08/15/2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 15, 2006
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam Board Member
J. B. Johnson Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Acting Board Member
Absent: David Gildersleeve Chair
Also Present: Morris C. Massey Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Neil C. Thompson Planning Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan 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: July 18, 2006
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July
motion
18, 2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1)
Community Development 2006-08-15 1
1. Case: FLD2006-02009 – 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
(Continued from June 20, 2006)
Owner/Applicant: Mary G Realty, Inc.
Representative: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA (701 South Enterprise Road East, Suite 404,
Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email:
keith@keithzayac.com).
Location: 0.4 acre located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont
Street.
Atlas Page: 267A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 12 attached dwellings in the Tourist District
with a reduction to the front (north along Baymont Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to
trash staging area) and an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 82.5 feet (to midpoint
of pitched roof), under the provisions of Section 2-803.B.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (12 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
On June 20, 2006, the CDB (Community Development Board) continued this application
to August 15, 2006, at the applicant’s request to address staff concerns. The applicant has met
with staff and is preparing revised drawings. In order to allow staff adequate time to review the
revised drawings and revise the Staff Report, the applicant is requesting this case be continued
to September 19, 2006.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item D1, Case: FLD2006-02009 for 490 Mandalay
motioncarried
Avenue to September 19, 2006. The was duly seconded 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)
1. Case: FLD2006-05031- 1791 Sherwood Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Ample Lane, Inc.
Representative: Ulrich Huber (319 S. Garden Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-467-7000x6810; fax: 727-495-7277; email: None).
Location: 5.46 acres located on the west side of Keene Road at the intersection of
Sherwood Street and Keene Road.
Atlas Page: 270B.
Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a fence/wall six feet in height within the front
setbacks along Keene Road (east), along Long Street (south), along Amble Lane (west), and
along Sherwood Street (north and south) in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1 of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
Community Development 2006-08-15 2
The proposal includes masonry-stucco covered columns with classical style caps linked
by black wrought iron pickets. The fence will be constructed six feet from the property lines.
The fence will surround the six buildings on the south side of Sherwood Street as well as the
one building on the north side of Sherwood Street. Three 20-foot double manual gates, two 24-
foot double motorized gates, and three pedestrian gates will provide access outside of the area
enclosed by the fence for the purpose of facilitating maintenance of the required landscape and
street right-of-way.
The fence code criterion is that such fences/walls shall be architecturally compatible with
the principal structure on the property and compatible with the surrounding properties. The
proposed fence columns will utilize a stucco finish painted to complement the residential
buildings and will be of a simple neo-classical style. The black wrought iron picket fencing will
be non-opaque and columns will be utilized to offset the unbroken nature of the fence. The
surrounding properties at this time have no fences; however, this simple unadorned fence is in
keeping with the surrounding properties.
The proposal includes a three-foot wide landscape strip on the street side of the fences
containing three-foot tall, 15-gallon Podocarpus macrophylla. Podocarpus macrophylla is a
dense growing, dark green colored, non-deciduous screening material used throughout the
Tampa Bay area as well as the entire southeastern United States. Extensive landscaping also
is proposed in front of the Podocarpus; however, a large portion of this is located in the right-of-
way, which requires a right-of-way utilization permit.
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. Findings of Fact: 1) The 5.46-acre subject property is located within the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District; 2) The proposal is consistent and architecturally compatible
with the principal structures and surrounding properties; 3) Applicant seeks relief from maximum
wall/fence height limitation under Code provisions of Section 3-804.A; 3) Proposed landscaping,
use of stucco over masonry construction and wrought iron grillwork mitigate the height of the
fence; 4) The fence will have no adverse health or safety impacts in the neighborhood; 5) The
proposal will have no effect on traffic congestion; and 6) There are no pending Code
Enforcement issues with this property. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the
proposal complies with the Flexible Development, Residential Infill Project criterion, per Section
2-304.G; 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 (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials on June 29, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to construct a six-foot tall fence within the front setbacks (east) along
Keene Road, (south) along Long Street, (west) along Amble Lane, and (north and south) along
Sherwood Street as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-304.G., with the
following Conditions of Approval: 1) The final design and color of the fence be consistent with
the elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the Community Development Board; 2) The
landscaping be installed and maintained according to the plan approved or modified by the
Community Development Board; 3) Any proposed signage be compatible with the buildings and
Community Development 2006-08-15 3
fence. Note, a separate sign permit is required; and 4) The fence does not exceed the allowable
six feet height.
See page 15 for motion to approve.
2. Case: FLD2005-08083 – 704-706 Myrtle Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc.
th
Representative: Dominic Amadio, P.A. (3500 5 Avenue, North, Suite D, St Petersburg,
FL 33713 phone: 727-327-1945; fax: 727-327-2118; email: None).
Location: This property of 1.1 acres is located at the northwest corner of the intersection
of North Myrtle Avenue and Eldridge Street.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a radio studio in the Commercial District, as
a Comprehensive Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C. and a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development
Code; with: 1) A non-permanent surface, gravel drive aisle; 2) A parking reduction from nine
spaces (4/1,000 square-feet of gross floor area) to six spaces (3/1,000 square-feet of gross floor
area); 3) A reduction to the east (front) perimeter landscape buffer of North Myrtle Avenue from
10 feet to zero feet; 4) A reduction to the south (front) perimeter landscape buffer of Eldridge
Street from 10 feet to zero feet; and 5) A reduction to the north and west (side) perimeter
landscape buffers from 5 feet to zero feet.
Proposed Use: Television/Radio Studio.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and North Myrtle Avenue Association (Tom Sehlhorst, 1010
Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-3699; email: None).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
The 1.1-acre subject property consists of two parcels located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of North Myrtle Avenue and Eldridge Street. Parcel I consists of 0.122 acre
(5,347.5 square-feet) of land area. Parcel II consists of 0.984 acre (42,863 square-feet) of lot
area. The property has 170.73 feet of frontage along North Myrtle Avenue and 293 feet of
frontage along Eldridge Street. The site had been developed with detached dwellings, but only
one remains. The detached dwelling straddles the property line of Parcel I (known as 706 North
Myrtle Avenue) and Parcel II (known as 704 North Myrtle Avenue). The building is oriented
toward North Myrtle Avenue and is situated along the north and east property lines to allow
parking on the south and west portions of the site near the AM radio tower. The building façade
is beige, accented by brown trim with decorative awnings covering the windows. The building
complies with all other Code requirements in the Commercial District.
Parcel I has a 130 square-foot accessory structure located in the rear yard and a large
brick paver patio that was installed with no approvals or permits. The brick paver patio appears
to be in compliance with current setback requirements. Parcel II was developed with a Radio
Tower that was approved for WTAN in February 2003. A twelve-foot diameter satellite dish also
exists on Parcel II.
The site has two driveways on North Myrtle Avenue and a single driveway on Eldridge
Street. There are approximately one dozen trees on the site. The site is surrounded by
residential and commercial uses, with a restaurant and attached dwellings to the west; detached
Community Development 2006-08-15 4
dwellings and a church to the south; a Problematic Use (pawn shop) and offices to the east; and
a non-residential off street parking lot to the north.
The proposal is to permit a Television/Radio Studio in the Commercial District. The
studio for WTAN radio, at 706 North Myrtle Avenue is adjacent to the existing WTAN radio tower
previously approved at 704 North Myrtle Avenue. The building is exclusive to the one tenant,
Wagenvoord Advertising Group, Inc. that owns and operates WTAN AM. WTAN’s radio studio
is a room in which a radio program or show is produced, either for live broadcast or for
recording for later broadcast. WTAN offers a 24-hour, seven day a week broadcast schedule
where its clients obtain half-an-hour or greater time slots.
The site design incorporates five requested parking spaces on the southern portion of
the property near the radio tower. Access to this parking area is from North Myrtle Avenue
and Eldridge Street. Additionally, two parking spaces exist in the driveway located directly in
front of the building with access from North Myrtle Avenue.
The request includes a deviation to allow the use of gravel, a non-permanent surface for
the drive aisle in the south parking area. Section 3-1403. Parking lot surfaces, states all
unenclosed parking lots, spaces, vehicular access ways and driveways shall be improved with a
permanent all-weather paving material which is graded to drain storm water. This deviation is
requested due to the location of the AM radio tower’s ground system that consists of more than
100 soft drawn #10 copper wires equally spaced and buried every three degrees approximately
six to twelve inches deep in the ground and extending to the property boundaries.
William Brown, of Bromo Communications, a broadcast technical consultant
recommends against paving over the ground system. He provided a technical review indicating
that unlike other telecommunication services, such as Television, Cellular, or FM Radio, the AM
ground system provides half of the duties of the AM antenna system and is of equal importance
as the tower. The paving over of the ground system will make maintenance virtually impossible.
He also noted that the paving could disrupt the relationship between the ground system and the
tower.
A concern with allowing a non-permanent surface for the drive aisle is the possibility of
the gravel entering the busy North Myrtle Avenue. Not only does gravel require more
maintenance to maintain a pleasing aesthetic than a permanent surface, but it also can become
a projectile when picked up by passing vehicles. Staff recommends that the drive aisle be
paved with a permanent surface from the rights-of-way to a minimum of ten feet inside the
property line to reduce the above-mentioned concerns.
The applicant proposes a reduction in parking from nine spaces to six spaces. The
applicant alleges the parking spaces are designed to minimum traffic congestion because there
is a very limited amount of traffic going to the radio tower and studio. They also indicate there
are no more than two to three cars at the radio station during a 24-hour period. The nature of
radio station broadcasting does not dictate the broadcasting occur from the same location as
the transmitter. WTAN indicates that broadcasting can occur through a variety of methods
including cellular telephones, thus allowing the station’s clients to take their shows off-site.
These off-site broadcasts reduce the impact and need for the parking at the station. Should the
use ever change, future tenants will need to verify similar business operations and parking
demand ratios to ensure adequate parking will be available on-site.
Community Development 2006-08-15 5
Due to the building, proposed parking area, and the AM tower’s grounding system
locations on the site, there is inadequate area to meet the required buffering provisions. The
applicant has provided a landscape buffer around the satellite dish through the utilization of
large planting pots. Given these circumstances, the requested flexibility in regard to buffer
widths is justified only by the inability to install landscaping due to the interference with the AM
tower’s grounding system. While not the preferred situation, staff support is based on the
modified buffering proposed.
The proposed impervious surface ratio is 13%, providing considerably greater pervious
areas than Code provisions allow. The proposed landscape buffer reductions and the flexibility
requested significantly improve the existing conditions and with the variety of uses and building
types in the immediate vicinity there are no established landscape buffer characteristics along
North Myrtle Avenue or Eldridge Street. The proposal otherwise is compatible with the scale,
bulk, coverage, and character of adjacent properties. The radio studio has the physical
appearance of a detached dwelling or an office building. Staff believes that the proposed radio
studio will enhance the appearance and value to the subject property as well as the immediate
area. The driveway improvement will create a uniform surface mitigating the possibility for
injury. The radio studio use of the property will make the immediate area safer. The design of
the radio studio will have little impact to traffic congestion and is not creating any adverse
effects to adjacent properties. There is an outstanding enforcement case (CDC2005-03187) for
a business called Wagenvoord Advertising Group (Television/Radio Studio), specifically for
operation of a broadcasting station in the Commercial Zoning District.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 1,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) The
subject 1.1-acre site is zoned Commercial District and is located in the Commercial General
(CG) Future Land Use Category; 2) The proposed reductions to landscape buffering and the
flexibility requested will upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance
of the immediate vicinity along this portion of North Myrtle Avenue; 3) The proposed reduction to
required parking is minimal, provided there is a restriction of use of the building; 4) The proposal
will upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance of the immediate
vicinity; 5) The proposed development is consistent and compatible in scale, bulk, coverage and
character with other commercial properties in the vicinity; and 6) There is an active code
enforcement case for the parcel. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is
consistent with the Flexible Development criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community
Development Code and 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the General
Applicability Criteria as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, staff recommends approval of the
Flexible Development approval to permit a radio studio in the Commercial District, as a
Comprehensive Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C. and a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development
Code; with: A non-permanent surface, gravel drive aisle; A parking reduction from nine spaces
(4/1,000 square-feet of gross floor area) to six spaces (3/1,000 square-feet of gross floor area);
A reduction to the east (front) perimeter landscape buffer of North Myrtle Avenue from 10 feet to
zero feet; A reduction to the south (front) perimeter landscape buffer of Eldridge Street from 10
feet to zero feet; and A reduction to the north and west (side) perimeter landscape buffers from
Community Development 2006-08-15 6
5 feet to zero feet for the property at 704-706 North Myrtle Avenue, with the following Conditions
of Approval: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title
with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application (09-29-15-65178-002-0040
and 09-29-15-00000-410-0900) must be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Department; 2) The final design and color of the building be consistent with the photographs
submitted to, or as modified by, the Community Development Board; 3) The final layout of the
site be consistent with the site plans submitted to, or as modified by, the Community
Development Board; 4) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the site plan be revised to
include drive aisles paved with a permanent surface from the rights-of-way to a minimum of ten
feet inside the property line; 5) The site plan be revised to include dimensions for the parking lot,
parking spaces, and drive aisles, prior to the issuance of any building permits; 6) Prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the site plan be revised to include a note indicating the non-
permanent surface, stone drive media be confined with defined edges so to promote a neat and
orderly appearance; 7) The site plan be revised to include a note indicating the non-permanent
surface, stone drive aisle be maintained to eliminate grass and weed growth, prior to the
issuance of any building permits; 8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all unused
drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in their entirety and the rights-of-way be
restored with new sidewalk and sod; 9) The site plan be revised to include a note indicating the
parking spaces shall be marked by 4-inch wide white painted lines, prior to the issuance of any
building permits; 10) The site plan be revised to include a 24 foot wide drive aisle for back out
maneuvers with the proposed 90 degree parking spaces, prior to the issuance of any building
permits; 11) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the site plan be revised to include the
current City standard handicapped parking space and sign detail plan; 12) The site plan be
revised to include an accessible route from the building's accessible entrance to a public
sidewalk and to handicapped parking space(s), prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The Accessible route shall be designed such that users are not compelled to walk or wheel
behind parked vehicles. Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction Chapter 11, Section
11-4.6.2; 13) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the ADA bathroom and ADA access
to building be addressed with the building department; 14) Provide two remote exits and the
installation of the proper number, size, and type of fire extinguishers by a licensed extinguisher
company, prior to the issuance of any building permits; 15) Prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the site plan be revised to include all landscaping, including trees; 16) Any/all signage
must meet 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; 17) All building permits
be applied for within 90 days of the Community Development Board approval (by November 15,
2007); and 18) The final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within six months of issuance of
the first building permit.
See page 15 for motion to approve.
Community Development 2006-08-15 7
3. Case: FLD2006-04026 – 2166 Palmetto Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Progress Energy, Michael Carter.
Representative: Christopher Wilson. (15500 Lightwave Drive, Suite 100, Clearwater, FL
33760 phone: 524-6000; fax: 727-524-6998; email: cwilson@themurraycompany.com).
Location: This property of 14.2 acres is located at the southwest corner of Palmetto
Street and Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 271B.
Zoning District: Industrial Research & Technology (IRT) District.
Request: Flexible Development Approval to redevelop an existing Progress Energy facility
(office/storage/vehicle service), in the Industrial Research & Technology District, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-113.C. and a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the
Community Development Code; with: 1) A side (west) setback reduction from ten to zero feet to
existing pavement along the palmetto street entrance; 2) A side (east) setback reduction from
ten to zero feet to existing pavement along the Palmetto Street entrance; 3) A front (north)
setback reduction from 20 to 10 feet to pavement; 4) Allowance for a chain link fence six feet in
height with barbed wire facing out to be permitted in front of the principle structure, 5) A
reduction to the west (side) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet; 6) A reduction to
the east (side) perimeter landscape buffer of the Palmetto access road from 5 feet to zero feet;
and 7) A reduction to the south (side) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet.
Proposed Use: Office/Storage/Vehicle Service.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
The 14.106-acre site is located at the southwest corner of Palmetto Street and Belcher
Road. North Belcher Road is a heavily traveled, four-lane divided roadway. The east side of
North Belcher Road is residentially developed with single-family detached dwellings. The west
side of North Belcher Road is developed industrially. The site is developed with office,
warehouse storage, and vehicle service buildings. Under BCP2005-09432, the site was
redeveloped with a fleet services building, allowing required maintenance to equipment and
vehicles. Additionally, permits have been issued for the demolition of building C under
BCP2006-06166 and building D under BCP2006-01477. The site also has been constructed
with Progress Energy’s Information Technology and Telecommunication (ITT) hut (constructed
under BCP2006-06812) to allow for the relocation of the telecommunication from the building
proposed for demolition.
The combined redevelopment of the entire Progress Energy site has exceeded the 25%
improvement requirements of Section 3-1401.B.3 (parking) and Section 3-1202.A.3
(landscaping) and requires that all parking and landscaping be brought into full compliance with
the Code. According to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office, the value of the site
improvement equals $1,846,454 and 25% of this valuation is $461,613.
The proposal includes the construction of a single story, 12,700 square-foot
administration building to replace two existing office buildings (B and E). This building will be
oriented to the eastern property line facing Belcher Road. It will be constructed in the eastern
half of the footprint of building E. The remaining area will remain open space and be grassed
until future expansion needs arise. The proposed building complies with all Code requirements.
Community Development 2006-08-15 8
Included is a reduction to the side (west) setback from ten to zero feet to existing
pavement along the Palmetto Street entrance. This reduction is for approximately 1,266 lineal
feet of existing paved drive aisle and outdoor storage area along the entire width of the western
property line used by Progress Energy as their main entrance for Commercial vehicles. Also
included is a reduction to the west (side) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet,
once again to existing pavement utilized as a drive aisle and outdoor storage area.
The proposal includes a side (east) setback reduction from ten to zero feet to existing
pavement and a reduction to the east (side) perimeter landscape buffer of the Palmetto access
road from 5 feet to zero feet. This reduction is for approximately 250 lineal feet of existing drive
aisle utilized as Progress Energy’s main commercial vehicle entrance.
The applicant has expressed that this is the primary entrance for their large commercial
vehicles and that narrowing it to bring it into compliance with the above-mentioned setbacks and
landscape buffers will prove to be more of a hindrance than improvement to their daily
operations with regards to the ease of accessibility to and from the site.
Included in the proposal is a front (north) setback reduction from 20 to 10 feet to
pavement. This setback to pavement exists at less than 10 feet. Any pavement in the first ten
feet of the property will be removed in an effort to meet the landscape buffer requirement along
Range Road. This improvement will greatly enhance the property and the immediate vicinity
along Range Road.
The proposal includes a reduction to the south (side) perimeter landscape buffer from 5
feet to zero feet. This reduction is for approximately 300 lineal feet as measured from the east
property line at Belcher Road heading to the west along the property line shared with Hercules
Hydraulics. The remainder of the south property line will meet the five foot landscape buffer and
will be utilized to screen headlights from vehicles parking in one of the newly proposed parking
areas.
A six-foot tall, galvanized chain link fence currently is located along the perimeter of the
property. This fence is topped with barbwire to provide additional protection to the equipment
and materials stored outdoors. The majority of the fence is rusting and very unattractive.
Included in the proposal is an allowance for a black or green vinyl coated chain link
fence six feet in height to be permitted in front of the principle structure. Code Section 3-805
requires chain link fences to be located on a parcel to the rear of the front building line of the
principal building(s). Due to the nature of Progress Energy’s outdoor storage usage of the site
makes this impractical. The replacement of the aging chain link fence with an attractive vinyl
coated chain link fence with appropriate landscaping buffering will be a highly visible
improvement to the parcel.
Additionally, the proposal includes allowance for the barbwire to face out instead of in,
as required per Section 3-802.E. According to Progress Energy’s Corporate Security Fence
Guidelines the fence shall have a three-strand barbwire top guard facing outward at a 45-
degree angle to serve as a structural barrier for the protection of physical assets and personnel.
An additional function of fencing is to provide a psychological deterrent to criminal behavior
especially with regards to crimes of opportunity. Using a fence as the physical demarcation of
Progress Energy property helps to limit trespassing and may help to channel the flow of
Community Development 2006-08-15 9
authorized traffic through entrances. Staff believes the direction of the barbwire along the street
rights-of-way will have little impact to the visual impact to the neighboring non-residential
properties and not overhang the property lines. The barbwire along the adjacent properties will
overhang onto neighboring properties and is not allowable. Staff recommends conditional
approval for the barbed wire to face outward as long as it does not protrude over any property
lines.
The development 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 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-113.C) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated
with this site.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 29,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) The
subject 14.106 acres is zoned Industrial, Research and Technology District (IRT); 2) The
proposed redevelopment exceeds the 25% improvement requirement ($461,613) of the Code at
$5,000,000; 3) The proposed reductions to landscape buffering and the flexibility requested will
upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity
along this portion of North Belcher Road; 4) The proposal will upgrade and enhance the
community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity; 5) The proposed
development is consistent and compatible in scale, bulk, coverage and character with other
commercial properties in the vicinity; and 6) There are no active code enforcement issues
associated with this parcel. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project per Section 2-803.C; 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 staff recommends approval of this application.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development Approval to redevelop an existing Progress Energy facility (office/storage/vehicle
service), in the Industrial Research & Technology District, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C. and a Comprehensive
Landscape Program pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; with:
A side (west) setback reduction from ten to zero feet to existing pavement along the palmetto
street entrance; A side (east) setback reduction from ten to zero feet to existing pavement along
the palmetto street entrance; A front (north) setback reduction from 20 to 10 feet to pavement;
Allowance for a chain link fence six feet in height with barbed wire facing out to be permitted in
front of the principle structure; A reduction to the west (side) perimeter landscape buffer of the
Palmetto access road from 5 feet to zero feet; A reduction to the east (side) perimeter
landscape buffer of the Palmetto access road from 5 feet to zero feet; A reduction to the south
(side) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet; and A reduction to the south (side)
perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet for the property at 2166 Palmetto Street, with
the following Conditions of Approval: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire
Department conditions must be addressed; 2) All Traffic Engineering conditions must be
addressed prior to the issuance of any building permits; 3) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy, any required Transportation Impact Fees are paid; 4) The final design and color
of the building be consistent with the building elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the
Community Development 2006-08-15 10
Community Development Board; 5) The final layout of the site be consistent with the site plans
submitted to, or as modified by, the Community Development Board; 6) Prior to the issuance of
any building permits, provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist,
consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan
must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root
zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how the development proposes to address these
impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on
this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or
in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail and any other pertinent
information relating to tree preservation; 7) Relocate the Fire Department Connection (FDC)
from under the canopies of the 5- and 10-inch pine trees located east of the Fleet Services
building prior to the issuance of any building permits; 8) The City of Clearwater, at the
applicant's expense, will remove/relocate any/all water meters that have to be relocated as part
of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any
impervious areas.); 9) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: If the applicant prefers not
to install the required sidewalk, the applicant will be required to make a payment in lieu for
sidewalk: 906 feet (sidewalk length) X 5 feet (wide) = 4,530 square-feet (Belcher Road) and 601
feet (sidewalk length) X 4 feet (wide) = 2,404 square-feet (Range Road) for a total of 6,934
square feet X $6.87 (based on annual sidewalk contract) = $47,636.58, pursuant to Community
Development Code Section 3-1701; 10) Pursuant to Section 3-1204.D all landscaping must be
protected from vehicular and pedestrian traffic by the installation of curbing and wheel stops, or
other protective devices along the perimeter of any landscaping which adjoins vehicular use
areas and sidewalks. These protective devices shall have a minimum height of six inches
above grade; 11) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, revise the landscape plan to
show 100% coverage in the required 15 and 10 foot landscape buffers along Belcher and
Range roads. Also, revise the landscape planting schedule as needed; 12) Landscaping is
required along the perimeter of any/all chain link fence even when internal to the site; 13) The
final design of the landscaping be installed and maintained consistent with the landscape plan
submitted to, or as modified by, the Community Development Board; 14) Prior to issuance of a
building permit, provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water
Management District) permit or letter of exemption; 15) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
provide a stage storage chart to show that the proposed retention pond can hold the increased
volume shown in the drainage calculations; 16) Prior to issuance of a building permit, revise site
plans to show location of solid waste services on site plan (3 – 8 yard dumpster with
enclosures); 17) Relocation of the communication tower will require separate approval; 18) The
removal or relocation of the metal shed located at the corner of Range Road and Belcher Road,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 19) All proposed chain link fence be black or
green vinyl coated; 20) All proposed barb wire be faced inward unless installed so as to not
overhang a property line; 21) All building permits be applied for within one year of the
Community Development Board approval (by August 15, 2007); and 22) The final Certificate of
Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
See page 15 for motion to approve.
Community Development 2006-08-15 11
4. Case: ANX2006-05019 – 1885 CR 193 Level Three Application
Owner: Cary & Donna Linkfield (1885 CR 193, Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-
251-0999).
Location: A 2.61-acre parcel of land located on the east side of CR 193 approximately
500 feet from the intersection of Sunset Point Road and CR 193.
Atlas Page: 264B.
Request:
a) Annexation of 2.61 acres 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 A-E, Agricultural Estate 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: Mike Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
The subject property is located on the east side of CR 193, approximately 500 feet south
of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and CR 193. 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. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the
City. The subject site is approximately 2.61 acres 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). 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 its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) annexation
of 2.61 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to
the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 15 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-08-15 12
5. Case: ANX2006-05017 – 3012 Tennessee Avenue Level Three Application
Owner: Robert Fortunato (3008 Tennessee, Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-797-
3083).
Location: A 0.147-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Tennessee Avenue,
approximately 180 feet west of Meadow Lark Lane.
Atlas Page: 292A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.147 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to
Residential Urban (RU) 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: Vacant Lot.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.147-acre property and 0.07-acre of right-of-way consisting
of one parcel, located on the north side of Tennessee Avenue, approximately 175 feet west of
Meadow Lark Lane. The property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the south and
east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with
regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting Tennessee Avenue right-of-way
not currently within City limits also be annexed at this time. The applicant is requesting this
annexation in order to combine two lots under a single jurisdiction. The property owner has
purchased the lot next door and intends to use it as garden/open space to increase his property
size. There are no intentions at this time to develop the property. It is proposed that the
property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning
category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). 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 its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval: 1) annexation of
0.147-acres of property and 0.07-acres of abutting Tennessee Avenue right-of-way to the City of
Clearwater; 2) Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community
Development Code.
See page 15 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-08-15 13
6. Case: LUZ2006-04002 – 1101 Howard Street Level Three Application
Owner: Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (608 N Garden Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33755; Telephone 727-442-4155).
Representative: E.J. Robinson.
Location: 0.481 acre at the southeast corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and
Howard Street.
Atlas Page: 314A
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Commercial General (CG) Category to the
Residential Urban (RU) Category and
b) Rezoning from the Commercial (C) District to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Proposed Use: Four single-family detached dwellings.
Type of Amendment: Small Scale.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one
parcel of land, approximately 0.476 acre in area located on the southeast corner of Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue and Howard Street. The site is currently vacant. The site has a FLUP
designation of Commercial General (CG) and is within the Commercial (C) District. The
applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential Urban (RU)
classification and to rezone it to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District in which single-
family detached dwellings are a permitted use.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority.
Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not
guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be
met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Commercial General (CG) category to the
Residential Urban (RU) category and a rezoning from the Commercial (C) District to the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District for the subject site is requested. This 0.476-acre site
exceeds the minimum requirements for the Medium Density Residential District and the
proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing
neighborhood, which consists of single-family residential dwellings to the south and west, office
uses to the east, and open-space/recreational uses to the north. The proposed changes are in
conformance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Commercial General (CG) Classification to the Residential Urban (RU)
Classification and 2) Rezoning from the Commercial (C) District to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District.
Community Development 2006-08-15 14
Member Coates moved to approve Item D1, Case: FLD2006-05031 for 1791 Sherwood
Street based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Conditions
of Approval as listed; Item D2, Case: FLD2005-08083 for 704-706 Myrtle Avenue, based on the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Conditions of Approval as listed;
and Item D3, Case: FLD2006-04026 for 2166 Palmetto Street, based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Conditions of Approval as listed; and recommend
approval of Item D4, Case: ANX2006-05019 for 1885 CR 193, based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D5, Case: ANX2006-05017 for 3012 Tennessee
Avenue, based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; and Item D6,
Case: LUZ2006-04002 for 1101 Howard Street, based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
motion carried
Law, and the staff report. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
F. CONTINUED ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-11114 – 1401 Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street
(Continued from June 20, 2006)
Owner/Applicant: Douglas Birch, LBR Holdings, III, LLC. (1401 Court Street, Clearwater,
FL 33756; phone: 727-446-3058; fax: 727-441-1499).
Location: 0.681 acre located on the east side of South Hillcrest Avenue, between Court
and Rogers streets.
Atlas Pages: 297A.
Zoning District: Office (O) District; and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development Application to reduce the south (rear) setback from 20 feet to 10
feet within the Office (O) District, pursuant to Section 2-1003.F of the Community Development
Code; and to allow non-residential off-street parking within the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District with deviations to the south (front) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and west
(front) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet; and to allow the encroachment of a drive aisle within the
required sight visibility triangles along South Hillcrest Avenue as a Residential Infill Project
pursuant to Sections 2-204.C and E of the Community Development Code; with a reduction to
the east (side) perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to 10 feet as part of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Office and Non-Residential Off-Street Parking.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III
Member Tallman moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. This item originally was scheduled for
the CDB meeting of June 20, 2006. However, prior to that date, the applicant requested the
item be continued to July 18, 2006. Two citizens expressed concern that the item could be
continued again (from the meeting of July 18, 2006) and stated that they had gone through
significant effort to be present. The citizens requested that if the item was to be continued, that
it be continued to August 15, 2006.
Community Development 2006-08-15 15
The CDB discussed the issues raised by the citizens and recommended that the
continuance include a condition requiring the applicant to contact the concerned citizens
regarding their concerns. Subsequently, the Board approved a continuance to August 15, 2006,
with the aforementioned condition. The applicant has had discussions with those concerned
citizens as required by the Board; however no consensus was reached in regard to the
development proposal.
The subject properties, which total approximately 0.681 acre, are located on the east
side of South Hillcrest Avenue, between Court and Rogers streets. The northernmost property
is within the Office (O) District and consists of a two-story office building with accessory surface
parking. The southernmost property is within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District and presently is vacant; however the parcel previously consisted of a single-family
detached dwelling. The surrounding area consists of offices and single-family detached
dwellings, as well as a City Park that is presently under construction.
The development proposal is twofold. The first part involves a parcel of land located
within the Office (O) District and consists of the following improvements: 1) Construction of a
second story addition to an existing office building; 2) A partial reconfiguration of an existing
surface parking lot; 3) Closure of an existing curb cut along South Hillcrest Avenue; and 4)
Elimination of an existing refuse enclosure at the southeast corner of the parcel.
The second part involves and abutting parcel of land located within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District and consists of the following improvements: 1) Construction
of a non-residential off-street parking lot; 2) Construction of a refuse enclosure at the south end
of the parcel; 3) Construction of a three-foot high screen wall; and 4) Installation of associated
landscaping.
Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum allowable FAR (Floor
Area Ratio) for properties with a designation of Residential/Office General is 0.5. As such, the
maximum development potential of the 0.506-acre northernmost parcel is 11,020.68 square-
feet. With construction of the proposed addition, the building will be 10,553 square-feet in size,
which results in a FAR of 0.47. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent
with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable FAR.
Pursuant to Section 2-1002 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable height for an office use within the Office (O) District is 30 feet. The height of the
existing office building measures approximately 24 feet to the roof deck and the proposed
addition will be constructed to match this existing height. Therefore, based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 2-1002 of the Community
Development Code.
Pursuant to Section 2-1002 of the Code, parking is required to be provided at a rate of 3
spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for office uses. Based upon the above, the
proposed 10,553 square-foot office requires 32 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 34
parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking
requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Code, all outside mechanical equipment shall be
screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. A sight line study
Community Development 2006-08-15 16
has been provided with regard to the visibility of the proposed mechanical equipment from the
Rogers Street right-of-way, and said study depicts that the mechanical equipment will not be
visible from the right-of-way; however the issue of visibility remains with regard to the South
Hillcrest Avenue right-of-way. As such, it is attached as a condition of approval that a sight line
study indicating the mechanical equipment will not be visible from the South Hillcrest Avenue
right-of-way must be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Order, or that the plans
must be revised to include the screening of the proposed mechanical equipment. In the event
that the proposed mechanical equipment will be visible from the South Hillcrest Avenue right-of-
way or any other adjacent right-of-way or property, adequate screening of the equipment will be
required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the 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 north/south drive aisle within the proposed non-residential off-street parking lot
will encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles on the north and south sides of the
driveway connecting this drive aisle to the adjacent South Hillcrest Avenue.
The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing a right-of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a
clear and unobstructed view of one another. The proposed encroachment of the drive aisle
upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in a conflict with this intent as the vehicles within
the encroaching drive aisle will be the very thing those vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing
the right-of-way are attempting to see. Further, those vehicles stopped at the stop bar while
leaving the site will not have their clear and unobstructed view of vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing the right-of-way impacted by any vehicle within the drive aisle as such vehicle would
be located to the rear of the vehicle leaving the site.
Granting the requested encroachment upon the sight visibility triangles 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 allowing
encroachments within the sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the
Community Development Code.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the 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. It is attached as a condition of approval that all
on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are placed underground as part of
the redevelopment of the site and that a notation to this effect is provided on the site plan prior
to the issuance of any building permits.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Code, a 12-foot wide landscape buffer consisting
of one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required along the eastern perimeter of
the parcel consisting of the proposed non-residential off-street parking lot. As proposed, the
landscape plan includes a ten-foot wide buffer along the eastern perimeter and does not provide
for 100% shrub coverage.
Community Development 2006-08-15 17
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Code, the landscaping requirements contained
within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive
Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria.
The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with
all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the perimeters of the
proposed non-residential off-street parking lot retains numerous existing mature trees and
proposes to plant additional trees in excess of the minimum requirements. Further, ample
groundcovers/shrubs are proposed along these perimeters consistent with the requirements of
Code. As noted previously, 100% shrub coverage along the eastern perimeter is not proposed,
due to two issues: the root systems of existing trees make it difficult if not impossible to fully
plant the buffer area, and the need to provide maintenance access to those plantings that can
be provided. However, there are some locations along this buffer area that are not impacted by
the existing root systems and would not compromise maintenance access that could be
provided with additional groundcovers/shrubs, specifically along the eastern façade of the
proposed screen wall. The provision of groundcovers/shrubs in these locations is attached as a
condition of approval to be addressed prior to the issuance of a Development Order. Based
upon the above and subject to the attached condition being addressed, positive findings can be
made with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-1102.A.8 of the Code, the landscape plan shall
include the location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing landscape
materials. Previous versions of the proposed landscape plan included this information; however
the most recent submittal does not. It has been attached as a condition of approval that a
revised landscape plan including this information must be provided prior to the issuance of a
Development Order.
It is noted further that the development proposal will create areas of excess pavement
that could be cut out to provide additional landscape buffer to the adjacent single-family
detached dwellings and along South Hillcrest Avenue. These areas specifically exist as follows:
along the south side of the one-way drive aisle lying east of the angled parking and adjacent to
the westernmost angled parking space. It is attached as a condition of approval that a revised
landscape plan eliminating these areas of excess pavement must be provided prior to the
issuance of a Development Order.
The development proposal includes the elimination of the existing refuse enclosure
located on the northernmost parcel within the subject property and the construction of a new 12-
foot by 10-foot refuse enclosure at the south end of the southernmost parcel. 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.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 4,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) That the
subject properties total approximately 0.681 acre and are located on the east side of South
Hillcrest Avenue, between Court and Rogers streets; 2) That the northernmost property is
Community Development 2006-08-15 18
located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use
Plan category; 3) That the southernmost property is located within the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan category; 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. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the encroachment of the
north/south drive aisle upon the sight visibility triangles along South Hillcrest Avenue will not
result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere
under similar circumstances; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as per Sections 2-204 and 2-1003 of the Community Development Code; 3) That
the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-204.C., 2-
204.E. and 2-1003.F. of the Community Development Code; 4) That the development proposal
is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the
Community Development Code; and 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development Application to reduce the south (rear) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet within the
Office (O) District, pursuant to Section 2-1003.F of the Community Development Code; and to
allow non-residential off-street parking within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District with deviations to the south (front) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and west (front)
setback from 25 feet to 10 feet; and to allow the encroachment of a drive aisle within the
required sight visibility triangles along South Hillcrest Avenue as a Residential Infill Project,
pursuant to Sections 2-204.C and E of the Community Development Code with the following
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the plans must be
revised to include a detail (i.e. elevation) of the three-foot high buffer wall with adequate
information as to its appearance; 2) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the
landscape plan must be revised to provide additional groundcovers/shrubs adjacent to the east
façade of the screen wall where not impacted by the existing root systems and not
compromising maintenance access; 3) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the
landscape plan must be revised to include the location, size, description, specifications and
quantities of all existing landscape materials; 4) That prior to the issuance of a Development
Order, the areas of excess pavement along the south side of the one-way drive aisle lying east
of the angled parking, and adjacent to the westernmost angled parking space must be
eliminated and incorporated into the adjacent landscape areas; 5) That prior to the issuance of a
Development Order, a sight line study must be provided indicating the mechanical equipment
will not be visible from the South Hillcrest Avenue right-of-way, or that the plans must be revised
to include the adequate screening of the mechanical equipment; 6) That prior to the issuance of
any building permits, all Fire Department conditions must be addressed; 7) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, a tree preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist,
consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture must be
provided. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities
impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to
address these impacts (i.e. crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems). Other
data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of
the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), the tree barricade detail, and any other
pertinent information relating to tree preservation; 8) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in
Community Development 2006-08-15 19
the application (14-29-15-10854-005-0080 and 14-29-15-10854-005-0110) must be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Department; 9) That prior to the issuance of any building permits,
a notation must be provided on the site plan stating that all existing and proposed on-site utility
facilities will be placed underground; 10) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
copy of an approved right-of-way permit from FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) for
work in the Court Street/S.R. 60 right-of-way must be provided; 11) That prior to the issuance of
any building permits, a copy of the approved SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management
District) permit must be provided; 12) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
storm vault must be revised such that storm water volume is stored in a vault or enlarged pipe
system but not in the voids of a gravel bed. As the vault has no positive outfall it is to be
designed for a 50-year storm event with a 1-hour time of concentration. The high water level in
the vault is to designed to provide 6 inches of freeboard; 13) That prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, must
be placed underground; 14) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any
required Transportation Impact Fees must be paid; 15) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy, all utility equipment, including but not limited to electrical and water meters, must
be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as
applicable; 16) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, adequate screening of
the mechanical equipment must be provided in the event that said mechanical equipment is
visible from any adjacent right-of-way or property; 17) That the final design and color of the
building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the
CDB, and be approved by staff; 18) 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; 19) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed
concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened
from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 20)
That any/all future signage must meet 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;
21) That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of the Community
Development Board approval (by August 15, 2007); and 22) That the final Certificate of
Occupancy must be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Ed Armstrong, representative, agreed with staff’s conclusions that the proposal is
consistent with all Code criteria. He said the parking lot is designed to minimize impacts on the
residential neighborhood. He said the applicant had met with neighbors to ease their concerns.
He reported that property owners across the street from and abutting the subject property had
submitted letters of support.
Three people spoke in opposition to the request.
Community Development 2006-08-15 20
Mr. Tefft reviewed a previously denied request for commercial parking on Rogers Street.
That request was in the center of the residential neighborhood and would have eliminated
backyards from two houses, reducing lot sizes to smaller than allowed by Code.
Mr. Armstrong said a speaker had not submitted proof that he represented others. He
said the parking lot will be oriented in the same direction as the razed house.
Discussion ensued. Opposition was expressed to commercializing Rogers Street. It
was felt the project would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-11114 for 1401
Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
motion
the staff report, with Conditions of Approval as listed. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously.
G. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2006-03015 – 657-663 Bay Esplanade
Owner/Applicant: Anthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.348 acre located on the south side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 200 feet
east of Poinsettia Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval of 13 attached dwelling units in the Tourist (T) District
as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-803.C of the
Community Development Code in association with a previously approved Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR2005-03019) of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive under
the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the Community Development Code with: 1) A
reduction to the minimum parking requirement from 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit to 1.84
parking spaces per dwelling unit; 2) A reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to four
feet (to pavement) and two feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback
from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 1.5
feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to
pool deck), eight feet (to pool) and 10 feet (to building); 3) A deviation to allow four parking
spaces within the required sight visibility triangles along Bay Esplanade; and 4) A Termination of
Status of Nonconformity for density (11 existing attached dwelling units to remain where a
maximum of 10 attached dwelling units would be permitted under the current Code) under the
provisions of Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Community Development 2006-08-15 21
Member Johnson moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. The 0.348-acre subject property is located on the south
side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 200 feet east of Poinsettia Avenue with a zoning
designation of Tourist (T) District and an underlying compatible Future Land Use Plan category
of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The subject property also is located within the boundaries of
the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Old Florida” District.
According to City records, the property at 657 Bay Esplanade presently consists of
seven rental apartments (Sea Chest Inn), while the property at 663 Bay Esplanade consists of
four rental apartments. Combined, the site consists of two single-story buildings and one split-
level building with back-out parking into the Bay Esplanade right-of-way. The immediate vicinity
is composed almost entirely of attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single-family
dwellings farther to the north.
It is noted that at its meeting of November 15, 2005, the CDB approved a development
proposal on the subject property similar to that which is presently before the Board. Other than
minor changes to the architectural elevations of the building, the only difference of note is an
increased building height from 59.66 feet to 65 feet.
The increase in building height to 65 feet is linked to those revisions made to Beach by
Design and approved by the City Council on March 16, 2006, which, among other things, allows
the subject property a maximum building height of 65 feet. In addition to revisions made to
Beach by Design, amendments also have been made to the City’s Community Development
Code. Of these amendments, the one of most significance with regard to this development
proposal is the increase to the minimum parking requirement for attached dwellings, which is
now at 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit in contrast to the previous standard of 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit.
Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable density for attached dwellings within the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use
category is 30 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the 0.348-acre subject property is permitted a
maximum of 10 attached dwelling units; however the development proposal submitted is for 13
attached dwelling units.
It is noted that the density of the subject property is presently nonconforming with 11
attached dwelling units and further that the applicant has submitted an application for
Termination of Status of Nonconformity to retain the excess density. In addition, the applicant
has a previous approval for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) of two dwelling units to the
subject property from 116 Brightwater Drive. Thus, with the terminated density of 11 attached
dwelling units and the transfer of two dwelling units from off-site, the development proposal
would achieve the submitted 13 attached dwelling units.
Pursuant to Section 2-803 of the Community Development Code, attached dwellings are
required to provide a front setback of 0-15 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback
of 10-20 feet. Deviations have been requested to reduce the front (north) setback to two feet
and the side (west) setback to 1.5 feet to accommodate the refuse staging area; and to the side
Community Development 2006-08-15 22
(east) and rear (south) setbacks to zero feet to accommodate the deck associated with the
swimming pool. With regard to the reductions associated with the refuse staging area, these
are necessary in order to accommodate this type of facility and are therefore supportable. It is
noted, however, that this reduction also will allow for the required off-street parking spaces to be
set back between four and five feet from the north property line. These parking spaces will be
screened from view from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way by perimeter landscape areas. With
regard to the reductions to the rear (south) and side (east) setbacks the reduced area for the
deck will constitute approximately 27.7% of the rear yard 22.5% of the side yard and similar
reductions have been approved in the past.
Pursuant to Section 2-803 of the Code and at the determination of the Community
Development Coordinator, off-street parking is required to be provided at a rate of 2.0 parking
spaces per attached dwelling unit. The development proposal consists of 13 attached dwelling
units and therefore requires 26 parking spaces; however only 24 parking spaces have been
proposed – a rate of 1.84 parking spaces per attached dwelling unit. Based upon the above,
the development proposal does not comply with the requirement of this Section, which is a
sufficient ground for denial of the proposal.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Code, at street or driveway intersections, no structure
or landscaping may be installed within the sight visibility triangles that will obstruct views at a
level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. The development proposal
includes the provision of six parking spaces within various sight visibility triangles along Bay
Esplanade. While the parking spaces themselves will not encroach into the sight visibility
triangle in a manner conflicting with Section 3-904.A., when the parking spaces are in use, the
visibility will be impacted and the sight visibility triangles reduced from 20 feet to approximately
five feet. The applicant has requested that the sight visibility triangles are reduced accordingly.
Granting the requested reduction to the dimensions of the sight visibility triangles will not
adversely affect the neighboring areas or diminish the provision of public facilities. Further,
when the sight visibility triangles are measured from the typical position of the driver in the
vehicle to the edge of pavement for Bay Esplanade, 22-foot sight visibility triangles will exist.
Granting the reductions will not result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions
have been approved elsewhere under similar circumstances (as well as previously on the
subject property). 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 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. Therefore, all on-site utility facilities, whether
they be existing or proposed, must be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the
site and a notation to this effect would need to be provided on the site plan.
The previous approval on the subject property included a TDR (Transfer of Development
Rights) of two attached dwelling units from the property at 116 Brightwater Drive. Pursuant to
Section 4-407 of the Code, transfers of development rights are exempt from the provisions of
the Code pertaining to expirations of approval; thus it is not necessary for the TDR to be
included in the request presently before the Board. However, the following analysis has been
provided: Pursuant to Section 4-1402 of the Community Development Code, parcels governed
Community Development 2006-08-15 23
by a special area plan, such as Beach by Design, may only receive residential density transfers
from parcels within the same special area plan and may not exceed the otherwise applicable
maximum density by more than 20%. Based upon the above, the subject property can receive
a TDR for a maximum of two dwelling units. The previously approved TDR transferred two
dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive, which is located within the Beach by Design special
area plan, the same as the subject property. With regard to the property at 116 Brightwater, a
maximum of 10 attached dwelling units are possible on-site and the site recently had been
developed with six attached dwellings; therefore four excess dwelling units were available for
transfer.
The applicant is not proposing any signage with this development proposal. Any future
signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The
development proposal includes the provision of a “trash room” toward the center of the building
and a 10-foot by 10-foot trash/recycling staging area at the northwest corner of the property.
On March 16, 2006, the City Council approved Ordinance 7546-06, which amended
Beach by Design by, among other things, revising the uses, building heights, stepbacks, and
setbacks in the “Old Florida” District. The subject property is located within the “Old Florida”
District, which is defined as “an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the
low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street.” Within the “Old Florida”
District, Beach by Design supports the development of new attached dwellings provided that
such development is consistent with the enhanced site design performance standards set forth
therein.
Those buildings located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum building height of 35 feet; whereas buildings located on the south side of Somerset
Street and within 60 feet of its southerly right-of-way line shall be permitted a maximum building
height of 50 feet; and those properties elsewhere throughout the remainder of the “Old Florida”
District shall be permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet for attached dwellings and 75
feet for overnight accommodations. The subject property is located on neither the north side of
Somerset Street nor within 60 feet of the south side of Somerset Street; thus the maximum
building height allowable is 65 feet, which the proposed building meets.
Except for those properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a 15-foot front building
setback and 10-foot side/rear building setbacks are required for all properties throughout the
District. The development proposal exceeds the required front (north) building setback with a
proposed 23 feet to building. Also, the required side (east/west) and rear (south) building
setbacks are met with a proposed 10 feet to building.
As the subject property fronts on an east/west running portion of Bay Esplanade, which
has a right-of-way width of 60 feet, a building stepback on the front side of the building of 12 feet
is required. However, the performance standards include a provision that enables the building
stepbacks to be decreased at a rate of two feet per one foot of building setback in excess of the
requirement. As the building is set back eight feet farther than otherwise required, this would
enable a 16-foot reduction to the building stepback. Therefore, by setting back the building
eight feet farther than required (for a total setback of 23 feet), the 12-foot building stepback is
not necessary. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Community Development 2006-08-15 24
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 4,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.348-acre subject property is located within the Tourist (T)
District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject
property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the
“Old Florida” District; 3) That according to the City’s occupational license records, the subject
properties are developed currently with a total of 11 attached dwelling units; 4) That the subject
property has a maximum permissible density of 10 dwelling units (30 dwelling units per acre); 5)
That the proposed building height is 65 feet as measured from base flood elevation to roof deck;
6) That the proposed 13 attached dwelling units require a total of 26 parking spaces as per
Section 2-803 of the Community Development Code and that only 24 parking spaces have been
proposed; and 7) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with the subject property.
AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexible
Development standards set forth in Section 2-803 of the Community Development Code and
determined by the Community Development Coordinator as the proposal does not meet the
minimum off-street parking requirement for attached dwellings; 2) That the development
proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria as set forth in
Section 2-803.C of the Community Development Code as the proposal does not met the
minimum off-street parking requirement for attached dwellings; 3) That the development
proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as set forth in Section 3-913.A of the
Community Development Code; 4) That the previously approved Transfer of Development
Rights of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive is exempt from the expiration provisions
of Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, and its use in conjunction with the
subject development proposal is valid; and 5) That the development proposal is consistent with
the Termination of Status of Nonconformity criteria as set forth in Section 6-109 of the
Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible
Development request for 13 attached dwelling units in the Tourist (T) District as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-803.C of the Community
Development Code in association with a previously approved Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR2005-03019) of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive under the provisions of
Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the Community Development Code with a reduction to the
minimum parking requirement for attached dwellings from 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit
to 1.84 parking spaces per dwelling unit; a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to
four feet (to pavement) and two feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10
feet to 1.5 feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to
zero feet (to pool deck), eight feet (to pool) and 10 feet (to building); a deviation to allow six
parking spaces within the required sight visibility triangles along Bay Esplanade; and a
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (11 existing attached dwelling units to remain
where a maximum of 10 attached dwelling units would be permitted under the current Code)
under the provisions of Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said every item in the request is consistent with the
plan previously approved by the CDB. Since approval, the Code was amended to allow
increased building heights. He said the applicant has requested an additional five feet in height
Community Development 2006-08-15 25
to increase unit ceiling heights. He said the project almost meets new requirements for two
parking spaces per unit. He said the project could be constructed as approved, with 1.84
parking spaces per unit, but requested the additional height to enhance aesthetics.
In response to questions, Mr. Ghovaee said 1.5 parking spaces per unit were required
when the original application, submitted approximately one year ago, was approved in
November 2005. Mr. Delk said this first reapplication since the Code was changed is subject to
current standards.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that the project would overdevelop the
parcel. It was felt the project will enhance the neighborhood and changes will result in a more
attractive structure. It was stated that the project is caught between changes to the Code.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item G1, Case: FLD2006-03015 for 657-663 Bay
Esplanade based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with
exceptions: 1) Project is consistent with standards for parking spaces; 2) The development or
redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without
deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; 3) Flexibility in regard to lot
width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community
character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole; and 4) Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to
the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking
motion
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The was duly
seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding conditions of approval. Mr. Ghovaee requested that the
item be finalized today and agreed to accept the original application’s conditions of approval.
He said if staff recommends changes, the CDB could review them next month.
Member Johnson moved to amend his motion to include Conditions of Approval: 1) That
prior to the issuance of any building permits all Parks and Recreation fees need to be paid; 2)
That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a landscape plan is submitted that is
acceptable to Planning Department staff; 3) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, any/all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 4) That all applicable
requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 5) 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; 6) That all proposed utilities (from the
right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground; 7) That conduit for the future
undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way is installed along the subject
property’s entire street frontage prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and that the
applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected
utility providers (i.e. electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of
conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior
to the commencement of work; 8) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the
issuance of any permits; 9) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the
issuance of any permits; 10) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to
attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building 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
Community Development 2006-08-15 26
.
.
.
permits which includes; 11) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the
same color and font style and size; 12) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials
which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 13) That
a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 14) That
the first building permit be applied for by November 15, 2006; 15) That the final Certificate of
Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; 16) That all
utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and
water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are
attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 17) That the
landscape plan is revised prior to the issuance of a Development Order to eliminate any/all
landscaping proposed within the sight visibility triangles formed by the rear and side property
lines; 18) That the staging area is shifted to abut the adjacent drive aisle; 19) That prior to the
issuance of a Development Order the floor plans for the fifth and sixth levels are redesigned to
the satisfaction of staff to eliminate any/all possibilities of the creation of any additional/illegal
dwelling units; 20) That the roof top storage facility is eliminated and that revised plans are
submitted depicting such prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 21) That any/all boats
moored at the docks be for the exclusive use of the residents and/or guests of the
condominiums and not be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 22) That "Do Not
Enter" signage is provided along both sides of the egress drive aisle; and 23) That the proposed
pond is a dry pond for water quality treatment only, and that in accordance with City design
criteria the dry pond shall be grassed with slopes no greater than 4: 1, and further that cross
sections of the pond are provided to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. The
seconder agreed.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Fritsch, Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, and
Behar voted "Aye"; Acting Member Dennehy voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Staff Reports
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton presented a rendering of the revised design for
the downtown Residence Inn.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides distributed a recent Circuit Court ruling,
which upheld the CDB's decision regarding Spinecare Properties, LLC., at 3290 McMullen-
Booth Road (Cases ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005- 02002/DVA2005-00001/FLD2005-01014). The
appellants have requested that a parallel case, claiming the CDB's decision was inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, be referred to mediation. The Court did rule that a fence is
required.
Attest:
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:04 p.m.
Board
Community Development 2006-08-15
27
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 15,2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items 1-2
1. CaSrD2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue
Yes no
2. cast'LD200S-11114 - 1401 Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street
Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications Items 1-4
1. caseXLDZo06-03015 - 657-663 Bay Esplanade
Yes no
2. Case: lD2006-05031- 1791 Sherwood Street
Yes no
3. case~DZ005-08083 - 704-706 Myrtle A veoue
Yes no
4. Case: ~2006-04026 - 2166 Palmetto Street
~es no
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-05X - 1885 CR 193
Yes ' no
2. Case: ANX2006-0501K- 3012 Tennessee Avenue
Yes no
3. Case: LUZ2006-04002 -~ 101 Howard Street
Ye no
,
Signamr~ ~
Date: 8 It" D(o
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 15, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items 1-2
1. Case;ftf'2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue
./ Yes no
Level Two Application
2. Case: F~05-11114 - 1401 Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street Level Two Application
~Yes no
Level Two Applications Items 1-4
1. Case: FL~3015 - 657-663 Bay Esplanade
;,;;y~;~~ ~ no
2. Case: FLD?OO6-05031- 1791 Sherwood Street
~es no
3. Case: FLD2005-08083 - -r06 Myrtle Avenue
Yes no
4. Case: FL~006-04026 - 2166 Palmetto Street
~Yes no
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-05019/85 CR 193
Yes no
2. Case: ANX2006-05017~12 Tennessee Avenue
Yes . no
3. Case: LUZ2006-04002 - 11)n Howard Street
Yes r/ no
Signature:
S:\Pla
,'" n :2::::o~~:~~ li",":fl/1 jp ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 15, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2006-02009 - '0 Mandalay Avenue
Yes \' no
Level Two Application
2. Case: FLD2005-11114 - 1401 Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street Level Two Application
l/ Yes no
~
\
'~ 1.
Level Two Applications Items 1-4
cav.se: FLD2006-03015 - 657-663 Bay Esplanade
Yes no
2. Case: jLD2006-05031- 1791 Sherwood Street ~3:) II.
V Yes no
t'
3. ca~LD2005-08083 - 704-706 Myrtle Avenue
. Yes no
I tft "- d~.(,)
4. Cas.e: YLD2006-04026 - 2166 Palmetto Street
V Yes no
-
Proq 't-:;:Vtn
~ -J
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-050 1971885 CR 193
Yes V no
2. Case: ANX2006-05017,? 3012 Tennessee Avenue
Yes V no
3. Case: LUZ2006-04002 VO 1 Howard Street
Yes no
Date: t...}~ DIo
Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check listdoc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 15, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items 1-2
1. Case: FW2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue
\,./'Yes no
Level Two Aoolication
2. Case: FJtD2005-11114 - 1401 Court Street and 1400 Rogers Street Level Two Aoolication
~ Yes no
Level Two Applications Items 1-4
1. ca7D2006-03015 - 657-663 Bay Esplanade
Yes no
2. caS~006-05031- 1791 Sherwood Street
Yes no
3. Case: ~D2005-08083 - 704-706 Myrtle Avenue
~ Yes no
4. Case: BtD2006-04026 - 2166 Palmetto Street
~--Yes no
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-05019 - 1885 CR 193
V Yes no
2. Ca~NX2006-05017 - 3012 Tennessee Avenue
Yes no
3. Ca~Z2006-04002 -1101 Howard Street
Yes no
Signature:
S:\Plannin
Date: f~!1-~6
t\C 0 B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc