Loading...
09/19/2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER September 19, 2006 Present: David Gildersleeve Chair – departed meeting at 3:08 p.m. 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 Alternate/Acting Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director 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: August 15, 2006 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 15, motion 2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote. D. 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 – 10) Community Development 2006-09-19 1 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Case: FLD2006-04024 – 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust. Applicant: Vern Loken. Representative: Jay Myers (9170 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B, Seminole, FL 33776; phone: 727-595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; email: myersarch@ix.netcom.com). Location: 1.687 acres located on the west side of South Highland Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road. Atlas Page: 315A. Zoning Districts: Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts. Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12% to 10.69%, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: A 16,548 square-foot office building. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Acting Member Dennehy moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the motion fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy voted. Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 1.687-acre site is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road. The majority of the property is zoned Office (O) District, where the land use category was amended from Residential Low (RL) to Residential/Office General (R/OG) and the zoning was changed from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Office (O) District under Case LUZ2005- 05009, approved by the Countywide Planning Authority on January 10, 2006. However, the northern 70-foot portion of the property currently is being annexed (ANX2006-05016) and will be assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. The entire property currently is vacant (formerly a plant nursery). The property across South Highland Avenue is zoned Commercial (C) District, developed with a shopping center, and Office (O) District, currently vacant). Property to the south is zoned and developed for Community Development 2006-09-19 2 offices. A church is located to the west of the southern “L” portion of the site. Detached dwellings are otherwise located to the west of the property. Property directly to the north along the west side of South Highland Avenue is located within unincorporated Pinellas County, with Residential Urban land use but developed with an air conditioning contractor’s office. The development proposal is twofold. The first part involves the majority of the property located within the Office (O) District, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, and consists of the following improvements: 1) Construction of a 16,548 square-foot office building; 2) Construction of a majority of the parking lot, the loading space, the southern driveway, the dumpster enclosure and the drainage facility; 3) Construction of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to detached dwellings to the west and north of the project; and 4) Installation of associated landscaping. Offices are a permitted use within the Office District. Development of this property with offices would contribute to the economic vitality of the area, turning an underutilized parcel into a compatible use along this portion of South Highland Avenue. The proposed office development furthers, and does not impede, the orderly growth of transitional uses and established character along the west side of South Highland Avenue. The second part involves the northern 70-foot portion of the property, which also is being annexed (see ANX2006-05016) and will be assigned the zoning of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District, to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the LMDR for the office building, being processed as a Residential Infill Project, consisting of the following improvements: 1) Construction of the non-residential off-street parking lot of 17 parking spaces; 2) Construction of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to detached dwellings to the west and along the north side of the project; and 3) Installation of associated landscaping. Nonresidential off-street parking is a Level 2 application requiring CDB (Community Development Board) approval. The proposal is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested setback reductions and the deviations from the flexibility criteria for this use disallowing the parking spaces within the front setback area and to allow landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence instead of the outside (as required). It is noted that an alternative to the second part of this request to permit nonresidential off-street parking within the proposed LMDR District is to change the land use category to Residential/Office General (R/OG) classification and to change the zoning to Office District. This alternative may still be possible in the future with future annexations to the north of this property along the west side of South Highland Avenue where office development is desired, where the northern 70 feet of this property could be included in such future request. Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum allowable FAR for properties with a designation of Residential/Office General is 0.5. As such, the maximum development potential of the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall parcel is 31,713.85 square-feet. The proposed building will be 16,548 square-feet in size, which results in an FAR of 0.26. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable FAR. Community Development 2006-09-19 3 Pursuant to Sections 2-1001.1 and 2-201.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio) is 0.75 and 0.65 respectively. The overall proposed ISR is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions. The property is zoned primarily Office (O) District, but the northern 70 feet of the subject property is being annexed and assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. Pursuant to Table 2-1004 (Office District) of the Code, the minimum front setback is 25 feet and the minimum side and rear setback is 20 feet. The proposal in the Office District, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, includes a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building). Pursuant to Table 2-204 (LMDR District) of the Code, for a nonresidential off-street parking lot the minimum front setback is 25 feet, the minimum side setback is 10 feet and the minimum rear setback is 10 feet. The proposal for the nonresidential off-street parking lot in the LMDR District includes a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement), which requires this application to be processed as a Residential Infill Project. The property is “L” shaped and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration. The front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint. This produces a greater proposed front setback to the parking lot on the northern half of the property (minimum of 19 feet) than the southern half of the property (minimum of 12.92 feet). The Code permits as a Level 1 Flexible Standard Development (FLS) request in the Office District the reduction to the front setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for parking lots. Comparatively, if viewed from an average standpoint, the minimum front setback to pavement has been achieved. The reduction to setback on the north side to 11.5 feet is behind the building adjacent to the detached dwelling and is only for a 42-foot parking lot pavement area. The applicant requests a reduction to the side and rear setback to allow the building to be within 12.42 and 12 feet of the property line respectively. The proposed building is one-story is height, which is the same as the adjacent detached dwellings. The reduction to setbacks adjacent to these existing detached dwellings is mitigated by the height of the building and the installation of a six-foot high solid fence for enhanced buffering and screening purposes. Landscaping is proposed on the inside of the solid fencing to assist with noise mitigation and for visual enhancement for visitors and employees of the office building. The reduction to setback along the south side of the property is to pavement and the dumpster enclosure only. Parking along this area will face the side (or rear) of the adjacent office building. The parking lot is proposed at a setback of 5.5 feet. The only location the parking lot is closer (as advertised) is the backup flair for the Fire Department turnaround, which is a 24-foot length). The minimum landscape buffer of five feet width is being provided along this property line, except this 24-foot area for the turnaround (representing 8% of the total property length). The reduction to setback along the north property line adjacent to the existing air conditioning contractor’s office is to 7.17 feet (to pavement). The minimum landscape buffer of Community Development 2006-09-19 4 five feet width is being provided. A portion of the pavement closest to South Highland Avenue is meeting the required setback (11.67 feet). The proposal attempts to work with the “L” shaped property configuration and the seven- foot front property line jog/deviation. Most of the parking areas are single loaded (parking on only one side of a drive aisle) and parking is distributed around the site in order to have parking as close to building units as possible. The applicant has designed the building to be one-story in height to be compatible with the adjacent single-story detached dwellings, to act as a transition between the commercial development across South Highland Avenue and the detached dwellings. The proposed site and building design attempt to not improve the site with a two-story building that would reduce the privacy factor with the adjacent detached dwellings, with parking that would be more remote from the building. The reductions to required setbacks can be viewed as necessary to provide a relevant site and building design, given the context of the site and contiguous uses. Pursuant to Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height can range between 30 – 80 feet. The proposed building has a pitched roof of two different heights, with the main or major portion of the building at a height of 18.5 feet and the minor or rear portion of the building at a height of 23.25 feet. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the maximum allowable height. The proposed building has an appealing design, with the main pitched roof facing South Highland Avenue broken up with intervening gable roofs. That portion of the building extending back into the bottom potion of the “L” shape of the property is designed to deal with a change in site elevation and with a change in roof structure and orientation. Gable ends will be painted wood slats. Access to the units will be by a covered, columned walkway. The building footprint also provides for deviations along the front elevation providing a façade that is not horizontal or straight. Pursuant to Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking could range between two – three spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA. Based on the proposed 16,548 square-feet of proposed building, a minimum of between 33 and 50 parking spaces are required for this office building. The applicant proposes 61 parking spaces, which includes three handicap spaces, at a parking ratio of 3.68 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet. The applicant, in proposing more parking than the minimum required, points out that offices located across South Highland Avenue in the Commercial District requires a minimum of four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The applicant proposes air conditioning units on the ground at the rear of the building. While not required by Code, the applicant is proposing a six-foot high solid fence along property lines abutting existing detached dwellings the west and north and along residential land use to the north (adjacent to the existing air conditioning contractor’s office located on South Highland Avenue). This proposed solid fence will provide visual and noise buffering to the abutting existing detached dwellings. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Community Development 2006-09-19 5 Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. There are two driveways proposed for this property, one on the north side traversing the zoning line between the Office and Low Medium Density Residential Districts and one on the south side of the property. The north/south drive aisle adjacent to South Highland Avenue between the two driveways will encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles at the northern driveway by two feet (on its south side only) and at the southern driveway by approximately seven feet (on its north side). Additionally, the first parking space on the south side of the site will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by five feet. 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. These encroachments 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. The applicant has also noted that landscaping proposed within the visibility triangles will be maintained below 30-inches to avoid sight visibility issues. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to allowing encroachments of pavement 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 Community Development Code, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in conformance with this Code requirement. There exist overhead power and communication lines along the front of the property within the South Highland Avenue right-of-way. Due to limited frontage of this site in relation to the length these overhead lines are located, it is impracticable to require the undergrounding of these existing overhead lines within the right-of-way. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along South Highland Avenue, a 12-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the detached dwellings to the rear of the property and a five-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to other nonresidential development (offices to the south, the church to the west and the air conditioning contractor’s office to the north). Buffers are to be planted with one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement). Community Development 2006-09-19 6 The property is “L” shaped and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration. The front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint. Much like the front setback to pavement reduction request, this produces a greater proposed perimeter buffer along South Highland Avenue on the northern half of the property (minimum of 19 feet) than the southern half of the property (minimum of 12.92 feet). Comparatively, if viewed from an average standpoint, the minimum perimeter buffer has been achieved. The reduction to the perimeter buffer along the north side occurs in the rear portion of the site behind the building where the parking lot, for a 42-foot long area, encroaches into the buffer by 0.5-foot. While not required by Code, the applicant is proposing as part of this buffer a six-foot high solid fence to screen views of the proposed building and parking area from the adjacent detached dwelling. The reduction to the perimeter buffer along the south side to zero feet occurs for only a 24-foot area in the rear portion of the site to provide a required turn-around area for a fire truck. Without the turn- around area for a fire truck, the buffer area could be provided. The distance this buffer is eliminated amounts to eight percent of the southern property line length. This turn-around area for a fire truck occurs between trees that are on the office property to the south. The front perimeter buffer along South Highland Avenue will be planted with a viburnum hedge, as well as yew pine and thryallis shrubs, and dahoon holly and Chickasaw plum trees. The other buffers will be planted with a viburnum hedge, augmented on the north and south sides of the parking lots with thryallis shrubs, and live oak, sweet gum and crape myrtle trees. The proposal includes a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12% to 10.69%. Normal Code requirements for interior landscape area are 10% of the vehicular use area (VUA; total paved area of the property). When provided parking is 110% or more of the required parking, the interior landscape area requirement is increased to 12% of the VUA. Due to the site’s location across South Highland Avenue from a shopping center within the Commercial District, the applicant has designed the site with greater parking to meet a higher perceived need, which then increases the requirement for interior landscape area. The applicant has provided a greater amount of interior landscape area (10.69% of the VUA) than normally required (at 10% of the VUA). Areas adjacent to perimeter buffers along South Highland Avenue and the north side have also been counted and planted toward the provided interior landscape area. Interior landscape areas are proposed as interior islands breaking up the parking rows and terminal islands consisting of Indian hawthorn shrubs, Formosa azalea shrubs, thryallis shrubs, cabbage palms, sweet gum and live oak trees. The applicant is providing the required foundation landscaping facing South Highland Avenue, located in raised planters. The foundation landscaping consists of shore juniper, enhanced with Indian hawthorn shrubs, and crape myrtle trees. While not required, the applicant is also providing foundation landscaping along the south side of the building, also planted with shore juniper and Indian hawthorn, as well as cabbage palms and Chickasaw plum trees (white flowering). 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 on-site or directly off-site and proposes to plant trees to meet the minimum requirements in locations where the existing tree canopy permits. The proposal includes perimeter hedging and additional shrubs and groundcovers in a tiered fashion to visually enhance views of the site both by the traveling public and visitors and employees of the site. As noted previously, a six-foot Community Development 2006-09-19 7 high solid fence is proposed adjacent to the existing detached dwellings and along the north property line where there is residential land use category (although developed with an air conditioning contractor’s office). This fence is not a Code requirement but significantly improves the buffer to screen views and noise to the adjacent dwellings. The plan does not show the installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to the detached dwelling at the rear of the property, west of the retention pond (1451 Regal Road). For consistency of buffering, the fence should also be installed at this location. Additionally, water tolerant trees to aid in screening the rear of the building above the solid fence from this detached dwelling should also be installed in the retention pond area. This additional buffering of fencing and trees for this detached dwelling should be a condition of approval. 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. The proposal includes a deviation from the flexibility criteria for “nonresidential off-street parking” within the proposed LMDR District requiring landscape buffering on the outside of a minimum three-foot high fence or wall along the north and west property lines. The deviation is necessary to provide necessary maintenance to the required landscaping by the office property owner and allows adjacent property owners to join their fences to this fence to provide a continuous privacy fence. Placement of the landscaping on the outside of the fence essentially transfers maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent property owner, which is not the Code intention, but is the reality of the situation. As designed, the landscaping of the site is demonstrably more attractive than the minimum landscape standards. The applicant has indicated that site lighting will be building mounted and will be set on a timer to turn off at 9:00 p.m. While South Highland Avenue is listed as a secondary scenic corridor, no specific corridor plans have been adopted yet requiring any specific landscape treatment. Staff believes that the proposed landscape treatment of the site will enhance the character of this portion of South Highland Avenue and will have a beneficial impact on surrounding property values. The development proposal includes the construction of a 10.67-foot by 14.67-foot dumpster enclosure on the south side of the property approximately 25 feet from the front (east) property line. While not the most visually unobtrusive location, functionally the proposed location is adjacent to office uses, does not require the trash collection truck to enter the rear of the site closer to adjacent detached dwellings and works well with the proposed traffic patterns of the site. Section 3-201.D.1 requires the enclosure to be of materials and colors consistent with those used with the proposed building. The applicant has shown the location of a proposed freestanding sign oriented to South Highland Avenue but is not proposing any signage design concurrent with this development proposal. The Flexibility criteria for offices in Section 2-1004.F.2 requires freestanding signage to be no greater than six feet in height unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. 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 (Development Review Committee) 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) That the 1.687-acre subject property is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road; 2) That the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall property is located within the Office (O) District and the Community Development 2006-09-19 8 Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the 0.231-acre northern portion of the overall property (northern 70 feet) is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-05016); 4) That the overall property is an “L” shape with the southern leg extending away from South Highland Avenue and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration; 5) That the front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint; 6) That the proposal includes the construction of a 16,548 square-foot, one-story office building within the Office (O) District, with an associated nonresidential parking lot on the north side within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District; 7) That reductions to setbacks and perimeter buffers to pavement and building are proposed as part of the office development; 8) That the proposed installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to existing detached dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 9) That the proposed office development will transition land use intensity from the more intense commercial uses across South Highland Avenue to the detached dwellings to the west; 10) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 11) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community Development Code; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-1004.B and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; 3) 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 4) 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 (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the property located at 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That approval of this application be subject to the annexation of the northern portion of the site under Case ANX2006-05016; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the Community Development 2006-09-19 9 public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) 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; 4) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5) That a six-foot high solid fence be installed along the west and north property lines adjacent to detached dwellings and along the north property line adjacent to the property at 1520 South Highland Avenue; 6) That the maximum height of the fence with the 25-foot front setback area adjacent to South Highland Avenue be three feet in height; 7) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be amended to indicate the installation of a six-foot high solid fence along the west property line adjacent to 1451 Regal Road and additional trees, in a location and number acceptable to the Planning Department, within the retention pond area to aid in screening the west side of the office building; and 8) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. One person spoke in opposition to the proposal unless a security fence is installed immediately, adjacent to her property. Applicant Vern Loken said it would be difficult to install a fence until the site is graded. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of a fence installation with comments that requiring its installation prior to grading the site seemed unreasonable and that residents are responsible for securing their own property. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the Board could not impose an obligation before permits are pulled. Member Johnson moved to approve Case: FLD2006-04024 for 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with conditions of approval as listed. It was felt that it would be unfair to impose on the property owner a requirement to install and then later remove a fence. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy voted. 2. Case: FLD2006-02011 – 145 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application Owners: Paradise Cove Clearwater, Inc. Applicant: Danny Patel. Representative: William Hecker, Waterline Construction, Inc. (4408 Grady Avenue North, Tampa, FL 33614; phone: 813-806-1977; fax: 813-902-1498; email: pathecker@1waterline.com). Location: 0.49 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 700 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 927 square-foot multi-use dock for nine slips in the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Multi-use dock of nine slips for nine attached dwellings. Community Development 2006-09-19 10 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. The 0.49-acre site is located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 700 feet east of Hamden Drive. The site is located within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which is a distinctive area of overnight accommodation uses being demolished and redeveloped with attached dwellings of either townhomes or condominiums. On October 21, 2003, the CDB approved Cases FLD2003-07033/PLT2003-00010 with 13 conditions to develop the upland portion of this site with nine attached dwellings (townhomes). The townhomes have been constructed. There are four existing docks, which will be removed with this proposal. The development proposal consists of the construction of a 927 square-foot, nine wet slip multi-use dock as an amenity for an approved nine-unit townhome development on the upland portion of the subject property. The docks will be handicap accessible via a sidewalk between this property and the adjacent property at 161 Brightwater Drive. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is defined as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development, condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development. However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square-feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. As the proposed dock exceeds this threshold (927 square-feet), the dock is treated as commercial and is subject to the relevant review criteria. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3- 601.C.3.h of the Code state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line is 180 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the east and west property lines a minimum of 18 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from the east and west property lines in excess of this requirement with distances of 34.5 feet and 32.5 feet, respectively. With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 135 feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 60 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 135 feet. The dock has a proposed width of 113 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. While not consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent with newer docks required to meet today’s Codes, wherein the length takes into account the water depth at mean lot water and seagrasses. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on 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) That the 0.49-acre subject property is located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 700 feet east of Community Development 2006-09-19 11 Hamden Drive; 2) That the property was approved on October 21, 2003, the CDB for the development of the upland with nine attached dwellings (townhomes) and those townhomes have been constructed; 3) That the proposal consists of the construction of a 927 square-foot, nine wet slip multi-use dock as an amenity for the nine-unit townhome development; 4) That the proposed docks comply with the setback, width and length standards of Section 3-601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code; 5) That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding area; and 6) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code; and 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a 927 square-foot multi-use dock for nine slips in the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 3-601, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the townhomes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the townhomes; 2) That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity; 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) and/or FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Permit, USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) Permit, and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction; and 4) That a utility permit application to extend the fire lines for the fire risers for the dock be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the Planning Department signoff on the County building permit for these docks. Prior to completion of the docks, the permit for the fire risers must be finalized. See Page 20 for motion of approval. 3. Case: ANX2006-05016 – 1524 S. Highland Avenue Level Three Application Owner: LM Loken (2 Seaside Lane #403, Belleair, FL 33756; Telephone 727-443-1172). Location: A 0.229-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Highland Avenue approximately 850 feet from the intersection of S. Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. Atlas Page: 315A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.229-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Attached Dwellings. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on west side of Highland Avenue, approximately 850 feet north of the intersection of S. Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. The property is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the south and east; therefore, the proposed Community Development 2006-09-19 12 annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.229 acre in area and is vacant. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) The annexation of 0.229 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. 4. Case: ANX2006-06020 – 1960 E Skyline Drive Level Three Application Owner: Aileen Mantuhac (1960 E Skyline Drive, Clearwater, FL 33763; Telephone 727- 483-9366). Location: A 0.176-acre parcel of land located on the west side of E Skyline Drive approximately 330 feet south of Hyvue Drive and 480 feet north of Raymont Drive. Atlas Page: 254B. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.176-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.176-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of Regal Road, approximately 330 feet south of Hyvue Drive. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The 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. Community Development 2006-09-19 13 Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the annexation of 0.176-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. 5. Case: ANX2006-06022 – 3060 Allen Drive Level Three Application Owner: Dana Dudgeon (3023 Eastland Blvd., Suite H-110, Clearwater, FL 33761; Telephone 727-724-1001). Location: A 0.187-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Allen Avenue approximately 560 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road and 180 feet east of Daniel Street. Atlas Page: 212A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.187-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: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.187-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of Allen Avenue, approximately 560 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). 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) The annexation of 0.187-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-09-19 14 6. Case: ANX2006-06023 – 2727 Daniel Street Level Three Application Owner: Dana Dudgeon (3023 Eastland Blvd., Suite H-110, Clearwater, FL 33761; Telephone 727-724-1001). Location: A 0.187-acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Charles Avenue and Daniel Street. Atlas Page: 212A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.187-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: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.21-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the southeast corner of Charles Avenue and Daniel Street. The property is currently not contiguous with City boundaries. It will be contiguous to the south, however, upon annexation of property located at 3060 Allen Avenue, which is being processed concurrently with this annexation request (see ANX2006-06022). At that time, the proposed annexation will be consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). 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) the annexation of 0.21-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-09-19 15 7. Case: ANX2006-07025 – 1415 Regal Road Level Three Application Owner: Melanie Macko (1415 Regal Road, Clearwater, FL 33756; Telephone 727-448- 0924). Location: A 0.177-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Regal Road approximately 275 feet east of Sunny Park Drive and 665 feet west of Braund Street. Atlas Page: 315A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.177-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.177-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the south side of Regal Road, approximately 275 feet east of Sunny Park Drive and 665 feet west of Braund Street. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the east, west and south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00- 63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the annexation of 0.177-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-09-19 16 8. Case: ANX2006-05015– 1321 Woodbine Street Level Three Application Owner: Grace R. Lawrence (Telephone 727-441-9012). Location: A 0.178-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Woodbine Street approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Rollen Road and Woodbine Street. Atlas Page: 269B. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.178-acre of property and 0.09 acre of right-of-way into the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on the south side of Woodbine Street, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Rollen Road and Woodbine Street. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting Woodbine Street right-of-way, not currently within the City limits, also be annexed. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. The subject site is approximately 0.178 acre in area and is occupied by a single family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The 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) the annexation of 0.178 acre of property and 0.09 acre of right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-09-19 17 9. Case: ANX2006-06021– 1606 Scott Street Level Three Application Owner: Kenneth W. Thomas and Kenneth R. Thomas (Telephone 727-488-8383). Location: A 0.164-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Scott Street approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Scott Street and Ridge Avenue. Atlas Page: 270B. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.164-acre of property into the City of Clearwater; (b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Existing Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on the north side of Scott Street, approximately 250 feet west of the intersection of Scott Street and Ridge Avenue. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant requested this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. The subject site is approximately 0.164 acre in area and is occupied by a single family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The 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) the annexation of 0.164 acre of property into the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. See Page 20 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-09-19 18 10. Case: ANX2006-05018– 109 McMullen-Booth Road Level Three Application Owner: Agostino DiGiovanni (Telephone 727-656-4863). Representative: Ronald Letize (Telephone 727-433-1143) Location: A 0.762-acre parcel of land located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of McMullen-Booth Road and Featherwood Court. Atlas Page: 292A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.762-acre of property into 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: Single-Family Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of McMullen-Booth Road and Featherwood Court. 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 0.762 acre in area and is occupied by a single family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). 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) The annexation of 0.762 acre of property into the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. Community Development 2006-09-19 19 Member Coates moved to approve Item D2, Case: FLD2006-02011 for 145 Brightwater Drive based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Conditions of Approval as listed and recommend approval of Item D3, Case ANX2006-05016 for 1524 S. Highland Avenue based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D4, Case ANX2006-06020 for 1960 E Skyline Drive based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D5, Case ANX2006-06022 for 3060 Allen Drive based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D6, Case ANX2006-06023 for 2727 Daniel Street based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D7, Case ANX2006-07025 for 1415 Regal Road based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D8, Case ANX2006-05015 for 1321 Woodbine Street based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; Item D9, Case ANX2006-06021 for 1606 Scott Street based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; and Item D10, Case ANX2006-05018 for 109 McMullen-Booth Road based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, motion carried and the staff report. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. E. CONTINUED ITEM: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2006-02009 – 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application (Continued from August 15, 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 reductions to the front (north along Baymont Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain and trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain, pergolas and raised platform) 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. Member Johnson moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of motion zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Ed Armstrong requested Party Status as representative for the Sandpearl Resort at 470 – 500 Mandalay Avenue, and Eckall LLC and Fulbach LLC of 501 Mandalay Avenue. motion Member Johnson moved to grant Ed Armstrong Party Status. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Community Development 2006-09-19 20 Mr. Wells reviewed the request. On June 20. 2006, the CDB continued this application, at the applicant’s request, to the August 15, 2006, agenda in order to address staff concerns. In order to allow staff adequate time to review the revised drawings and revise the Staff report, the CDB approved the applicant’s request to continue this case to September 19, 2006. The surrounding area is a tourist-dominated area with retail sales and restaurants catering to tourists along Mandalay Avenue. High-rise attached dwelling complexes exist to the south (Mandalay Beach Club) and to the northeast (Belle Harbor). The Sandpearl project is under construction to the north (hotel), to the west (high-rise attached dwellings), and to the south (low-rise attached dwellings over retail sales fronting on Mandalay Avenue). The Pelican Walk shopping center exists across Mandalay Avenue, which has been approved to add a four- story parking garage with three additional floors with 28 attached dwellings where the parking lot currently exists (building permit application submitted and being reviewed). The 0.4 acre is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. The site is basically a rectangle, but with the Mandalay Avenue side being slightly longer in length. The site currently is developed with a small shopping center of 6,254 square- feet of five commercial units and a restaurant. The existing building and other site improvements will be demolished. This site is located in the “Destination Resort” District of Beach by Design. Property to the north currently is being developed with the Sandpearl hotel of 253 rooms (height of 95 feet). The property to the west and south is currently being developed as part of the Sandpearl project with a high-rise residential building to the west (height of 150 feet) and a low-rise residential building to the south over ground-level retail sales floor area (approximately 8,300 square-feet) directly fronting on Mandalay Avenue (height of 48.5 feet). The property at the northeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street has been developed with the Belle Harbor high-rise residential project (two towers of heights of 99 and 130 feet). The property to the east across Mandalay Avenue is developed with one and two story retail sales buildings and the two-story Pelican Walk shopping center. A four-story parking garage with three additional residential floors of 28 attached dwelling units (70-foot height) has been approved to replace the existing parking lot for the Pelican Walk shopping center (FLD2004- 09072/TDR2005-01015, approved by the CDB on April 19, 2005). Building permits for this Pelican Walk construction have been submitted and are being reviewed. The proposal includes the construction of a 12-unit residential building 82.5 feet tall (to mid-point of pitched roof). Two dwellings per floor with approximately 2,407 square feet of conditioned living area for the west unit and 2,510 square-feet of conditioned living area for the east unit are proposed on the first five residential floors. The sixth floor contains one dwelling unit of 2,510 square-feet of conditioned living area and a pool and recreation area on the west side. The seventh floor contains one dwelling unit of 2,510 square-feet of conditioned living area. A total of 25 parking spaces are proposed, primarily located under the building. The proposal meets or exceeds required setbacks to the south and west. The redesigned proposal includes reductions to the front (north along Baymont Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain and trash staging area) and reductions to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain, pergolas and raised platform). The building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor on the Community Development 2006-09-19 21 south side of the parking level. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. An increase to building height from 35 feet to 82.5 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) is included in this proposal. The Tourist District allows a height of 35 feet that may be increased to a maximum height of 100 feet, based upon meeting certain criteria. The proposed height is consistent and compatible with the height of buildings constructed, under construction or approved within the surrounding area. It also is noted that the Mandalay Beach Club between Papaya and San Marco Streets west of Mandalay Avenue was approved/constructed at a height of 145 feet. The site is within a Flood Zone A and the Building Code does not permit habitable area of a residential building to be situated below Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Building height requirements by Code provisions are measured from BFE. Based on these provisions, as well as having to meet vertical clearance requirements for handicap parking spaces, this usually means that parking for the project is accommodated on the ground floor and the building height is increased accordingly. The proposal includes 25 parking spaces on the ground level, which exceeds the minimum Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit, accessed from a driveway from Baymont Street. The site today has driveways on both Baymont Street and Mandalay Avenue. The driveway on Mandalay Avenue will be removed and a sidewalk consistent with that existing on Mandalay Avenue will be constructed, along with two additional parallel on-street parking spaces. A grassed retention area is proposed on the west side of the site between the proposed building and the Sandpearl parking garage. The site will be landscaped along its perimeter with trees (Queen palms and Sabal palms), shrubs (hibiscus, india hawthorn and viburnum) and ground cover (big blue lily turf and sod). Code permits only 75% of the required trees to be palms. Should this request be approved, the landscape plan would need to be amended to include at least 25% of shade trees. The proposed building has been designed using a Mediterranean architectural theme. The ground level parking level and the first living floor utilizes a diamond-scored stucco painted smokey topaz. The seventh living floor also utilizes this same diamond-scored stucco painted smokey topaz. The exterior of living floors two through six are finished with stucco painted “restrained gold.” Insets finished with the same diamond-scored stucco painted smokey topaz are proposed on the façades of the stairwells on the south side of the building. Quoins to accent the corners of the lower two levels of the stair towers are proposed on the south and east sides of the building. The roof is primarily a pitched roof finished with “monier Madeira blend” shades of clay barrel tiles (there is a flat area in the center of the building on the south side of the building for mechanical equipment). The applicant has amended the proposed development to respond to staff’s concerns raised previously in the Staff report prepared for the June 20, 2006, CDB meeting. Unit designs/layout and unit entry locations have not changed from that previously submitted, with unit entries on the south side of the building and the unit in a linear layout south to north. The western façade is 93 feet in length (north/south). A balcony for the master bedroom for the western unit has been added. The dining room extension from the main façade plane has been increased from 1.5 feet to four feet, further breaking up the western façade. The eastern façade Community Development 2006-09-19 22 is 121 feet in length (north/south). There is a building indentation of approximately seven feet directly north of the elevator. The two bedrooms along the eastern façade have been enlarged by five feet to break up the eastern façade, which is in compliance with the Beach by Design Guidelines requiring the façades of buildings greater than 100 feet to have offsets of greater than five feet. Balconies also have been added to these eastern bedrooms. The kitchen extension from the main eastern façade plane has been increased from 1.5 feet to three feet, further breaking up the eastern façade. Main unit balconies are on the north end of the units as an extension of the living rooms. The unit on the seventh (top) floor is still designed with a virtual blank wall on the west side. These building extensions have been accommodated in the site design by shifting the building westward. The applicant has redesigned the elevator, stairwell and electrical/storage rooms in the southeast corner of the building to provide a building entrance accessible to Mandalay Avenue, also providing lobby windows on each floor. Beach by Design Guidelines require at least 60% of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has submitted information that the revised project is in compliance with the 60% Guideline through the use of windows, sliding glass doors, aluminum railings, banding, balconies, rusticated (diamond scored) stucco and trim to meet this requirement. Generally, the revised building elevations represent an improvement over that previously submitted and are in conformity with Beach by Design Guidelines; however, the site and building design are not the preferred form of development in the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. The site and building design, given the context of the site being adjacent to the Sandpearl project with a high-rise and a low-rise residential towers and the ground floor retail fronting on Mandalay Avenue, does not take advantage of the view corridor toward the Gulf of Mexico created between these two Sandpearl buildings. This site is located in the “Destination Resort” District of Beach by Design. The following are excerpts from this document that specifically speaks to this site in context to its surrounding area and to Mandalay Avenue: 1) “The existing condition of the retail uses along the west side of North Mandalay has a negative impact on North Mandalay as an attractive and desirable street. The success of Pelican Walk, a bold and pioneering redevelopment effort, has been negatively impacted by the unattractiveness and economic weakness of retail uses along the west side of North Mandalay. The preferred form of redevelopment for this area is mixed-use, with resort residential and hospitality uses fronting on the Beach and retail, restaurant, and residential uses fronting on North Mandalay”; 2) “Currently, more than half of the frontage on North Mandalay does not have an active retail façade on both sides of the street. This lack of “closure” diminishes the potential of North Mandalay as a retail street. Ideally, North Mandalay would be redeveloped as a two-sided retail street with retail uses on both sides of a street, which is sufficiently pedestrian-friendly that shoppers could easily cross from one side to the other. Pedestrian friendliness requires a functional barrier between moving vehicles and pedestrians on the sidewalk in the form of parked cars, closely-spaced street trees. or some other kind of physical barrier. Pedestrian friendliness also requires well-marked crosswalks and, in the case of a four-lane street, a safe “haven” in the median so that pedestrians can make the crossing in two stages”; and 3) “North Mandalay sidewalks should be designed so that pedestrians can walk along building façades and the curbside portion of the sidewalk is dedicated to landscaping and street amenities including café seating and casual setting of street furniture. Property owners should provide arcades or awnings to provide cover for pedestrians during inclement weather.” Community Development 2006-09-19 23 The proposed redesign of this project provides an alternative to the ideal to have an active retail façade on the west side of Mandalay Avenue as envisioned by Beach by Design. The request now includes reductions to the front setback along Mandalay Avenue from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain, pergolas and raised platform). The applicant has designed a plaza area as an extension of the sidewalk along Mandalay Avenue to provide areas for pedestrian activity. Benches and a planter seating area have been added for pedestrian utilization. A fountain has been added at the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street for visual interest. Should this request be approved by the CDB, a condition requiring the fountain to be no greater than 30-inches in height must be included, as this fountain is within a sight visibility triangle. Two pergolas also have been added for visual interest and to provide shade for pedestrians. A “Mandalay Information Center” has been added in the southeast corner of the site providing a wall where information on beach activities can be displayed, as well as a raised platform for artist performances or displays (music or art). The application lacks details for the “Mandalay Information Center” as to what information will be displayed, who will maintain such information to keep it up to-date, or the type or frequency of activities/performances, as well as information as to the long-term maintenance of this area along Mandalay Avenue. While the applicant envisions these facilities as a benefit to the public, it is unclear as to the benefit to the condominium owners. Staff is not convinced that this alternative to an active retail façade is maintainable or sustainable for the long term by the 12 condominium owners of this property. The proposal, as submitted, is not the preferred form of development of a mixed- use with residential, restaurant, and retail uses, where the development would front on, and activate the street, as envisioned by Beach by Design. Without such retail/restaurant uses fronting on Mandalay Avenue, the potential as a two-sided retail street will never be realized. Designing the site to provide the retail/restaurant component as a mixed-use most likely would produce a different building design that would comply with the vision for this area and represent an improvement over a site design that was originally submitted to meet the minimum required setbacks. This different site and building design could better justify an increased building height. When Beach by Design was written, the existing circumstances were much worse than what exists today. The adjacent Sandpearl project to the south conforms to the preferred form of redevelopment addressed in the first paragraph excerpt above by providing a mixed-use with retail and residential uses fronting on Mandalay Avenue. As discussed above, the building façades have been greatly improved over that originally submitted where compliance with the Beach by Design Guidelines has been achieved. While the proposed building height is consistent and compatible with surrounding approved, under construction or constructed building heights, the proposal still does not comply with the attached dwelling criteria requiring “an improved site plan or improved design and appearance” relating to the request for increased height due to the noncompliance with the preferred form of development of mixed-use with the building fronting on Mandalay Avenue. The building and site layout, coupled with the lack of an active retail façade along the Mandalay Avenue frontage, even with the applicant’s alternative (plaza, fountain, seating, pergolas and the “Mandalay Information Center”) does not create a design that is harmonious and suitable for this high profile location on Mandalay Avenue. This proposal does not further the goals of the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. The applicant has not indicated any freestanding signage for this site. Any future freestanding sign should meet the requirements of the Code, be a monument-style sign a Community Development 2006-09-19 24 maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Attached Dwelling criteria (Section 2-803.B) have not been met. There are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with this site. Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 0.4 acre is located within the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a shopping center with retail sales and a restaurant; 3) The proposal is for the demolition of the existing commercial building and the construction of a high-rise residential building of 12 attached dwellings; 4) The subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Destination Resort” District; 5) The proposal meets or exceeds required setbacks to the south and west; 6) The proposed building height is 82.5 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof); 7) The proposed building height is consistent and compatible with the height of buildings constructed, under construction or approved within the surrounding area; 8) The proposal includes 25 parking spaces on the ground level, which meets the minimum Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit; 9) While the building façades have been greatly improved, the proposal still does not comply with the attached dwelling criteria requiring “an improved site plan or improved design and appearance” relating to the request for increased height; 10) The building and site layout, coupled with the lack of an active retail façade along the Mandalay Avenue frontage, even with the applicant’s alternative (plaza, fountain, seating, pergolas and the “Mandalay Information Center”) does not create a design that is harmonious and suitable for this high profile location on Mandalay Avenue; 11) This proposal does not further the goals of the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design; and 12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is not in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 3) Staff concludes that this proposal does not further the goals of the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design; and 4) Based on the above findings, staff recommends denial of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 30, 2006. The Planning Department recommends denial for the Flexible Development application to permit 12 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with reductions to the front (north along Baymont Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain and trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to plaza, fountain, pergolas and raised platform) 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, for the site at 490 Mandalay Avenue with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) This proposal does not further the goals of the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. Representative Jerry Figurski requested 20 minutes to make his presentation. Community Development 2006-09-19 25 Member Fritsch moved to approve a maximum time limit of 20 minutes for the motion carried applicant’s presentation. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Mr. Figurski reviewed the history of the project, stating the applicant had met his original intent of designing a project that complied with all requirements of Code except for a setback request only for a trash staging area. He said additional setback requests now are due to the addition of the plaza. He submitted photographs of the Sandpearl project, noting its mass and minimal four-foot setback abutting the subject project. Mr. Figurski submitted resumes of Keith E. Zayac, Steven K. Luce, Clem Papas, and G. Jason Mederios. motion Member Johnson moved to accept Keith Zayac as an expert witness. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Mr. Zayac reviewed the project’s design, which meets density requirements, exceeds minimum parking standards, provides a green buffer, and met setback requirements. He said the project’s 90-feet height is much lower than permitted. He said staff’s recommendation for a temporary dumpster staging area required the applicant to request a 0-foot setback. He said based on staff’s request to liven the front of the building, the project now includes a plaza with a fountain, pergolas, raised platform, and information center. He said while the plaza probably will not benefit residents, it will benefit the City. He said the building is significantly shorter than nearby buildings and features extensive landscaping. On-street parking spaces also will be added. He said the 14.5-foot rear setback is a necessary offset for the 4-foot setback of the 150-foot building to the rear. He said the project complies with the Land Development Code and Beach by Design. Clem Papas was introduced. Jason Mederios, representative, said the project meets City design guideline standards. Instead of retail, he said the project is designed to incorporate the public into the site with information boards that will feature calendars, event schedules, and maps of areas of interest to visitors. He said plans for the elevated platform include art displays, local street acts, and musicians. He said the plaza will be a destination point, providing shade and seating for a gathering area. motion Member Tallman moved to accept Steven Luce as an expert witness. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Mr. Luce distributed consistency analysis of the proposal based on General and Flexible Development Standards. He said the project is consistent with every flexible development standard in the Land Development Code. He said the plaza will activate the street, complement nearby retail activities, and provide a viable alternative to retail. He said while ground floor retail may be a preferred use, it is not the only permitted use for this site. Party Status holder Ed Armstrong requested 10 minutes to make his presentation. Member Fritsch moved to approve a maximum time limit of 10 minutes for the Party motion carried Status holder’s presentation. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Community Development 2006-09-19 26 Mr. Armstrong said his clients support redevelopment that is consistent with Beach by Design. He said due to its prominent location, it is important that the subject property feature a restaurant or retail component that activates Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Armstrong presented Ethel Hammer, whose resume is on file, and who has been accepted previously as an expert witness by the CDB. motion Member Tallman moved to accept Ethel Hammer as an expert witness. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote. Ms. Hammer distributed a project analysis of the proposal based on Beach by Design and Land Development Code standards. She said the subject site is in the targeted heart of the Tourist Destination District of Beach by Design. She said mixed-use, the preferred form of development, would enhance area tourist activity and economic vitality. She said the project would replace existing uses that are consistent with district goals, with a residential use that is not consistent. She said every structure in the Tourist Destination District features ground floor retail. She said the intent of Beach by Design is to protect the retail character of Mandalay Avenue. She said the proposed development is inappropriate and would establish a negative precedent for other redeveloping properties. She said the proposed plaza does not fulfill the vision of Beach by Design, as retail requires the sales and exchange of goods between people. She said the proposed height is inconsistent with Mandalay Avenue frontage, which provides a pedestrian scale of mostly one and two stories. She said the proposed structure does not feature stepbacks and would result in an 82-foot sheer wall along Mandalay Avenue frontage. She expressed concern a precedent established by this project would result in a canyon effect along Mandalay Avenue in the future. She said the project should not qualify for additional height above 35 feet, as the site plan does not provide an improved design or appearance. She said nearby tall buildings do not front Mandalay Avenue and occupy smaller percentages of their sites. She said the massing of this project is inappropriate and inconsistent with development that fronts Mandalay Avenue. In response to a question from Planning Director Michael Delk, Mr. Mederios said the developer wants to work with the City to serve tourists and residents by helping update information in the plaza. In response to questions from Mr. Figurski, Mr. Wells said he opposed the development because it lacks space for a restaurant or retail and does not incorporate the vision of Beach by Design. He did not work for Clearwater when the City Council discussed Beach by Design. He said retail was not required at the Sandpearl due to its location north of Baymont, where no retail exists on the east side of Mandalay Avenue as anticipated when Beach by Design was adopted. Mr. Armstrong said the proposed development does not activate the street on both sides at this critical location. He said approval would diminish Mandalay Avenue’s potential as a retail/restaurant corridor and set a negative precedent, which could not be undone. He said the project does not meet criteria to allow additional height above 35 feet. Sixteen people spoke in support of the application and three people spoke in opposition. Community Development 2006-09-19 27 The CDB recessed from 3:08 to 3:15 p.m. Mr. Wells reviewed why the project does not reflect the preferred form of development for the Tourist Destination District of Beach by Design. It is unclear if the City desires to manage the information location. An information center is not equivalent to restaurant and retail uses as it does not function the same way. He said the Sandpearl development, a much larger project, complied with Beach by Design’ s vision for mixed-use. Mr. Luce said the project meets design guidelines regarding the size of the structure. Mr. Figurski said neither the Code nor Beach by Design requires retail nor mixed-use, as those are preferred, not required forms of redevelopment. Mr. Armstrong said the project does not comply with Beach by Design, as no retail uses are proposed. He said the integrity of Beach by Design is at stake. Discussion ensued. Opposition was expressed to staff’s interpretation that the project is not harmonious nor suitable for the location and does not further the goals of the Tourist Destination District. Past problems with interpreting Beach by Design language were reviewed. It was stated that Beach by Design is only a guideline and that staff always opposes projects that are inconsistent with Beach by Design preferred guidelines. Concern was expressed that without a maintenance contract, there can be no guarantee that the plaza would remain as attractive as intended. It was suggested a condition of approval require establishment of a maintenance contract with the City or Chamber of Commerce prior to issuance of a building permit. Sympathies were expressed regarding the current business and economic environment. It was noted that Beach by Design was adopted to encourage tourism. It was felt the project is not harmonious or suitable for the location. It was stated that no evidence was provided that the plaza would generate activity. It was noted that hotels, such as the Sandpearl, generate significant activity. It was stated the Beach by Design master plan was adopted to improve the general area. It was felt this high profile project must meet the broader goals of Beach by Design. It was stated the project is not in scale nor meets Beach by Design guidelines. It was felt the plaza is an anomaly, is not viable, and would not complement retail uses across the street. It was felt the project could have been supported if a retail component was included. It was stated the project will not act as a destination that attracts people. It was recommended the project be resubmitted with a retail or restaurant component. It was stated if the project is resubmitted with a plaza component, a mechanism for maintenance needs to be included. Member Milam moved to deny Case: FLD2006-02009 for 490 Mandalay Avenue based motion on Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff report. The was duly seconded. Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, Behar, and Vice-Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; carried Member Johnson and Acting Member Dennehy voted “Nay.” Motion . F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION: (Item 1) 1. Case: TA2006-06005 Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding numerous provisions including revising the criteria for making changes to Level Two development approvals, Community Development 2006-09-19 28 removing Community Development Board review from the annexation petition process, reducing parking requirements for outdoor retail sales, providing new language for site lighting, establishing criteria for dead-end parking bays, revising standards for off-street loading requirements, allowing religious events within the Institutional Zoning District, making the Code consistent Federal, State, and County law or rules, making consistent the parking and building height requirements for nursing homes and the like, revising landscaping and buffer requirements for site development, updating the incentive for proposing monument signs, and providing for the consistent application of visibility triangle requirements. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, (Sondra Kerr, President P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. Since the passage of the Community Development Code in 1999, the Planning Department has reviewed the Code as it applies to certain proposed development and the City process of development review applications. City of Clearwater staff has provided input aimed at improving the Code based on how staff has experienced the Code’s performance in various circumstances. City staff developed a list of existing Community Development Code provisions that should be amended to better reflect City development patterns and improve internal processes. As part of the code update process, suggested amendments have been collected from the Planning Department and Public Works Administration. Discussions occurred to make certain that the amendments are workable and do not conflict with other City Codes and processes. The Planning Department is recommending 22 amendments to the Community Development Code. Some amendments present a change in current policy or a new policy issue. Other amendments are editorial in nature or are refinements to existing Community Development Code sections. Below is a summary of the most noteworthy proposed amendments organized by Code Article. A brief summary of other amendments also is provided here. 1) Article 2 – Zoning Districts Parking Requirements (Pages 5, 14, and 17 - 20 of Ordinance) - Ordinance No. 7631-06 provides a revised parking formula to more appropriately reflect a parking requirement for outdoor retail sales, display and/or storage. The existing formula is not specific enough to use as a measure, as it does not refer to the area of land used for outdoor display. This ordinance provides a residential parking requirement for mixed-use development in the Commercial District (C). The provision reduces the chance for inconsistency, provides straightforward requirements, and allows for consistent staff review of mixed-use projects with residential components. This ordinance also changes the parking requirement in the Institutional District (I) for assisted living facilities, congregate care, and nursing homes, allowing for consistency; 2) Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment (Page 28 of Ordinance) - This ordinance includes a proposed amendment to improve how parking is determined for proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects within the Tourist Zoning District. This amendment will ensure that residential development projects will provide adequate parking; 3) Article 3 – Development Standards - Off-street Loading and Vehicle Stacking Distances (Pages 7 - 10 of Ordinance). This amendment provides for more comprehensive loading requirements. Text in this section has been replaced for clarity. The table has been reorganized for ease of use. The list of land uses and corresponding loading space requirements is expanded. The amendment reduces loading requirements for office, Community Development 2006-09-19 29 restaurant, and retail sales and service uses. The existing Community Development Code does not provide a measure for stacking, other than for drive-through facilities. The amendment provides specifications for stacking distances; 4) Comprehensive Sign Program (Page 24 of Ordinance). This amendment enables certain monument sign proposals to be eligible for comprehensive sign program review; and 5) Article 4 – Development Review and Other Procedures - Annexations (Pages 2 - 4 of Ordinance). In an effort to expedite the timeframe required for processing annexations, this ordinance streamlines the annexation petition process by removing Community Development review as a step in the annexation approval process. This amendment will reduce the time required to annex property by at least 30 days. Other Amendments - Proposed Ordinance 7631-06 includes a significant number of amendments that the Planning Department believes will assist residents and staff but do not have major policy implications. These amendments include: 6) Providing Code for dead-end parking aisles (discouraging dead-end parking aisles, but in limited cases allowing them with a adequate maneuvering area) and establishing a review process for same; 7) Making the Code consistent with other law or rules; 8) Amending the definitions section with regard to “monument sign” to remove a limiting description of what the sign base is, as a monument sign is not always supported by a minimum of two columns; 9) Improving general landscaping standards to provide consistent references, such as “attached dwellings,” instead of “multi-family residential,” clarifying street types as collectors, major or minor, and clarifying buffer requirements; and 10) Replacing a graphic to clarify City requirements for right-of-way widths, improving the function and readability of text and the table. Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a selected list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: Goal 4 – The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code. The proposed amendments provide for increased parking requirements for residential development and 2) The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments include a broad range of regulations ranging from permitted uses, standards, procedures, and definitions. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the Code. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. Existing Community Development Code provisions are amended to better reflect City development patterns and improve internal processes. The Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7631-06, which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. Senior Planner Mike Reynolds reviewed scrivener errors. Due to advertising requirements, he recommended that suggested new changes be delayed until the next set of amendments is submitted. Community Development 2006-09-19 30 It was recommended that other scrivener errors be corrected. Mr. Reynolds said some errors are in the existing Code. Mr. Delk said those errors can be fixed in the future. In response to a question, he said annexation approval is a legislative function. The change would send annexation requests directly to the City Council, without CDB review. It was recommended that new changes be delayed until the next round of amendments is considered. Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item F1, Case: TA2006-06005, motion proposed amendments to the Community Development Code. The was duly seconded carried and unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy voted. G. OTHER PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: (Item 1) 1. 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department Request: Make recommendations to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, (Sondra Kerr, President P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Steven Brown. The CDB reviewed and recommended approval of the Draft EAR (Evaluation & Appraisal Report) on May 16, 2006. However, a public hearing on the draft should have been held at that time. This oversight is being corrected by the public hearing held at this meeting. Additionally, the CDB will review the Final EAR and make a recommendation to the Council, prior to transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The Planning Department began its EAR process in 2005 in accordance with Florida Statutes (Chapter 163.3191) that requires a review of the Comprehensive Plan every seven years. An intensive public participation program was implemented to help with the process. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) of 23 members appointed by the City Council was the primary forum for public input and participation over a series of nine meetings. Meetings were also held with the five adjacent cities, Pinellas County, the Pinellas Planning Council, the Pinellas County School District, and City staff. A “scoping meeting” also was held with DCA, as well as four other State and regional agencies. On June 13, 2006, the City Council voted unanimously to approve sending the draft to DCA for review with minor revisions. Comments and recommended revisions have been received from DCA, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Planning staff. The recommendations have been listed in the revisions matrix, and include actions taken in response to these recommendations. Some major changes include: 1) City’s vision, as reflected in the Final EAR, now reads “beautiful and vibrant waterfront community”; 2) The EAR now recognizes the Courtney Campbell Causeway as Scenic Highway; 3) The implementation of Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA) will be done in compliance with prior commitments to the maintenance of US 19, and in coordination with State, County and local governments in the region; 4) Provide data to show how the comprehensive plan is financially feasible, is linked to funding sources and is not dependent upon tenuous funds; 5) Addresses the requirements of House Bill 955 to require comprehensive plans to include waterways in the comprehensive system of public and Community Development 2006-09-19 31 private sites for recreation and to include in the coastal management element strategies that will be used to preserve recreation and commercial working waterfronts defined in section 342.07, F.S.; and 6) The issue of public safety concurrency has been addressed in the first Issue of Local Concern (Redevelopment) rather than in the general concurrency discussion. Following CDB review of the Final EAR on September 19, 2006, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing on September 21, 2006. The CDB’s recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for the public hearing. In accordance with State regulations, the final EAR will be received by DCA by September 29, 2006. DCA will review the final EAR, and make a determination as to whether the document is sufficient to meet the requirements of State Statute. After the DCA makes a determination of sufficiency, proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments based on the EAR will be made within 12-18 months. It is expected that DCA will rule on the sufficiency issue on or before December 29, 2006. At that time, the City will began the process of making amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that will provide the basis for maximizing the City’s opportunities, strengthening the City’s qualities, and overcoming the City’s weaknesses. The amendments will provide a framework to implement the vision for the City. The proposed review of the Final EAR is consistent with Florida Statutes. The Planning Department staff recommends that following a public hearing on the Draft EAR and following review of the Final EAR, the CDB recommend approval of the Final EAR and transmittal to the City Council with its recommendations. There was no public comment. Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item G1, the 2006 Evaluation and motion carried Appraisal Report (EAR) as presented. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy voted. H. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS: (Items 1-2) 1. Review of Final Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) The CDB reviewed the proposed final EAR in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) earlier and made a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Department will report the recommendation to the City Council on September 21, 2006. Comments and recommended revisions have been received from the DCA, FDOT, SWFWMD and Planning staff. The recommendations have been listed in the revisions matrix, and include actions taken in response to these recommendations. The proposed review of the Final EAR is consistent with Florida Statutes. The Planning Department staff recommends adoption of Resolution 06-49 adopting the Final EAR and authorizing transmittal to DCA. Staff was complimented for their efforts. Member Coates moved to accept Item H1, the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report motion carried (EAR). The was duly seconded and unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy voted. Community Development 2006-09-19 32 . 2. Holiday Luncheon Consensus was for staff to schedule the holiday luncheon prior to the December 19, 2006, meeting and to contact charities regarding donations, including HEP (Homeless Emergency Project) and Community Pride. I. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m. ent Board ~I!dtt ~ Board Reporter . . Community Development 2006-09-19 33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. casrLD2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue Yes no Level Two Application Level Two Applications Item 1. C~LD2006-02011 -145 BrightwaterDrive Yes no This is a Level Two & a Level Three Case 2. case:(I'D2006-04024 - & Case: ANX2006-050l6 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-8 1. Case: ANX2006-06020 - ,1<3.60 E Skyline Drive Yes V no 2. Case: ANX2006-06022 - 30<10 Allen Drive Yes V no 3. Case: ANX2006-06023 ;7 Daniel Street Yes no 4. Case: ANX2006-07025 - )415 Regal Road Yes v' no 5. Case: ANX2006-05015-1l321 Woodbine Street Yes ~ no 6. Case: ANX2006-06071606 Scott Street Yes no 7. Case: ANX2006-050 18t 109 McMullen Booth Road Yes V no 9.. IS - Db Signature: S:\Plan . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continue Item 1 1. Case: LD2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Yes no Level Two Applications Item 1. ca'rD2006-02011 - 145 Brightwater Drive Yes no This is a Level Two & a Level Three Case 2. Case: FL 06-04024 - & Ca . AN 2006-05016 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Ye Level Three Applications Items 1-8 1. Case: ANX2006-06020 - 1960 E Skyline Drive Yes '( no 2. Case: ANX2006-06022 - 3060 Allen Drive Yes ~ no 3. Case: ANX2006-06023 - 2727 Daniel Street Yes )( no 4. Case: ANX2006-07025 - X 5 Regal Road Yes no 5. Case: ANX2006-05015- 1321 Woodbine Street Yes X no 6. Case: ANX2006-06021- 1606 Scott Street Yes ~ no 7. Case: ANX2006-05018- 109 McMullen Booth Road Yes Date: OJ "IG} "0(0 Investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. case~~D2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue Yes no Level Two Application Level Two Applications Item 1. Case: FyD2006-02011 - 145 Brightwater Drive ~Yes no This is a Level Two & a Level Three Case 2. Case: FLD2006-04024 - & Case: ANX2006-05016 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue / Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-8 1. Case: AN,X2006-06020 - 1960 E Skyline Drive / Yes no 2. Case: ANX2006-06022 - 3060 Allen Drive ~Yes no 3. Case: i):NX2006-06023 - 2727 Daniel Street ~ Yes no 4. Case: ANX2006-07025 - 1415 Regal Road Yes /' no - 5. Case: ANX2006-05015- 1321 Woodbine Street Yes ho 6. cas~X2006-06021- 1606 Scott Street Yes no (\ 7. Case:. ANX20 6-05018 109 McMullen Booth Road / Yes no - ~ .. Date: rjL'i /0 ( cnt\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.d c ' Signature: S:\Plan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Item 1 1. Case: ~2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue ~ Yes no Level Two Application Level Two Applications Item 1. Case: Fj"D2006-02011 - 145 Brightwater Drive V Yes no This is a Level Two & a Level Three Case 2. case:~006-04024 - & Case: ANX2006-05016 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Yes no Level Three Applications Items 1-8 1. cas~X2006-06020 - 1960 E Skyline Drive Yes no 2. Case: ANX2006-06022 - 3060 Allen Drive ~es no 3. Case: ANX2006-06023 - 2727 Daniel Street ~Yes no 4. Case: ANX2006-07025 - 1415 Regal Road ~Yes no 5. Case: ~2006-05015- 1321 Woodbine Street ~es no 6. 02006-06021- 1606 Scott Street es no 7. Case: ~2006-05018- 109 McMullen Booth Road -----1.L'Yes no Date: e artrnentlC D SICDS, property investigation check list.doc Signature: S:IPlan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 19,2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued It 1 1. Case: 2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Aoolication Yes no Level Two Applications Item 1. Case: FJ152006-020ll - 145 Brightwater Drive V Yes no This is a Level Two & a Level Three Case 2. cas7D2006-04024 - _~~e: ANX2006-050l6 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Yes ~no Level Three Applications Items 1-8 1. Case: ANX2006-06020 - 1))<50 E Skyline Drive Yes ./ no 2. Case: ANX2006-06022 - 3()8'(Y Allen Drive Yes ~ no 3. Case: ANX2006-06023 V7 Daniel Street Yes no 4. Case: ANX2006-07025 - 14 I)-Regal Road Yes ~ no 5. Case: ANX2006-050l57fJ2l Woodbine Street Yes V no 6. Case: ANX2006-06~- 1606 Scott Street Yes no Date: 'i /15"/06 \CDB, property investigation check IistJoc I Signature: S:\Planning Departmen C