, the development proposal is consistent with the various aspects of the Downtown Design Guidelines including, but not limited to: Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parking, Pedestrian Circulation/Access, Orientation, Mass and Height, Rhythm/Spacing, Architecture, Primary and Corner Façades, Secondary Façades, Materials and Color. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Policy. Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design ?? review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. Pursuant to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, intense commercial development may be permitted along major streets such as Court Street with such development to be constructed close to the street and parking/service areas located to the rear. The development proposal is in compliance with this vision; therefore a positive finding can be made with regard to this Policy. Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the ?? pedestrian environment through site and building design. The site has been designed with the building located approximately 30 feet from the Court Street property line; however this distance is reduced to roughly two feet when measured to the porte cochère, which has been designed to encourage and facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building and hotel use. In addition, the lobby windows (those beneath the porte cochère) give the appearance Community Development 2006-05-16 8 of “storefront” windows, which adds to the creation of a meaningful pedestrian environment. Shed-style, burgundy fabric awnings will be provided over those ground level windows that are not beneath the porte cochère. Further, the site incorporates substantial landscaping between the building/parking areas and the Court Street right-of-way as well as streetscape improvements along the Court Street, South Prospect Avenue and Ewing Avenue rights-of- way. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Policy. Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density and ?? intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development proposal will utilize 20 dwelling units (in the form of 27 overnight accommodation units) from the Pool. The development proposal will provide for streetscape improvements within the Court Street, South Prospect Avenue and Ewing Avenue rights-of-way consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan in exchange for this additional density. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Policy. A review of the Town Lake Residential District policies was conducted, and no policies were found to be applicable to the development proposal. The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were identified: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the location, number and design of driveways shall maintain the urban fabric of the downtown and that it is appropriate for vehicular access to occur from secondary street frontages. The subject property presently consists of two curb cuts along Court Street and one along Ewing Avenue as well as access to a curb cut along South Prospect Avenue via cross access with the abutting property to the north. The development proposal will eliminate both of the curb cuts along Court Street; relocate the curb cut along Ewing Avenue; and establish a new curb cut along South Prospect. Based upon the scale of the development, the number of curb cuts is adequate to serve the site while not being excessive so as to be inconsistent with the fabric of the downtown, and the location and design of the curb cuts will improve upon the existing urban fabric of the downtown and will be consistent with the manner in which curb cuts have been previously approved in the downtown. Further, the elimination of the curb cuts along Court Street (the primary street frontage) and the utilization of South Prospect and Ewing Avenues for access is consistent with the Guidelines. In addition to the above, the Guidelines also state that joint/common access driveways between sites are appropriate. The existing site has a common driveway along South Prospect Avenue with the adjoining property to the north. This driveway, however, has a nonconforming width of 43 feet that is roughly centered along the common property line without a cross access easement, and appears more likely to be the remnants of the previously vacated Haven Street right-of-way than an actual driveway. The development proposal will reduce the width of the existing common driveway to a conforming 24 feet, with this driveway now serving only the Community Development 2006-05-16 9 property to the north. A new driveway will be created approximately 20 feet to the south of this driveway (when measured at the property line), which will be separated by a landscape buffer and will provide the primary access to the subject property. The retention and utilization of the existing common driveway is not feasible in this scenario based upon the nonconformities that exist with the common driveway, such as the turning radius and the aforementioned width. Also, the turning radius necessary for the drive aisle on the subject property to connect to the common driveway would result in the loss of a substantial area of land where parking could otherwise be provided. The City’s Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and supports the applicants’ request to not utilize the common driveway. The Guidelines further state that parking lots shall be located behind the primary façade of the principle building. However, the Guidelines also state that parking lots adjacent to rights- of-way shall be screened by a landscape buffer, solid wall, or fence that is three feet in height. The subject property is such that it is nearly impossible for all parking to be located behind the primary façade of the principle building; however a substantial amount of the parking has been located accordingly and all of the parking will be located behind either a three foot high landscape buffer or solid wall. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with above applicable Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways should be provided between streets, parking areas and buildings. As noted previously, the development proposal consists of a porte cochère along the primary façade that will encourage and facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building and hotel use from Court Street. Also, the proposal includes several walkways within the parking area that are defined through the use of pavers. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with above applicable Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless communication facilities, loading and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the site, located in the most unobtrusive location possible and buffered and screened appropriately. The development proposal locates its service facilities (i.e. trash holding area) within the interior of the site off the northwest corner of the building. The service facilities, as well as the adjacent swimming pool mechanical equipment, will be within a six-foot high concrete block enclosure with a decorative precast cap. The enclosure will be stuccoed and painted to match the principle building and will be tied into the abutting swimming pool enclosure, which will have intermittent columns consistent with the service facilities enclosure. The mechanical equipment for the development, with the exception of the aforementioned swimming pool equipment, will be located on the roof of the building and screened by the proposed parapet walls. With regard to wireless communication facilities, it has been attached as a condition of approval that any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development are screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the development proposal complies with above applicable Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that fences and walls shall complement and be consistent with the principal structure with regard to materials, texture, size, shape and color. As noted previously, the development proposal includes the provision of a solid wall to screen a parking area from view along a right-of-way. The wall is located along the east side of the property adjacent to Ewing Avenue and will consist of a precast stone base and precast cap. Community Development 2006-05-16 10 The base will match the veneer on the base of the principle building, while the stucco between the base and cap will be painted to match accent features of the principle building. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with above applicable Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be orientated toward the street; thus contributing to pedestrian interest in the area. The subject property abuts three rights-of-way, thereby making it quite difficult to create a building that is orientated toward each street. As such, the proposed building has been oriented toward the primary abutting right-of- way (Court Street), and designed to take advantage of this location by providing a porte cochère along this primary façade that will encourage and facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building and hotel use. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with the above applicable Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to locate a building farther from a build-to line in order to provide for courtyards, steps, entryways, arcades, plazas or other pedestrian oriented design features that maintain the build-to line. As discussed previously, the development proposal locates the majority of the building façade approximately 30 feet from the Court Street property line; however this distance is reduced to roughly two feet when measured to the porte cochère, which has been designed to encourage and facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building and hotel use. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with the above applicable Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that mass and height of a building should be influenced and augmented by design features such as columns, awnings, arcades, step backs, doors and windows, and horizontal features. Perhaps the most significant design element of the building with regard to mass is the building footprint. Specifically, the building has been designed in more or less a “U” shape. This enables the “wings” of the building to effectively step back from Court Street, while still having a presence on the road as well as the adjoining South Prospect and Ewing Avenues. In addition, the design of the building incorporates several of the design elements suggested in the Guidelines such as columns spanning from the building base to the parapet that emphasize the verticality of the building; awnings above those ground level windows not beneath the porte cochère on the front elevation; recesses between 2.5 feet and 5.5 feet along all of the building elevations; and a rounded precast stringcourse that provides emphasis to the width of the building (horizontal feature). Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a distinct “base,” “middle” and “cap.” The proposed building clearly distinguishes each of these three sections from one another through color and the use of horizontal stucco banding and rounded precast banding (stringcourses). The “base” of the proposed building consists of the ground level and is distinguished through its dark wall color, porte cochère, and decorative horizontal stucco banding as well as by the projection/depth of columns. The “middle” and “cap” of the building have slightly similar colors; however those colors found on the “cap” are typically lighter than those on the “middle.” The two sections are clearly separated by horizontal stucco banding and rounded precast banding (stringcourses). Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that new development should incorporate an architectural style or architectural elements consistent with the existing and/or desired style of development in the surrounding neighborhood. However, the Guidelines also state that diversity in architectural styles is encouraged and new buildings may use a variety of Community Development 2006-05-16 11 architectural styles as appropriate to the intended use of the building. The applicant has indicated that the building is of the International style of architecture as derived from the Bauhaus School of Design. Further, the detail and scale are expressed through Art Deco elements, while the overall height and expression of the building is that of Parisian scale. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary façades shall be the most highly designed façades and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and recesses), architectural details, variety in color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. Further, the Guidelines state that buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing features. The dimensions/configuration of the subject property does not lend to building directly on either corner of the property; however the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines in that the building maximizes the allowable height within the Town Lake Residential character district and through the design of the building, which will present a unique appearance within the downtown. As previously discussed, the building has been designed in more or less a “U” shape with the primary facade of the building located along Court Street with columns spanning from the building base to the parapet, rounded precast and stucco stringcourses, recesses between 2.5 feet and 5.5 feet, and a porte cochère. In addition, the architecture includes lobby windows (those beneath the porte cochère) that give the appearance of “storefront” windows, and substantial variation in colors that in combination with one another create a highly designed primary façade. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the level of design along a secondary façade shall be consistent with that of the primary façade with regard to architectural style, materials, finish, color and detail. As with the primary façade along Court Street, the secondary façades facing Ewing Avenue and the north property line have been designed with columns spanning from the building base to the parapet, rounded precast and stucco stringcourses, recesses between 2.5 feet and 5.5 feet, and substantial variation in colors that create a highly designed appearance. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roofs shall be consistent with the style of the building utilizing elements such as cornices, overhangs with brackets, stepped parapets, richly textured materials, and/or differently colored materials. The proposed building consists of a flat roof with a cohesive mixture of parapet designs that include a variation of a stepped parapet, an outward leaning parapet, and a standard parapet with a rounded precast banding. This mixture of parapet designs is consistent with the International style of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that building materials shall be consistent with and relate to the architectural style of the building. The majority of the building base exterior consists of a precast stone with stucco accents at the building ends. The exterior of the upper levels consists of stucco with rounded precast stringcourses as accents. The use of the precast stone and stucco is consistent with the International style of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. Community Development 2006-05-16 12 The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The color scheme for the development proposal includes the use of a green-grey (Stone Harbor, Benjamin Moore 2111- 50) for the porte cochère, columns and parapet; a grey (Thundercloud Grey, Benjamin Moore 2124-40) for the majority of the upper level building façade and as accents on the porte cochère; an off-white (Wedding Veil, Benjamin Moore 2125-70) for portions of the upper level building façade; a rust (Old Chicago) for the precast stone for the ground level building façade; and a sand (Coral) for the rounded precast banding. The proposed color scheme is appropriate for the architectural style of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. The 2.22-acre subject property is located within the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category and the Downtown (D) District and is further located within the Town Lake Residential character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The applicant has worked with staff over the past several months to provide an attractive, well-designed development that will enhance the local area and City as a whole. The proposed development will further the City’s goals of improving the character of the area and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown. Further, the development proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, General Applicability Standards, as well as the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 30, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the request to construct 115 overnight accommodation units within the Downtown (D) District pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, and to allow four parking spaces to encroach within the required sight visibility triangles along South Prospect and Ewing Avenues, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, subject to the attached conditions of approval: Findings of Fact: 1) That the 2.22-acre subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property and development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the Town Lake Residential character district; 3) That the development proposal includes the demolition of the existing social/community center as well as all other existing improvements on the site; 4) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1) That the encroachments to the sight visibility triangles along South Prospect and Ewing avenues will neither adversely affect the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, nor result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere under similar circumstances; 2) That the use of 20 dwelling units (in the form of 27 overnight accommodation units) from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Town Lake Residential character district; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 5) That the Community Development 2006-05-16 13 development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development criteria as per Section 2- 903.C of the Community Development Code; and 6) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability Criteria as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the landscape plan is revised to provide a minimum of four additional interior trees, or palm equivalent; 2) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the site and landscape plans are revised to correctly depict the sight visibility triangles; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire Department conditions are addressed; 4) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Traffic Department conditions are addressed; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, revised plans must be provided depicting the provision of wheel stops where the front of a parking space abuts either the screen wall along Ewing Avenue or any of the hedges across the balance of the site; 6) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, revised plans must be provided depicting the parking being placed “on grade” or root pruning being performed at the back of curb with regard to the large tree (tree #45) at the southeast corner of the site; 7) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, revised plans must be provided depicting the location of all proposed light fixtures/poles on the site and landscape plans in a manner that meets the requirements of Section 3-1302 of the Community Development Code; 8) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, revised plans must be provided with a notation that states “all existing and proposed utilities shall be installed underground”; 9) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any required Transportation Impact Fees are paid; 10) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all utility equipment, including but not limited to electrical and water meters, is screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 11) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all streetscape improvements within the Court Street, South Prospect Avenue and Ewing Avenue rights-of-way are installed pursuant to the City’s Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan and to the satisfaction of staff; 12) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 13) That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements; 14) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development are screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 15) That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 16) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way, and that separate right-of-way permits are obtained for all paver brick sidewalks along City streets; 17) That any overnight accommodation units obtained from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool that are not constructed are returned to the Pool; 18) That if the conditions of approval associated with this development are not met, then the incentives gained from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool shall be returned to the Pool; 19) That the first building permit be applied for within one year of the CDB approval (by May 16, 2007); and 20) That the Community Development 2006-05-16 14 final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit. It was stated while this project is great and in a good location, concern was expressed that it does not meet Downtown Design Guideline objectives: 1) to become more pedestrian-oriented and 2) incorporate a Downtown architectural style. Discussion ensued with comments that the site’s unique size made it difficult to develop and that Court Street, the new gateway to the beach, is more vehicle-oriented than other area streets. It was questioned if this project meets the preferred architectural Downtown style and if all Downtown buildings should look alike. Ms. Clayton said this newly developed area of an old industrial area has few architectural elements for comparison. The subject project has similar characteristics to townhomes across the street. Discussion ensued with comments that the building is well placed and maintains side visibility of Prospect Lake Park, support was expressed for the ingress/egress as proposed, and concern was expressed that the design lacks creativity. Michael English, applicant, said the site is triangular-shaped. He said staff had mandated that the building be as close to Court Street as possible. He said it was a challenge to create a pedestrian-friendly project, meet parking requirements, and place it close to Court Street, a State road. He said the City encourages a range of architectural styles. He said the hotel will be handsome and understated, and feature a streetscape and landscaping that will be inviting to residents. He anticipated that the limited service hotel will attract residents to Downtown restaurants and entertainment venues. He said the project is aesthetically pleasing and will provide a positive economic addition to the community. James Holt, Marriott Corporation, thanked staff for their work on this project, and reviewed recent hotel projects. He said his company requires projects to be designed within guidelines but indicated he was willing to accept some design changes to move the project forward. He said it would have been helpful if the applicant had known earlier regarding board design concerns. Mr. English said he is comfortable with staff recommended conditions for approval. Discussion ensued with comments in support of the Marriott Corporation and concerns regarding exterior architectural details. Planning Director Michael Delk requested specific direction regarding preferred types of embellishments. It was requested that the applicant consider an overall design direction. Mr. English requested that the two board members expressing concerns share their ideas with staff. He was confident he could work with staff and meet expectations. Mr. Delk said staff would work with the applicant, but would not stop the project from moving forward as it meets design guidelines. Staff supports the project but is willing to work with the applicant to enhance the architectural design. It was recommended that the project reflect Mediterranean design. Mr. Holt felt confident he could achieve that type of design. Member Fritsch moved to approve Item E2, Case FLD2006-02010 for 940 Court Street based on the staff report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, with Conditions of Approval as listed, with an additional Condition of Approval that it meet a complementary style to Mediterranean, and that CDB Members Behar and Coates share their directives regarding style with the Planning Director, who will be the board’s eyes and ears and approving authority. Community Development 2006-05-16 15 Mr. Delk requested clarification of the motion related to Mediterranean style. Discussion ensued and it was felt that the applicant and staff could work out architectural design details requested by the CDB. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes reviewed the Sunshine Law prohibiting contact between members away from the meeting. motion The was duly seconded. Members Fritsch, Milam, Coates, Tallman, Behar, and carried Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye.” Member Johnson abstained. Motion unanimously. 3. Case: FLD2006-02004 – 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services Inc Representative: E.J. Robinson. (2050 Brendla Road, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727- 415-4799; fax: 727-446-4911; e-mail: none). Location: 0.207-acre lot located at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Engman Street. Atlas Pages: 269A. Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Request: Flexible Development approval to construct a single family home in the Medium Density Residential District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to building), as a Residential Infill Project, per section 2-304.G. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); North Greenwood Association, Inc (Jonathan Wade, President, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755); Drew and Plaza Park (David Grice, President, 908 Drew Street, Clearwater, FL 33755) Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II. The 0.207-acre lot is at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Engman Street. The site is a 60 by 150 foot corner lot with an existing curb cut onto Pennsylvania Avenue. A 48-inch oak tree exists in the south center portion of the lot. The survey indicates the two adjacent properties have minimal concrete encroachments on the property. The lot meets minimum lot size and lot width requirements to construct a detached single-family residence in the Medium Density Residential district. Surrounding uses are primarily detached and multi-family dwellings with supporting neighborhood non-residential uses, such as a local Masonic lodge and at least two places of worship. The adjacent property along Engman Street has a utility line drop from the utility pole located on the corner of the subject property and it crosses in the area of the proposed structure. An above ground utility box also exists near the utility pole at the corner. The proposal includes the construction of a one-story, 1,745 square-foot, single-family residence with three bedrooms, two baths, and a two-car garage. The proposed building will be situated twenty feet from Pennsylvania Avenue. This proposed front setback is consistent with setbacks of adjacent properties and in the immediate area. The proposed building complies with all Code requirements except the front (east) setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (east) setback reduction from 25 feet to 20 feet. While the character of front setbacks of the adjacent properties is the required 25-foot, the overall front setbacks in the vicinity are primarily maintained at 5 feet to 15 feet along the both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. With the variety of uses and building types in the immediate Community Development 2006-05-16 16 vicinity there is no established front setback characteristic along Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff believes that the proposed single-family residence with a reduced setback will enhance the appearance and value to the subject property as well as the immediate area. The driveway improvement will create a uniform surface for the driveway alleviating the possibility for injury. The two-car garage will provide an improved level of securing personal property. The proposed reduced front (east) setback will provide for twenty feet of parking area between the sidewalk and the front of the garage. It also will provide two additional parking spaces for a total of four altogether. The improvements to the property will make it and the immediate area safer for persons residing in the neighborhood. The design of the proposed single-family residence will have little impact to traffic congestion and is not creating any adverse effects to adjacent properties. The redevelopment of this site will improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential Infill Project criteria (Section 2- 304.G) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 30, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to construct a single family home in the Medium Density Residential district with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to building), as a Residential Infill Project, per section 2-304.G. for the site located at 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue, based on the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill Project per Section 2-304.G; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; 4) The 0.207-acre lot is located at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Engman Street; 5) This site is zoned MDR and a single family residence is a permitted use; 6) Adjacent uses consist of a wide mix of single and multi-family residential, places of worship, and social center uses; 7) Due to the variety of uses and building types in the immediate vicinity there is no established front setback characteristic along Eldridge Street; 8) The proposed single family residence will make the property and the immediate area safer for persons residing in the neighborhood; 9) The proposed single family residence will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of adjacent properties; 10) The proposed is compatible with the adjacent properties; and 11) The proposed will enhance other redevelopment efforts in the Community. Conditions of Approval: 1) That no parked vehicle will block or obstruct the sidewalk in accordance with City Ordinance 30.041(1)(b); 2) The Applicant shall dedicate additional right-of- way at the corner of Engman Street and Pennsylvania Avenue for sidewalk and road improvements; 3) All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in its entirety, by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. The rights-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required; and 4) The final design of the building and site plan be consistent with those approved or modified by the CDB. See motion of approval on page 22. Community Development 2006-05-16 17 4. Case: FLD2006-02005 – 2275 McMullen-Booth Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Gus Di Giovanni; Renaissance Oaks, LLC. Representative: Ronald Letize (1928 Valencia Way, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727- 433-1143; fax: none; e-mail: ronal@tampabay.rr.com). Location: 20.07 acres located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 2,000 feet north of Union Street. Atlas Pages: 245A. Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) District Request: Flexible Development approval to construct a six-foot tall residential subdivision wall within the front (east) setback along McMullen-Booth Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-104.D. Proposed Use: 43 Detached Dwellings. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II. The site is 20.07 acres on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of Union Street. The site currently is being cleared for the future development of 43 single-family residential dwelling units. The DRC under Flexible Standard Development case number FLS2005-07047/PLT2005-00016 approved the site for 43 detached single-family residential dwelling units on August 4, 2005. It is located in a part of the City characterized by attractive, well-maintained residential properties. The proposal includes a masonry-stucco covered block wall five feet, seven inches in height and columns six feet in height with wrought iron-style entrance gates six feet in height. The fence will be constructed three feet from the front (east) property line as measured from McMullen-Booth Road. It will traverse the front property line for a distance of 314.5 feet from the north property line to the south property line. The proposed fence will adjoin a similarly- styled fence on the property adjacent to the south. It is consistent with other fences and walls in the area with regard to style, scale and placement. In the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district, brick or other masonry walls or walls with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work with a maximum height of six feet in a required front setback area are not specifically addressed in the fence code and as such are required to apply as a Level Two (Flexible Development – Residential Infill Project) approval. The fence code criterion is that such walls shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure on the property and compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed wall will utilize a stucco finish painted to complement the residential buildings proposed with the application. The wall steps back every 100 feet along McMullen-Booth Road to provide horizontal relief. The wrought iron picket fencing is used in the gates to provide additional relief. The proposal includes extensive landscaping along McMullen-Booth Road including live oak, lady and cardboard palms, lantana, Indian hawthorn, bougainvillea, jasmine and azalea. One monument-style residential subdivision entry sign 24 square-feet in area will be located at the center of the entrance. The signs will be architecturally incorporated into the design of the perimeter wall and to the buildings with regard to height, proportion, color, material and finish and meets the requirements of the Code. The site plan otherwise fulfills all of the requirements of a Flexible Development – Residential Infill Project application. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Community Development 2006-05-16 18 Findings of Fact: 1) The 20.07 acre subject property is located within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District; 2) The proposal is consistent and compatible with other fences in the area with regards to material, scale and location and is architecturally compatible with existing walls in the immediate vicinity; 3) Applicant seeks relief from maximum wall/fence height limitation under Code provisions of Section 3-804.A; 4) Proposed landscaping, use of stucco over masonry construction and wrought iron entry gates mitigate the height of the wall; 5) The wall will have no adverse health or safety impacts in the neighborhood; 6)The proposal will have no effect on traffic congestion and is well outside any required sight visibility triangles; 7) The signage is creative, simple, and will contribute to the overall character of a place; and 8) There are no pending Code Enforcement issues with this property. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development, Residential Infill Project criterion, per Section 2-104.D; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 30, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to construct a six-foot tall subdivision wall within the front (east) setback along McMullen-Booth Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-104.D., with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development, Residential Infill Project criterion, per Section 2-104.D; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) The final design and color of the wall and sign be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) Show the canopies of all trees to remain on the plan sheets prior to the issuance of the fence permit. The general rule for hardwoods is one-foot radius for each diameter inch (DBH); 3) Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture, prior to the issuance of the fence permit; and 4) The landscaping be installed and maintained according to the plan approved or modified by the CDB. See motion of approval on page 22. Community Development 2006-05-16 19 5. Case: ANX2006-02005 – 1424 Regal Road Level Three Application Owner: Joseph & Wynette Schramm (1424 Regal Road, Clearwater, FL 33756; Telephone 727-441-2159). Location: A 0.176-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Regal Road approximately 480 feet west of Braund Street and 450 feet east of Sunny Park Road. Atlas Page: 315A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.176-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.176-acre property consisting of one parcel, on the north side of Regal Road, approximately 500 feet west of Braund Street. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant receives water service from the City of Clearwater; the property is currently on septic. Sanitary sewer is not currently available in this area. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of 0.176 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See motion to recommend approval on page 22. Community Development 2006-05-16 20 6.Case: ANX2006-02004– 1574 Crown Street Level Three Application Owner: Terry Sherman (Telephone 727-215-5970). Location: A 0.163-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Crown Street approximately 400 feet from the intersection of Crown Street and Ridge Avenue. Atlas Page: 264A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.163-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on the north side of Crown Street, approximately 400 feet north of the intersection of Crown Street and Ridge Avenue. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting right-of-way not currently within the City limits, also be annexed. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. The subject site is approximately 0.163 acre in area and is occupied by a single family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant receives water service from the City of Clearwater. An existing sanitary sewer service account exists. The closest sanitary sewer line is located in a utility easement at the rear (north) property line. The property proposed for annexation is located within an enclave and its annexation will reduce such enclave; therefore, the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63. There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of 0.163 acres and the abutting Crown Street right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. Community Development 2006-05-16 21 . . . Member Fritsch moved to approve Item E1, Case FLD2006-03012 for 202 Windward Passage based on the staff report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed; Item E3, Case FLD2006-02004 for 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue based on the staff report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed; and Item E4, Case FLD2006-0200S for 227S McMullen-Booth Road, based on the staff report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed; and recommended approval of Item ES, Case ANX2006-0200S for 1424 Regal Road and Item E6, Case ANX2006-02004 for 1S74 Crown Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. Draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Review Member Gildersleeve recused himself. Long Range Planning Manager Steven Brown reviewed the development of the draft EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report). The State requires all local governments to review and update their comprehensive plans every seven years. The draft was developed during the past 12 months in accordance with guidance from the DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs), in consultation with the CAC (Citizen Advisory Committee), appointed by Council, and with assistance from staff and a team of consultants. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton reported that the Senior Center Task Force had recommended a range of programs and for the City to establish an Office on Aging. Mr. Brown said the City is looking at opportunities to support senior services, address substandard housing, and increase densities to support mixed-uses Downtown. Concern was expressed that maintaining the City's aging housing stock is crucial. It was suggested that the City provide developers with guidance regarding its vision. Mr. Brown said many elements are in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will continue to develop the elements and clearly articulate the guidelines. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Item F1, the Draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report as submitted. The motion was duly seconded. Members Fritsch, Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, and Behar voted "Aye." Member Gildersleeve abstained. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Delk thanked staff, CDB members, Barbara Green, and the consultants for their efforts in developing the EAR draft. I. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:23 p.m. Community Development 2006-0S-16 22 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS F;e;r:rslL~~ e- \ AILING ADDRESS 0_ ~35? ;> CITY C ~~ DATE ON WHICH VOT OCCU 5 p; ne((A.S ~u o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- "ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the rent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a bl,Jsiness associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described ab0ve, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the ass~mbly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and . WITHIN 1;iDAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes ofthe meeting, who sh.ould incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although yblJmust abstain from volingin thesitl,Jations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or ~t your direction. YOU IN'TEr-j[) TQ MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THEDECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THEVOTE WILL BE _~KEN: . You mustcornplete and filethi.s form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of themeeting, who wili incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO iNFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of thE meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST D~.~I~ , hereby disclose that on ,20_ i, (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of AA)Adi Q. - T C....IV\, I -L ~ , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before n.x agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the meas.ure is as follo~s:. Jj _L __. . - ~Pr.<- p~ (..lC/l)~~. -:c ~ .IDA-- ~ ~ W~ - T,~,,^- J ~ , ~ Mil--fU- ~ ~ ~ ~~ . which Date Filed ~ lie, 'U)()~ J:". NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND,. CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed'or elected board, coun4 commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voti conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly dependil on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form befo completing the reverse side and filing the form. ' INSTRUCTIONS FOR'COMPUANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whic inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a me~ sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained {including th eent organizat~on ors~bsidiary of a corp?rate princip~1 by which.he, or she. is,retained!; to the special private g.ain or loss of a relative; c he special pnvate gaan or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 c 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in the capacity. For purposes of this law, a '''elative'' includes only,the,officer's ~ther, mother, son, c;iaughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a busines: enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint ventur,er, cq()wner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporatior are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ' ' . * ..,; * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations del3c,ribed abelve, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the asspmbly the nature of your interest in' the measure on which you are~abstaining from voting; and . WITHIN 1 ~ DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes 6fthe meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. *; * * * * * APPOI~TED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting jn the ,sitl,Jations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or ~t your direction. ... ,oU INTE:t:';J,o T9 MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THEDECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE "EN: . You must,complete an<;l filethis form {before (l1aking any attemptto influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting; who wili incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) J · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must.be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You most complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording' the minutes of t/1 meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of thE agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, .:T. B. ~"hn~ , hereby disclose that on ),{a.a I~ ,20~ (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, V inured to the special gain or loss of ~r (!1~:("J2AL -Ser"I~.s , b~ whom I am retained; or ~ inured to the special gain or loss of ~ ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: F"l., P LOO~ - ~Ol 0 - QLfO ~ Sf . ~ ~ ~V'\tf2A.- t.~ ClA- ~~~ (!)f-~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~.p- -p..\~. ~ ~ Se.-r\/~~~ . . . (1.. --;.c. '\.s ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ e;.;Y~ ~tLh...-. Date Filed M ,acs t to I 'U)O(.., s~ ... _ i 1;-1'. : '. ' ..-- NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISpLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND; OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOTTO EXCEED $10,000. -e- CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 " " . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. Case:FLD2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage v' Yes no Level Two Avvlication Level Two Applications Items 1-5 1. Case: FLD2006-03012 - 202 Windward Passage ../ Yes no 2. Case: FLD2006-02010 - 940 Court Street / Yes no 3. Case: FLD2006-02004 -1220 Pennsylvania Avenue Yes/no 4. Case: FLD2006-02005 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Yes /' no 5. Case: FLD2005-09103 -121 N. Osceola Ave. and 118 N. Ft. Harrison Ave ,,/ Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-2 1. Case: ANX2006-02005 -1424 Regal Road Yes 1/". no 2. Case: ANX2006-0200~ 1574 Crown Street Yes no Signature~1{~L: Date 5!;'>~.b S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation ch~ 2 .. . ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 Case: FLD2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage /' Yes no Level Two Application 1. Level Two Applications Items 1-5 1. Case: FLD2006-03012 - 202 Windward Passage /' Yes no 2. Case: FLD2006-02010 - 940 Court Street Yes / no 3. Case: FLD2006-02004 - 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue ~Yes no , 4. Case: .JJd'2006-02005 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road ./ Yes no 5. Case: F~05-09103 - 121 N. Osceola Ave. and 118 N. Ft. Harrison Ave ~Yes no I . Level Three Applications Items 1-2 1. Case: ANX2006-02005 -1424 Regal Road LYes no 2. cas.ee::~ X20l)(H)2004-1574 Crown Street / Yes no Signature: _~ Date: SI-' Db S:\Plannin Department C D B\CDB, property investigation check list. oc 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. Ca~D2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage Yes no Level Two Application 1. Level Two Applications Items 1-5 Case: FLD2006-03012 - 202 Windward Passage / Yes no 2. ca~D2006-02010 - 940 Court Street Yes no 3. Case: F7D2006-02004 - 1220 Pennsylvania Avenue ~ Yes no 4. caS~006-02005 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Yes no 5. caS~05-09103 -121 N. Osceola Ave. and ll8 N. Ft. Harrison Ave Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-2 1. Case: ANX2006-02005 -1424 Regal Road Yes 1.../ no 2. Case: ANX2006-020~74 Crown Street Yes no Signature: S: \Planning Department\C Date: r; /I/_/nc B'\ DB, property investigation c~c 2 "I _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: May 16, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. ca~~005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage Yes no Level Two Avvlication 1. Case: E D2006-03012 - 202 Windward Passage Yes no 2. C~D2006-02010 - 940 Conrt Street Yes no 3. Ca~2006-02004 - 1220 Pennsylvania A venne Yes no 4. Case: F}D2006-02005 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road ~Yes no 5. 2005-09103 - 121 N. Osceola Ave. and 118 N. Ft. Harrison Ave Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-2 1. Case: ~X2006-02005 - 1424 Regal Road ~ Yes no 2. C7NX2006-02004-1574 Crown Street Yes no Signature: S:\Planning Date:~/(?J6 ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 2