05/17/2005
.
.
..
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 17, 2005
Present: David Gildersleeve
J. B. Johnson
Kathy Milam
Thomas Coates
Dana K. Tallman
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Chair
Board Member
Board Member - departed at 3:01 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Absent: Alex Piisko
Daniel Dennehy
Vice Chair
Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes
Leslie Dougall-Sides
MichaelL..Delk. .
Gina Clayton
Patricia O. Su!!ivan
Attorney for the Board
Assistant City Attorney
Plar-ming Director . . .
Assistant Planning Director
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 res,earch, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: April 19, 2005
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 19,
2005, with correction: page 31, paragraph two, sentence two, word "project" should read
"applicant." The motion was duly seco'nded and carried unanimously.
D - DIRECTOR'S !TEM: (!te~ ~)
1. Expert Witness List Addition
Staff presented the resume of Planner Sharen K. Jarzen.
. ~. . - -.. .. .
Member Fritch moved to accept Sharen K. Jarzen as an expert witness in the areas of
Comprehensive Planning, Environmental Planning/Land Use/Zoning, and Historic Preservation.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E - CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting (Items 1 - 13)
Community Development 2005-05-17
1
.
.
.
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview
Boulevard .
Owner/Applicant: k & P Clearwater Estate, LLC.
Representative: Timothy A Johnson, Jr., Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-441-8617;
e-mail: timj@jpfirm.com).
Location: 2.739 acres located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to modify the location of an elevated pedestrian
walkway over South Gulfview Boulevard, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C (previously approved under Case FLD2004-02013,
approved by the Community Development Board on October 19, 2004, for a 1) Flexible
Development application to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density within the
Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 6-109.C; 2) Flexible Development application to
permit 350 overnight accommodation units and 75 attached dwellings as a mixed use (with
increase in density of 250 hotel rooms from the Beach by Design density pool), with a reduction
to the front (east along Coronado Drive) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a
reduction to the front (south along proposed Second Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to
building), a reduction to the front (west and north along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from
15 feet to zero feet (to building), an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 150 feet (to
roof deck) with an additional five feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional
33 feet for elevator, staii, mechanical rooms/architectural embellishments (from roof deck),
..deviations to allow.st~cked parking, allow access to a major arterial street and allow a building
within the required sight visibility triangles at the intersection of Coronado Drive and proposed
Second Street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C, and to eliminate the required foundation landscaping along Coronado Drive
and proposed Second Street, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G; and 3) the vacation of a portion the right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard
between Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street, the vacation of the First Street right-of-
way between Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard, the dedication of right-of-way for
proposed Second Street between Coronado Avenue and Gulfview Boulevard and the dedication
of right-of-way for Coronado Drive between proposed Second Street and Gulfview Boulevard).
Proposed Use: Hotel of 350 rooms (127.78 rooms/acre), 75 attached dwellings (27.38
units/acre) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR) of amenities accessory to the
hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet for perimeter parapets
(from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical rooms/architectural
embellishments (from roof deck}.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com) and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The existing properties total 2.427 acres and are located to the south of and between
. South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The properties are developed with various
motels (Days Inn, Beach Towers Motel, Spyglass Motel and Golden Beach Motel) and
Community Development 2005-05-17 2
.
numerous retail sales and restaurant uses. All existing structures (buildings and pavement)
within the site area will be razed for the construction of the proposed improvements. The site
also includes a portion of the eastern and northern half of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-
way and the First Street right-of-way between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive.
On August 17, 2004, the COB (Community Development Board) approved the original
Case FLD2004-02013. After reconsidering their decision from August 2004, the COB re-
approved Case FLD2004-02013 on October 19, 2004, adding three conditions of approval. On
February 17, 2005; the City Council approved the related DevelopmeniAgreement (Case
.DVA2004-00001) and vacation of.rights-of-way, with one condition relating to the pedestrian
bridge over South Gulfview Boulevard.
During the deliberations on the Development Agreement with City Council, the applicant
modified the location of the pedestrian bridge over South Gulfview Boulevard, repositioning the
bridge to the southwest by approximately 45 feet. This modification was determined to be a
Major Revision to that previously approved by the COB, requiring the submission of this
application.
.
The site is located within the BeachWalk District of the Beach by Design Plan. The
BeachWalk project will transform South Gulfview Boulevard into a beachfront promenade that
will involve the removal of most surface parking west of the road. It will include a pedestrian
way and bicycle path, and significant landscaping and public spaces. The revised location of
the proposed pedestrian bridge for this hotel project has been reviewed and found to not conflict
with the improvements slated fo; the BeachWalk project. The relocated bridge also does not
conflict with the existing lifeguard station.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-803.C) have been met.
There are ()utstanding enforcement issues associated with Britt's Cafe at 201 S.
Gulfview (CDC2004-00860 and BIZ2004-00457). An outdoor wood deck was constructed
without any permits or approval from the City and outdoor-seating was increased by 24 seats.
At least Flexible Standard Development approval is required (not applied for to-date).
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 2.427 acres (current; proposed is 2.739 acres, including
First Avenue and a portion of South Gulfview Boulevard rights-of-way and excluding new
Second Street right-of-way and a portion of Coronado Avenue) is zoned Tourist (T) District; 2)
On August 17, 2004, the COB approved the original Case FLD2004-02013 and re-approved this
case on October 19,2004, adding three conditions of approval; 3) On February 17, 2005, the
City Council approved the related Development Agreement (Case DVA2004-00001) and
vacation of rights-of-way: with one condition relating to the pedestrian bridge over South
Gulfview Boulevard; and 4) The revised location of the proposed pedestrian bridge for this hotel
project does not conflict with the improvements slated for the BeachWalk project, nor the
existing lifeguard station. . .
Conclusions of LaiN: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2)
Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria
.
Community Development 2005-05-17
3
.
.
.
per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and
proposed condition, staff recommends approval of this application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the original application and supporting
materials on April 1 and July 8, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the
Flexible Development application to modify the location of an elevated pedestrian walkway over
South Gulfview Boulevard, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-803.C (previously approved under Case FLD2004-02013, approved by
the COB on October 19,2004, for: 1) Flexible Development application to Terminate the Status
of a Nonconformity for density within the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 6-
109.C; 2) Flexible Development application to permit 350 overnight accommodation units and
75 attached dwellings as a mixed use (with increase in density of 250 hotel rooms from the
Beach by Design density pool), with a reduction tathe front (east along Coronado Drive)
setback from 15 feeUo zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along proposed
Second Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front (west and
north along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), an
increase to the building height from 35 feet to 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet
for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical
rooms/architectural embellishments (from roof deck), deviations to allow stacked parking, allow
access to a major arterial street and allow a building within the required sight visibility triangles
at the intersection of Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, and to eliminate the required
foundation landscaping along Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and 3) the
vacation of a portion the right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard between Coronado Drive and
proposed Second Street, the vacation of the First Street right-of-way between Coronado Drive
and Gulfview Boulevard, the dedication of right-of-way for proposed Second Street between
Coronado Avenue and Gu!fview Boulevard and the dedication of right-af-way for Coronado
Drive between proposed Second Street and Gulfview Boul~vard), for the sites at 100 Coronado
Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) The proposal complies with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design;
AND Condition of Approval: (* Previously imposed under Case FLD2004-02013) 1 *) That
approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DV A2004-00001); 2*) That approval of this Flexible
Development case is subject to the vacation of rights-of-way by the City and the dedication of
certain rights-of-way by the owners prior to the issuance of any permits; 3*) That approval of this
request is subject to the City Council approval of the declaration of surplus right-of-way and
trade with the developer; and 4) That the bridge be provided with public elevators and public
access on both sides of South Gulfview Boulevard.
See page 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2005-05-17
4
.
.
.
2. Case: FLD2003-0904 7 A - 1750 North Belcher Road Leve/ Two Application
Owner/Applicant: GTE Federal Credit Union.
Representative: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire (2550 Permit Place, Holiday, FL 34655;
phone: 727-942-0733; fax: 727-944-3711; email: fiq@fhlaw.net).
Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of North Belcher Road and Calumet
Street.
Atlas Page: 262B.
Zoning District: Industrial, Technology and Research (IRT) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to modify an adopted condition of approval relating to
hours of operation for a retail sales (financial services), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project. under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C (previously approved under
Case FLD2003-09047, approved by the Community Development Board on December 16,
2003, a Flexible Development application to permit retail sales [financial services] with
deviations to allow direct access to a major arterial street [North Belcher Road], to allow the use
as a permitted use and in a separate, primary building and to allow the use to serve patrons
beyond the industrial area, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-1304.C).
Proposed Use: Credit Union.
. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 3.288-acre site is located at the southwest corner of North Belcher Road and
Calumet Street. North Belcher Road is a heavily traveled, four-lane divided roadway. The east
side of North Belcher Road is residentially developed with single-family detached dwellings.
The west side of North Belcher Road is developed industrially. The site was formerly developed
with an office building, which was demolished under BCP2003-03525. Under BCP2003-03528,
the site has been developed with a St. Petersburg Times distribution building on the west side
facing Calumet Street. The site also has been constructed with the GTE Credit Union
(constructed under BCP2004-06245) and an office building (being constructed under BCP2004-
02057). The GTE Credit Union was approved by the CDB under Case FLD2003-09047 on
December 16, 2003, with five conditions.
The proposal approved by the CDB in 2003 for the GTE Credit Union included the
following condition: 2) That use of the building on the subject property be limited to a credit
union with hours of operation ending at 5:00 pm daily. The applicant shall record a covenant in
the public records restricting the use of this building on the subject property, as contained in this
condition, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the credit union. Any future
change of use of this building to a bank shall require the following: a) Construction plans be
. submitted and approved showing the installation of a left turn lane of adequate storage length,
according to City and FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) design standards, on
Calumet Street at North Belcher Road. Construction of this improvement must be completed
prior to the issuance of an Occupational License for the bank; and b) Establishment of an
escrow account with the City, prior to the issuance of an Occupational License for the bank, for
the future construction of a traffic signal light at the intersection of North Belcher Road and
Calumet Street, if warranted by a Traffic Signal Warrant Study. The funds in the escrow
account will be a shared portion of the full cost of a traffic signal light. The City's shared portion
shall not exceed 50% of the full cost. If, in the event that a traffic signal light is not warranted
based on the Study, funds will be refunded to the applicant.
Community Development 2005-05-17
5
.
.
.
The applicant now is requesting to modify this condition to allow the credit union to be
open until 6:00 p.m. on Fridays, to allow banking services available to customers after working
hours on Fridays. The original condition was included due to the Traffic Study conducted by the
applicant in 2003, which indicated the LOS (Level of Service) on Belcher Road to be LOS F.
However, a new Traffic Study has been conducted that indicates the LOS on Belcher Road to
now be a LOS 0, which is within acceptable ranges. The primary factor affecting this LOS
change was the opening of Keene Road. From a Traffic Engineering standpoint, these changed
circumstances support the applicant's request. No street modifications or additional conditions
are required for this modification of the operating hours. The portion of the condition regarding
turn lanes and a traffic signal study if the property is converted to a full service bank should be
retained as a condition of approval for this modification. All applicable Code requirements and
criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-1304.C) have been met.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 3.288 acres is zoned Industrial, Research and
Technology District (IRT); 2) The GTE Credit Union was approved by the COB under Case
FLD2003-09047 on December 16, 2003, with five conditions; 3) This portion of the site has
been developed with the GTE Credit Union, under Building Permit BCP2004-06245; 4) The
Traffic Study submitted in 2003 indicated Belcher Road was at a Level of Service (LOS) F and
the proposed credit union would not improve the LOS; 5) A new Traffic Study has been
conducted that now indicates the LOS on Belcher Road to be a LOS 0, due primarily to the
opening of Keene Road; 6) The condition of approval imposed by the COB on the original
approval of the credit union was based on the LOS F for Belcher Road; and 7) The changed
circumstances support the applicant's request to modify the hours of operation restriction
imposed on the original approval.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2)
Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria
per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and ,3) Based on the above findings and
proposed modified conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the original application and supporting
materials on October 30, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to modify an adopted condition of 'approval relating to hours of
operation for retail sales (financial services), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C (previously approved under Case FLD2003-09047,
approved by the COB on December 16, 2003, a Flexible Development application to permit
retail sales [financial services] with deviations to allow direct access to a major arterial street
[North Belcher Road], to allow the use as a permitted use and in a separate, primary building
and to allow the use to serve patrons beyond the industrial area, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C) for the site at 1750 North
Belcher Road, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project per Section 2-1304.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code
including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is
compatible with and will not be detrimental to development/redevelopment efforts of the
surrounding area. AND Conditions of Approval: (*Previously imposed under Case FLD2003-
Community Development 2005-05-17
6
.
.
.
- -
09047) 1 *) That the final design arid color of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual
elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2*) That use of the building on the subject
property be limited to a credit union. The applicant shall record a covenant in the public records
restricting the use of this building on the subject property, as contained in this condition, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the credit union. Any future change of use of this
building to a bank shall require the following: a) Construction plans be submitted and approved
showing the installation of a left turn lane of adequate storage length, according to City and
FDOT design standards, on Calumet Street at North Belcher Road. Construction of this
improvement must be completed prior to the issuance of an Occupational License for the bank
and b) Establishment of an escrow account with the City, prior to the issuance of an
Occupational License for the bank, for the future construction of a traffic signal light at the
intersection of North Belcher Road and Calumet Street, if warranted by a Traffic Signal Warrant
Study. The funds in the escrow account will be a shared portion of the full cost of a traffic signal
light. The City's shared portion shall not exceed 50% of the full cost. If, in the event that a
traffic signal light is not warranted based on the Study, funds will be refunded to the applicant;
3*) That revised landscape plans be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building
permits for the proposed credit union reflecting Code foundation plantings; 4*) That outdoor
lighting fixtures be integrated into the landscape site design to avoid shielding of the lighting by
tree canopy; and 5*) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be designed
according to a comrnon theme including similar style, color, material and other characteristics to
provide a sense of uniformity. Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument-style, not to
.. exceed six feet in height. Submission of a Comprehensive Sign Program is required for more
than one freestanding sign on either street frontage.
See page 29 for motion of approval
3. Case: FLD2005-02019 -1315 South Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Corbett Development, Inc.
Representative: F. Blake Longacre (c/o Corbett Development, 401 Corbett Street, Suite
110, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-446-5846; fax: 727-446-1296; email:
fbldev@tampabav.rr.com).
Location: 0.34 acre located on the east side of South Fort Harrison, approximately 300
feet north of Lakeview Road.
Atlas Page: 305B.
Zoning District: Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit offices with a reduction to the minimum lot
area from 20,000 square-feet to 14,810 square-feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback from
20 feet to 15.5 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet
(to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement),
reductions to the side (east) setback from 15 feet to nine feet (to building and garage) and from
15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and to increase the size of an accessory garage structure from
10 percent to 15 percent of the gross floor area of the primary structure; as a Comprehensive
. --lnfillRedevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-1304.C and 3-201.
Proposed Use: A two-story, 4,000 square-foot office building with an accessory 600 square-foot
garage.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, President,
1120 Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: none; email: duketieman@aol.com) and
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater,
FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Community Development 2005-05-17
7
.
.
.
Presenter: John Schodt!er, Planner I.
The 0.34-acre site is located on the east side of South Fort-Harrison Avenue,
approximately 300 feet north of Lakeview Road. The site is entirely paved and contains an
existing 2,044 square-foot building located on the rear (southeast) portion of the property. The
building has brick (exposed concrete block) on all facades. The building appears to be in need
of structural repair and major fac;ade renovations. Located on the front (west) fac;ade along
South Fort Harrison Avenue is a double window where a single car garage door existed. The
front (south) fac;ade along liB" Street has a two-car garage door with an aluminum awning cover
that extends from building to five feet from property line. These existing garage doors served
many ofthe former vehicle service and automotive sale uses that occupied the parcel. The
property has an existing four-foot chain link fence located and running along the entire side
(north) property line. Located on the side (east) property line is an 18-foot (drainage and utility
easement) alley. The western nine feet of the alley belongs to the property owner and is
currently paved. The property has two curb cuts located on liB" Street and one on South Fort
Harrison Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a two-story
office building consisting of 4,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The proposed building is to
be constructed at 25.5 feet in height, well below the maximum of 50 feet required for Office uses
in the Industrial, Research, and Technology District. The proposed office use will include a real
estate office, marketing office and office storage. Office use is permitted within the Institutional
Research and Technology District on the basis that the proposed use of the parcel shall be
related to the uses permitted in the district and shall include, but not be limited to, office uses
related to scientific or industrial research, product development and testing, etc. Because the
parcel does not meet the minimum lot area, the proposed front and side setback requirements,
and the office use criteria, the application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project.
The proposed site plan is designed to access the parcel along South Fort Harrison
Avenue. Twelve parking spaces are provided in the proposed parking lot to the north of the
building. A one-way drive aisle runs from the parking lot, in front of the building and exits onto
liB" Street. There are three parallel parking spaces located on each side of the one-way drive
aisle. Immediately to the east of the exiting one-way drive isle is a 12-foot apron/drive that
accesses the aluminum awning cover and two-car garage door located on the south side of the
building. The applicant is replacing the two-car garage door along liB" Street with two French
doors and a six-foot sidewalk. The applicant is removing the two-car garage door on the south
building elevation.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the front (west) setback along South Fort Harrison
Avenue from 20 feet to 15 feet to pavement. The Community Development Code allows for
reductions in the front setback to 15 feet for parking lots, provided the land area is not sufficient
to accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved site plan
or improved design and appearance and landscaping is in excess oithe minimum required.
The perimeter landscape buffer along South Fort Harrison Avenue meets the minimum
landscape requirements and would be characteristic with the Fort Harrison Medical Center front
setback of 15 feet to the immediate north of the parcel.
Community Development 2005-05-17
8
.
The Community Development Code requires an office use in the Industrial Research
and Technology District to have three parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet. The proposed
building is 4,000 square-feet and would require a maximum number of 12 parking spaces. The
applicant is requesting 18 parking spaces with three of the 18 to be enclosed parking spaces
located in the proposed 600 square-foot accessory garage. The Code does riot limit the
--maximum number of parking spaces on a property.
The applicant submitted a proposed sign plan for one freestanding and one attached
sign that did not meet the City submittal requirements in order to review. No materials or colors
were submitted for review along with proposed locations. Any proposed signage would need to
be reviewed by City staff. All freestanding sign request should include a low, monument style
sign and all attached signage should be architecturally integrated into the design of the building
and site.
.
A Comprehensive Landscape Program application was submitted with the proposal.
This allows for the requirements to the Landscape Section of the Code to be waived or modified
in circumstances whereby there are existing site constraints that limit full compliance with Code.
One of the criteria is that the design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape
treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under
the minimum landscape standards. The landscape requirements along South Fort Harrison
Avenue have been met and will help to screen the six parallel parking spaces from the street.
The minimum perimeter landscaping has been met with a five-foot wide buffer along the north
and east property lines. The nine-foot paved portion of the vacated alley along the side (east)
property line will be removed and a five-foot landscaped buffer will be added. The applicant has
provided groundcover throughout the site in lieu of grass or turf. The requested Comprehensive
Landscape Program application is to reduce the amount of landscaping required as a result of
the site design and desire to maximize parking on site.
The building will be painted beige with the exterior windows trimmed with light blue
accenting. Staff will require the removal of the existing carport and that any new canopy
proposed on the side (south) elevation be consistent in color, style and pattern with the new
canopy over the main exterior entrance along the front (west) elevation on South Fort Harrison
Avenue. The proposed reductions to setbacks and office use requested in the Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment application create an improved site plan with regards to the existing
property. The improvements to the building and landscaping will upgrade the appearance of the
parcel.
.
Findings of Fact 1) Subject property is 0.34 acre and is Industrial Research and
Technology (IRT) District/Industrial Limited (IL) Category; 2) The current use of the site is
vacant and the previous use 'Nas automotive vehicle sales; 3) The applicant proposes to
redevelop the entire site for an office in a two-story building. of 4,OQO square-feet in gross floor
area; 4) The applicant proposes an accessory three car garage of 600 square-feet in gross floor
area that the design and color will be consistent with the primary building; 5) The subject
property was previously approved for a single story office building consisting of 2,000 square-
feet by the CDS (FLD2004-02006) on July 20, 2004; 6) Parking exceeds the minimum required
number of spaces (12 spaces) by providing 18 spaces resulting in an improved site plan design;
7) Reductions to setbacks to building and pavement proposed represent improvements over
that existing and will result in an improved site plan, improved design and appearance and
Community Development 2005-05-17
9
~
.
.
.
landscaping in excess of the minimum required; 8) The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding development (office and medical clinic facilities) and will enhance the character of
the immediate vicinity, and will improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area;
and 9) There is one active code enforcement case for the parcel. The code enforcement case
(CDC2005-00712) is for no street address on the building and storage of a boat on the site.
This citation was issued on March 21,2005.
, Conclusiol1s pf Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment under the provisions of Section
2-1304.C; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General
Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on
the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31,2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of Flexible Development
approval to construct a two-story, 4,000 square-foot office building with an accessory 600
square-foot garage, in the Industrial Research and Development (IRT) District. The request
includes the following reductions: the minimum lot size from 20,000 square-feet to 14,810
square-feet, the front (west) setback along South Fort Harrison Avenue from 20 feet to 15.5 feet
to pavement, the front (south) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), the side (north)
setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement), the side (east) setback from 15 feet to five feet
(to pavement), the side (east) setback from 15 feet to nine feet (to building and garage), and to
increase the size of an accessory garage structure from 10 percent of the gross floor area of the
primary structure to 15 percent (600 square feet), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-1304.C and 3-201.for the site at 1315 South Fort
Harrison Avenue, subject to the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The
proposal complies with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria under the provisions of
Section 2-1304.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including
the general applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The redevelopment of the project will
improve the parcel and immediate area. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design
and color of the building be consistent with the submitted elevations and/or any modifications
made by the COB; 2) The proposed use of the parcel shall be related to the uses permitted in
the district and shall include, but not be limited to, office uses related to scientific or industrial
research, product development and testing, engineering development and marketing
development, corporate offices provided, however, that they do not provide services or uses to
the general public on the premises, and such other office uses, including support services, as
well as uses which are accessory to and compatible with the permitted uses. Support services
for the purposes of this zoning district shall be defined as companies that supply services
utilized wholly by other companies located in this zoning district; 3) That the existing carport
along the side (south) elevation be removed, prior to building permit; 4) That the proposed
canopy over the doors on the front (west) elevations be consistent in color, style, and pattern to
the satisfaction of planning staff; 5) That the handicap aisle's ramp next to the handicap parking
space must comply with the current City handicap details and not intrude in the access aisle;
and 6) That all signage meet Code and be architecturally-integrated into the design of the
building and site including a low, monument style freestanding sign.
See page 29 for motion of approval
. Community Development 2005-05-17
10
.
.
.
4. Case: PL T2005-00003 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive Leve/ Two Application
Owner/Applicant: ruur Seasons Town Homes LLC.
Representative: Pierre Cournoyer (1133 Pierce Street, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-
449-9876, fax 727-467-9494).
Location: 0.31 acre located on the west side of North Lady Mary Drive, approximately
450 feet north of Cleveland Street.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR).
Request: Preliminary Plat approval for four residential townhome lots to be called "Four
Seasons Townhomes" as previously approved under FLD2002-12044.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
.. Nejghborhood Ass9ciation: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I
The 0.31-acre site is located on the west side of North Lady Mary Drive, approximately
450 feet north of Cleveland Street. It is located along a highly developed area between
Cleveland and Drew Streets. The site is vacant and paved to within a few feet of all property
lines. The site has one, existing driveway along the east property line (North Lady Mary Drive).
The proposal includes a preliminary plat creating four lots. The previously approved
Flexible Development application (FLD2002-12044), approved on May 20,2003 includes
construction of four, common wall town homes within a two-story, 3,849 square-foot building. It
will be 21 feet in height (as measured to the midpoint of the peak of the roof) with two floors of
living area and enclosed one-car garages. The building will contain four, individual dwelling
units, each approximately 962 square-feet in area. The proposed building will be located six
feet from the side (north and south) property lines, 63 feet from the front (east) property line
along North Lady Mary Drive, and 15 feet from the rear (west) property line: The proposal
includes eight parking spaces, exceeding Code requirements. Each unit will have a one-car
garage and its own driveway, a minimum of 20 feet in length, which will accommodate parking
for a second car. A main access drive with a single driveway along North Lady Mary Drive will
provide access to each unit. The development will operate as and have the characteristics of
single-family homes.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31,2005. The preliminary plat meets the requirements of the Code. The site plan for
the redevelopment of this property was approved at the May 20, 2003, COB meeting contingent
upon preliminary plat approval at the May 17, 2005 meeting.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat application with
the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 4-
703 and 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General. AND Conditions for Approval: 1) That a final plat be recorded with Pinellas County
prior to building permit approval; 2) That the final site plan be consistent with the site plans
previously approved by the COB on May 20, 2003; and 3) That evidence of a SWFWMD
(Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit or exemption is submitted to Staff prior
to the issuance of any permits.
Community Development 2005-05-17
11
.
.
.
See page 29 for motion of approval
5. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Leve/ Two Application
Case: ANX2005-02003 - 3290 McMullen-Booth Road (related to LUZ2005-
02002IDV A2005-0COO 1/FLD2005-01 014)
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, # 300, Clearwater, FL 33761,
phone: 727-726-8673, fax: 727-785-3179).
Location: 0.358 acre located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A
Request: Annexation of 0.358 acre to the City of Clearwater to be included as part of a pending
future land use amendment and rezoning request (LUZ2005-02002).
Proposed Use: Medical C!ir.ic .
_ NeJghborhood Associations: Ashland Homeowners (Judy Blackwood, President, 3309
Waterford Drive, FL 33761; phone: 727-787-7817) and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
(Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345;
email: Diw(Q>.qte.net).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves 0.358 acre of a 4.50-acre property consisting of two parcels,
located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 500 feet north of Mease Road.
The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries on the north, south and west;
therefore, the proposed annexation will reduce an enclave and is consistent with Florida
Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order for their entire prop~rty to be within a single municipality.
A companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of the entire site
from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (I), and to rezone it
from Agricultural Estate (A-E) (County) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
is being processed concurrently with this annexation request in LUZ2005-02002.
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 property already receives City water service. The proposed
annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas
. County Ordinance #00-63 regarding municipal annexation.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) Subject property is a total of 196,272 square-feet (4.50 acres) and
220 feet wide; 2) A portion of the property consisting of approximately 0.358 acre located at the
northeastern corner of the site is within unincorporated Pinellas County and has a zoning of A-
E, Agricultural Estate (County) and a RS, Residential Suburban Future Land Use Plan
classification (County). This portion of the site is the subject of this annexation request. The
remainder of the of the site (4.142 acres) is presently within the City of Clearwater and is within
the Low Density Residential (LDR) district and has a Future Land Use Plan classification of RS,
Residential Suburban; 3) The parcel is further subject of case LUZ2005-02002. The request
proposes to amend the Future Land Use classification of the eastern 2.44 acres from the
Residential Suburban (RS) classification (County and City of Clearwater) to the Institutional
Community Development 2005-05-17
12
.
.
.
(INS) classification (City of Clearwater) and change the zoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate
district (County) and Low Density Residential (LDR) district (City of Clearwater) to the
Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater). The requests also propose to amend the Future
Land Use Plan classification of the western 2.06 acres from the Residential Suburban (RS)
classification to the Residential Low (RL) classification and change the zoning from the Low
Density Residential (LDR) district to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district; 4)
The parcel is further subject of Case FLD2005-01 014 where the applicant seeks relief from front
(east) and side (north and south) setbacks to pavement, maximum height limits as a
Comprehensive Infill Development Project under Code provisions of Section 2-1204.A and to
permit a non-residential off-street parking facility within the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) district under the provisions of Section 2-204.C; 5) The property is also subject to a
Development Agreement (DV A2005-00001) to ensure the use of the western portion of the
property is solely for nonresidential off-street parking. The proposed Development Agreement
also limits the gross floor area and height of the building, number of parking spaces and
establishes a variety of site design issues including location, type, design and height of walls
and fencing, amount of landscaping and operational components including hours of operation,
location of particular business activities and lighting; and 6) The proposed, two-story building
design and architectural style is similar in character with regard to size and scale of other
buildings in the area.
.. .
- .. .
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposed Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) zoning districts
are consistent with both the City (Section 4-603.F.1) and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans
(Sections 2.3.3.1.4 and 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules); 2) The proposed Residential Low
(RL) Future Land Use Plan classification and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and
Institutional (I) zoning districts are compatible with the surrounding area (Sections 4-602.F.2 &
4-603.F.3); 3) The proposed Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification and Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) zoning districts do not require nor affect
the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent
with the development regulations of the City; 4) The location of the proposed Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District boundaries are logical based on the historical use of this
property and limits the use of this portion of the site and consolidates this site into the
appropriate zoning district (Section 4-602 .F.6.); and 5) The subject property exceeds the City's
minimum LMDR and I District's dimensional requirements and is therefore consistent with the
Community Development Code (Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-602.F.1. and .2)
The Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation of 0.358 acre to the
City of Clearwater.
Consulting Planner Mark Parry reviewed the background of Items E5, E6,. E7, and E8.
Concern was. expressed regarding language in the development agreement regarding
the proposed location of imaging services.
Andrew Salzman requested party status as a representative for property owner
Elizabeth C Sirna.
Member Coates moved to grant party status to Andrew Salzman. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-05-17
13
.
.
.
Dr. Douglas Weiland requested party status.
Member Coates moved to grant party status to Dr. Douglas Weiland. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Steve Seibert, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request. He said the infill
parcel abuts a highway and is across the street from a hospital. The medical clinic will provide
diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, and out patient surgery. He said the facility entrance has
been located as far as possible from neighbors to the north, for after hours use. He said the
applicant has had many meetings with neighbors during the past eight months. Based on
resident input, the building and parking were moved away from the neighbors, fences and walls
will be built, and lighting will be limited. Translucent windows on the second floor will block
neighborhood views from the facility. Limited hours of operation are set forth in the
development agreement. The applicant has agreed to include conditions in the development
agreement and file deed restrictions that will live in perpetuity, providing the Ashland
Homeowners Association the power to enforce. According to SWFWMD (Southwest Florida
Water Management District) direction, the retention pond in back will be wet. He reviewed
structural plans, stating they meet code.
Andrew Salzman requested that Item E7 be continued until the City Council had
approved the zoning change. He spoke in opposition to the project.
Dr. Douglas Weiland opposed the project.
Two people spoke in favor of the project and five people spoke in opposition.
In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said the Code does
not address ways to approve fences that are taller than is allowed by Code. The apartment
building on site will be razed. Ms. Clayton said the Ashland Homeowners Association had
opposed a previous project on this site.
Mr. Seibert said all issues related to the project are being presented today for board
consideration. The deed restrictions are part of the application and part of the public record.
This application differs from the one originally submitted. He said the applicant worked hard to
obtain input from neighbors. He said the imagining services will be located on the southeast
side of the building so lighted, late night movements do not disturb neighbors. He said the
project is supported by abutting property owners. He said the project will retain many trees and
a significant planting program is planned. In response to a question, he said the applicant
agreed to make the deed restrictions permanent.
In response to a question, Jack McCurdy, representative for the applicant, said after
hours operations will be limited to diagnostic imaging on the southeast side of the site. He said
the majority of the imaging equipment will be in this area. Other diagnostic x-ray equipment will
be within the clinic .for use during normal hours. He estimated no more than 15 people would be
on site after hours. He reported that 57 parking spaces will be adjacent to the building. In
response to a recommendation, Mr. Siebert agreed to modify the development agreement
regarding the location of imaging equipment.
Community Development 2005-05-17
14
.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item ES, Case: ANX200S-02003 for
3290 McMullen-Booth Road based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff
report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Leve/ Two Application
Case: LUZ200S-02002 - 3280 & 3290 McMullen-Booth Road (related to ANX200S-
02003/ DV A200S-00001/FLD200S-0 1014)
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, # 300, Clearwater, FL 33761,
phone: 727-726-8673, fax: 727-78S-3179).
Location: 4.S acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
SOO feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County
and City) to the Residential Low (RL) Classification (City) (pending ANX200S-02003);
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification
(County) to the Institutional (INS) Classification (City) (pending ANX200S-02003);
c) Rezoning from the Low Density Residential (LOR) District (City) to the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City); and
d) Rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate (County) to the Institutional (I) District (City)
(pending ANX200S-02003).
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
Neighborhood Associations: Ashland Homeowners (Judy Blackwood, President, 3309
Waterford Drive, FL 3376'1; phone: 727-787-7817) and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
(Doug Williams, President, 2S44 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-72S-334S;
email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Consulting Planner.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves two
parcels of land, approximately 4.S0 acres in area located on the west side of McMullen-Booth
Road, approximately SOO feet north of Mease Road. A vacant detached dwelling and accessory
structures and 14 attached dwellings within two, two-story buildings currently occupy the site.
The entire site has a FLUP designation of Residential Suburban (RS). The northeast corner of
the site, consisting of 0.3S8 acre, is included in a companion application to annex into the City of
Clearwater (Case ANX200S-02003) and is zoned A-E, Agricultural Estate District (Pine lias
County). The remainder \:if U'H:; site, consisting of 4.142 acres, is currently within the City of
Clearwater and has a zoning designation of Low Density Residential (LOR).
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the western 2.06 acres of .
this 4.S-acre site to the Residential Low (RL) classification and to rezone it to the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District. The applicant also is requesting to amend the FLUP
designation of the eastern 2.44 acres of the site to the Institutional (INS) classification and to
rezone it to the Institutional (I) District. The applicant plans to construct a medical clinic/office
with paved, surfaced parking areas, landscaping and stormwater facilities (Case FLD200S-
01014). A development agreement is being proposed between the applicant and the City for a
. period of 10 years tl1at limits the use of this site to a 4S,OOO square-foot medical clinic, while the
. . . ..
land use plan amendment and rezoning could possibly result in a maximum of 69,086 square-
.
Community Development 200S-0S-17
1S
.
.
.
feet. Furthermore, the proposed agreement would limit the use of the residentially zoned
portion of the site to non-residential off-street parking and further outlines and details how and
under what circumstances the subject site may be used (Case DVA2005-00001).
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the acreage and density involved in this future land
use plan amendment, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is
not required. .
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Suburban (RS) category to the
Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (INS) categories and a rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural
Estate District (County) and the Low Density Residential (LOR) District (City) to the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) Districts for the subject site is requested.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property is a total of 196,272 square-feet (4.50 acres) and
220 feet wide; 2) A portion of the property consisting of approximately 0.358 acre located at the
northeastern corner of the site is within unincorporated Pinellas County and has a zoning of A-
E, Agricultural Estate (County) and a RS, Residential Suburban Future Land Use Plan
classification (County). The remainder of the of the site (4.142 acres) is presently within the City
of Clearwater and is within the Low Density Residential (LOR) district and has a Future Land
Use Plan classification of RS, Residential Suburban; 3) The request proposes to amend the
Future Land Use classification of the eastern 2.44 acres from the Residential Suburban (RS)
classification (County and City of Clearwater) to the Institutional (iNS) classification (City of
Clearwater) and change the zoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate district (County) and Low
Density Residential (LOR) district (City of Clearwater) to the Institutional (I) District (City of
Clearwater). The requests also propose to amend the Future Land Use Plan classification of
the western 2.06 acres from the Residential Suburban (RS) classification to the Residential Low
(RL) classification and change the zoning from the Low Density Residential (LOR) district to the
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district; 4) The parcel is further subject of case
. ANX2005-02003 which proposes to annex the 0.358 acre of the northeast corner of the site; 5)
The parcel is further subject to case FLD2005-01 014 where the applicant seeks relief from front
(east) and side (north and south) setbacks to pavement, maximum height limits as a
Comprehensive Infill Development Project under Code provisions of Section 2-1204.A and to
permit a non-residential off-street parking facility within the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) district under the provisions of Section 2-204.C; 6) The property is also subject to a
Development Agreement (DV A2005-00001) to ensure the use of the western portion of the
property is solely for nonresidential off-street parking. The proposed Development Agreement
also limits the gross floor area and height of the building, number of parking spaces and
establishes a variety of site design issues including location, type, design and height of walls
and fencing, amount of landscaping and operational components including hours of operation,
location of particular business activities and lighting; 7) The proposed, two-story building design
and architectural style is similar in character with regard to size and scale of other buildings in
the area; 8) The 4.50-acre site exceeds the minimum requirements for the proposed use of the
property as a non-residential off~street parking lot and a medical office; and 9) The
neighborhood is surrounded by single-family residential dwellings to the northwest, southwest
and west, an assisted living facility to the south and medical offices to the east.
Community Development 2005-05-17
16
.
.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposed Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) zoning districts
are consistent with both the City (Section 4-603.F.1) and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans
(Sections 2.3.3.1.4 and 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules); 2) The proposed Residential Low
(RL) Future Land Use Plan classification and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and
Institutional (I) zoning districts are compatible with the surrounding area (Sections 4-602.F.2 &
4-603.F.3); 3) The proposed Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification and Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) zoning districts do not require nor affect.
the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent
with the development regulations of the City; 4) The location of the proposed Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) District boundaries are logical based on the
historical use of this property and limits the use of this portion of the site and consolidates this
site into the appropriate zoning district (Section 4-602 .F.6.); and 5) The subject property
-exceeds the City's minimum LMDR and I District's dimensional requirements and is therefore
consistent with the Community Development Code (Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-602.F.1. and .2).
The Planning Department recommends approval of a Future Land Use Plan amendment
from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County and City) to the Residential Low (RL)
Classification (City) (pending ANX2005-02003), Future Land Use Plan amendment from the
Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County) to the Institutional (INS) Classification (City)
(pending ANX2005-02003), Rezoning from the Low Density Residential (LDR) District (City of
Clearwater) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater); and
Rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate (County) to the Institutional (I) District (City of
Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-02003).
See page 13 for discussion of Item E6.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item E6, Case: LUZ2005-02002 for
3280 & 3290 McMullen-Booth Road based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the
staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
7. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: DVA2005;.OOOOI - 3280 & 3290 McMullen-Booth ROi:.id (reiatedto ANX2005-
02003/LUZ2005-02002/FLD2005-01014) Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, # 300, Clearwater, FL 33761,
phone: 727-726-8673, fax: 727-785-3179).
Location: 4.5 acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, Approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Request: Review of and recommendation to the City Council of, a Development Agreement
between Spinecare Properties, LLC. and the City of Clearwater.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic.
Neighborhood Associations: Ashland Homeowners (Judy Blackwood, President, 3309
Waterford Drive, FL 33761; phone: 727-787-7817) and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
(Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345;
email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Consulting Planner
Community Development 2005-05-17
17
.
.
.
The site is 4.50 acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Road. The site is occupied by two, one-story apartment buildings with
a total of 14 attached dwellings units and a detached dwelling and several accessory structures.
The surrounding area is predominantly developed with single-family dwellings to the northwest,
southwest and west, an assisted living facility to the south and medical offices to the east.
The majority of the site (4.142 acres) is presently located in the City of Clearwater and is
within the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district and the Residential Suburban (RS)
Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification. The remainder of the site, 0.358 acre, is located
within unincorporated Pinellas County and is the subject of an annexation petition (see
ANX2005-02003). It has a FLUP designation of Residential Suburban (RS) and is located
within the County A-E, Agricultural Estate District. The applicant concurrently is processing a
FLUP amendment and rezoning application (see LUZ2005-02002) with this development
agreement to designate the western 2.06 acres of the site to the Residential Low (RL)
classification and rezone it to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and to
amend the FLUP of the eastern 2.44 acres to the Institutional (INS) category and rezone it to
the Institutional (I) District.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The proposed Development Agreement associated with this 4.5-acre
site limits the use and development of the property to a 45,000 square foot medical clinic for a
period of 10 years. The Agreement sets forth public and private obligations to ensure that the
proposed redevelopment of the site will be in harmony with the existing surrounding uses and
will not negatively impact public facilities. Furthermore, it designates the Ashland Heights Home
Owners Association as a third party beneficiary to the Agreement. Redevelopment of this site
shall be consistent with the following provisions of the proposed Agreement: 2) The portion of
the property requested to be zoned Institutional (I) will be used for a medical clinic and the
portion requested to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential will be used for non-residential
off-street parking; 3) The building will not exceed 45,000 square-feet in area and 30 feet in
height to the top of the root and an additional 5 feet of parapet to screen rooftop equipment; 4)
The maximum number of parking spaces shall not exceed 225; 5) All windows on the north and
west sides of the building shall be translucent; 6) A stucco wall six feet in height shall be located
on the north side of the property between the front (east) property line and the adjacent Lot 40
and a privacy fence six-feet in height shall be located along the south side of the site; 7) A
landscape buffer not less than 10 feet in height be located along the south side of the wall along
the north property line; 8) All medical imaging shall be conducted within the southeast corner of
the building; g) The hours of operation shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and noon on Saturday with the imaging center operating
later than the rest of the building but with limited staffing; 10) Ligllling on the site shall be
. designed and directed in such a manner that light does not intrude beyond the site boundaries;
11) At least 70% of the existing trees with a diameter greater than 12 inches shall be preserved;
12) A deed restriction, which lists all restrictions outlined in the agreement, must be recorded
prior to the issuance of any permits; and 13) The provisions of the proposed Development
Agreement will result in a redevelopment project that is consistent with and furthers the
following goals, policies and objectives of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Additionally, the Development Agreement obligates the City to comply with the following:
1) Concurrently process the Annexation (see case ANX2005-02003) and Future Land Use Plan
Amendment and rezoning request (see case LUZ2005-02002) submitted by the applicant for the
Community Development 2005-05-17
18
.
.
.
subject site and 2) process site and construction plans consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the submitted Concept Plan;
Conclusions of Law: 1) The provisions of the proposed Development Agreement will limit
the use and development potential on the site. The restrictions imposed by the Agreement will
ensure that the size and scale of the development will be compatible with the surrounding
residential and institutional uses. Fencing and landscaping provisions will provide adequate
buffering for the adjacent residential property. Furthermore, parking lot location, lighting and
business hour restrictions will minimize the impacts of clinic activities on surrounding properties
and 2) The proposed Development Agreement will ensure the preservation of surrounding
neighborhoods while allowing infill development along McMullen-Booth Road. The site will be
developed with an institutional use thereby ensuring that public demand for such use is fulfilled.
Furthermore, landscaping cHid tree preservation requirements will be met and exceeded. Lastly,
restrictions imposed on allowable floor area will not cause the level of any City services to fall
below minimum acceptable levels.
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on March 31, 2005. Based on the recommended findings of fact and recommended
conclusions of law the Planning Department recommends approval of the Development
Agreement for the site located at 3280/3290 McMullen-Booth Road.
See page 13for discussion of Item E7.
Member Fritsch moved to recommend approval of Item E7, Case: DVA2005-00001 for
3280 & 3290 McMullen-Booth Road, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the
staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-05-17
19
.
.
.
8. .. Pulled from Consent Agenda.
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen-Booth Road (related to ANX2005-
02003/LUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-00001)
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19N,# 300, Clearwater, FL 33761,
phone: 727-726-8673, fax: 727-785-3179).
Location: 4.5 acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, Approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LOR) & Institutional (I) District
(proposed).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a two story, 45,000 square-foot medical clinic
with non-residential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential District under the
provisions of Section 2-204.C; a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to
pavement; a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to fcur feet to parking; and an
increase in building height from 30 feet to 35 feet for top of parapet and to 43 feet for
elevator/stair tower; as a Comprehensive Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1204.A
and a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
Neighborhood Associations: Ashiand Homeowners (Judy Blackwood, President, 3309
Waterford Drive, FL 33761; phone: 727-787-7817) and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
(Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345;
email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Consulting Planner.
The site is 4.50 aCieS located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
. 500 feet north of Mease Road. The site is occupied by two, one-story apartment buildings with
a total of 14 dwellings units. The site is accessed via a single curb cut along McMullen-Booth
Road located central along the east side of the site.
The majority of the site (4.142 acres) is presently within the City of Clearwater and is
within the Low Density Residential (LOR) district and has a Future Land Use Plan classification
of RS, Residential Suburban. The remainder of the site, 0.358 acre, is within unincorporated
Pinellas County and is being annexed (ANX2005-02003). This portion is located at the
northeast corner of the site and has a zoning of A-E, Agricultural Estate (County) and a RS,
Residential Suburban Future Land Use Plan classification (County). Land Use Plan and Zoning
Atlas amendments are also being requested (LUZ2005-02002). The requests propose to
amend the Future Land Use classification of the eastern 2.44 acres from the Residential
Suburban (RS) classification (County and City of Clearwater) to the Institutional (INS)
classification (City of Clearwater) and change the zoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate
district (County) and Low Density Residential (LOR) district (City of Clearwater) to the
Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater). The requests also propose to amend the Future
Land Use Plan classification of the western 2.06 acres fro.m the Residential Suburban (RS)
classification to the Residential Low (RL) classification and change the zoning from the Low
Density Residential (LOR) district to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district.
The property is also subject to a Development Agreement (DVA2004-00003) to ensure
the use of the western portion of the property is solely for nonresidential off-street parking. The
Community Development 2005-05-17
20
.
proposed Development Agreement also limits the gross floor area and height of the building,
number of parking spaces, and establishes a variety of site design issues including location,
type, design, and height of walls and fencing, amount of landscaping and operational
components including hours of operation, location of particular business activities and lighting.
The proposal includes a two-story medical office building 45,000 square-feet in area.
The building will be located approximately 40 feet from the front (east) property line along
McMullen-Booth Road, 52 feet from the side (north) property line, 70 feet from the side (south)
property line and 545 feet from the rear (west) property line. A total of 225 parking spaces will
be provided where 225 are required. The existing driveway along McMullen-Booth Road will
. continue to serve the site. The proposal includes the installation of landscaping around the
perimeter of the site consistent with the intent of the Code including India hawthorn, jasmine,
viburnum and magnolia, live oak and bald cypress.
The main entrance to the building will be along the south fa9ade of the building. The
building will incorporate the use of exposed beams, terra cotta barrel tile roofs, balustrades and
an extensive use of windows and awnings. The proposed materials will be stucco and cultured
stone painted a light and medium sand, medium green and terra cotta. The proposed, two-story
building design and architectural style utilizes a Mediterranean Influence. The proposed
number of parking spaces will adequately serve the site and meets the requirements of Code.
.
The proposal includes constructing a surface parking area consisting of 116 spaces,
meeting Code requirements, within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district. This
off-street parking area is solely for the use of employees and customers of the medical office
building proposed to be located on the western portion of the site. The residential uses to the
west will be buffered from the parking lot by approximately 150 feet in which will be located a
stormwater retention facility. Residential uses to the north and south will be buffered by solid
fencing and walls six feet in height and, on the north side, a landscape buffer 14 feet in width
and, to the south a landscape buffer 20 feet in width. All landscaping will be located on the
exterior side of the fence.
Lighting of this p'arking area must be designed and constructed'to compiy with the
. requirements of Division 13 of Article 3 of the Code. A photometric plan will need to be
submitted as part of the construction plans showing compliance prior to the issuance of any
permits. Site lighting of this parking area will need to be automatically switched to turn off at
9:00 pm, in compliance with Flexibility criteria for this use.
The proposal also includes the reduction in required setbacks along the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to pavement; a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet
to four feet to parking. The decrease in setbacks is sensitive to the surrounding area and is
mitigated through landscaping with the required buffer of 15 feet provided along McMullen-
Booth Road. The reduction in setback to parking is along the portion of the site adjacent to an
existing assisted living facility to the south, which has a drive aisle within three feet of the two
site's mutual side property line. The proposal otherwise meets or exceeds all other required
setback requirements.
.
The proposalinclu'des increases to building height from 30 feet to 35 feet from roof deck .
for perimeter parapets) and an additional 13 feet (from roof deck) for an architectural
embellishments, elevator, and stairwell shafts. The proposed building of two stories is
Community Development 2005-05-17
21
.
.
.
consistent with other developments in the area. Code provisions allow parapet walls to extend
a maximum of 30 inches above the roof deck. The applicant is requesting to increase the
parapet to a total of five feet from the roof deck. This five-foot high parapet, located along
portions on all facades of the building, will screen from view rooftop air condensing units and will
be in proportion with the building fayade. The proposal also includes architectural
embellishments to provide visual interest and screening for the stairwells and elevator shaft.
Solid waste service will be provided via dumpsters located along the south side of the
site adjacent to the existing medical office site. All stormwater requirements have been met with
this proposal with the site. A sign package has not been submitted with this application,
however, all signage will be required to meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally-
integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as
part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any
permits.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31,2005. The applicant has worked with Staff to provide an attractive, well-designed
development that will enhance the local area and City as a whole. The development will further
the City's goals of improving the character of the area. The proposal is in compliance with the
standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project use and with all applicable standards of the Community Development
Code.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property is a total of 196,272 square feet (4.50 acres) and
220 feet wide; 2) Applicant seeks relief from front (east) and side (north and south) setbacks to
pavement, maximum height limits as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project under Code
provisions of Section 2-1204.A and to permit a non-residential off-street parking facility within
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district under the provisions of Section 2-204.C; 3)
The proposed, two-story building design and architectural style is similar in character with
regard to size and scale of other buildings in the area; 4) Proposed landscaping mitigates
setback reductions, buffering adjacent uses, adhering to neighborhood character; 5) A portion of . ..
the property consisting of approximately 0.358 acres located at the northeastern corner of the
site is within unincorporated Pine lias County and has a zoning of A-E, Agricultural Estate
(County) and a RS, Residential Suburban Future Land Use Plan classification (County). The
remainder of the of the site (4.142 acres) is presently within the City of Clearwater and is within
the Low Density ResidentiCii(LDR) district and has a Future Land U$e Pian classification of RS,
Residential Suburban; 6) The parcel is further subject of case ANX2005-02003 which proposes
to annex the 0.358 acre of the northeast corner of the site; 7) The parcel is further subject of
case LUZ2005-02002. The request proposes to amend the Future Land Use classification of the
eastern 2.44 acres from the Residential Suburban (RS) classification (County and City of
Clearwater) to the Institutional (INS) classification (City of Clearwater) and change the zoning
from the A-E, Agricultural Estate district (County) and Low Density Residential (LOR) district
(City of Clearwater) to the Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater). The requests also
propose to amend the Future Land Use Plan classification of the western 2.06 acres from the
Residential Suburban (RS) classification to the Residential Low (RL) classification and change
the zoning from the Low Density Residential (LOR) district to the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) district; and 8) The property is also subject to a Development Agreement
(DV A2005-00001) to ensure the use of the western portion of the property is solely for
nonresidential off-street parking. The proposed Development Agreement also limits the gross
Community Development 2005-05-17
22
.
.
.
floor area and height of the building, number of parking spaces and establishes a variety of site
design issues including location, type, design and height of walls and fencing, amount of
landscaping and operational components including hours of operation, location of particular
business activities and lighting.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Comprehensive InfHI Redevelopment Project per Section 2-1204.A; 2) The proposal complies
with the Flexible Development criteria as a non-residential parking facility per Section 2-204.C;
3) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 4) The development is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit a two story, 45,000 square-foot medical clinic with non-residential off-street
parking in the Low Medium Density Residential District under the provisions of Section 2-204.C;
a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to pavement; a reduction to the
side (south) setback from 10 feet to four feet to parking; and an increase in building height from
30 feet to 35 feet for top of parapet and to 43 feet for elevator/stair tower; as a Comprehensive
Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1204.A and a Comprehensive Landscape
. Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. based on the following recommended
findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and with Conditions of Approval: 1) That the
final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to
(or as modified by) the CDS, and be approved by Staff; 2) That a copy of a SWFWMD Permit be
submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 3) That revised engineering
documents which show that flowable fill is be used to backfill between the proposed twin 36-inch
diameter reinforced concrete culverts are submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits; 4) That evidence of a deed restriction be filed with the County
that commits the property owner to the maintenance and/or repairs of the proposed twin 36-inch
reinforced concrete culverts prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That a
Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 6) That
Open Space Fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits or final plat (if
applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that
the applicant contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment; 7) That a Tree
Preservation Plan, prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or
other specialist in the field of arboriculture, be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking,
stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of tree to be preserved and how
these impacts will be addressed (I.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration
systems). Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree
barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines If required), and the tree
barricade detail and any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation; 8) That revised
plans are submitted to and approved by Staff which show all trees (both existing and to be
removed) on all sheets prior to the issuance of any building permits; 9) That a cross section
through tree numbers 196 and 198 to insure no grade changes occur under the canopies of
these trees be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits;
10) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed
underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting
right(s)-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number
Community Development 2005-05-17
23
.
.
.
of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location,
size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's
- Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 11) That all Fire Department
requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 12) That all Traffic Department
requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 13) That all signage meet the
requirements of Code and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with
regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and
approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully
dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size and b)
All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors,
materials and architectural style of the building; 14) That all City Storm Drainage criteria be met
prior to the issuance of any building permits; 15) That an approved Pinellas County right-of-way
permit be secured and presented to Staff prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way
and/or the issuance of any building permits; and 16) That all sheets indicate the correct scale
prior to the issues of any building permits.
See page 13 for discussion of Item E8.
Member Coates moved to approve Item E8, Case: FLD2005-01014 for 3280 McMullen-
Booth Road with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
9. __ _' _ Level Three Application
Case: ANX2004-12020 -3070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to FLD2004-11081)
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Representative: Gina Clayton, City of Clearwater Planning Department, (100 S. Myrtle
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33755; phone and Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone:
727-562-4587; fax: 727-562-4865; email: qina.clavton@mvclearwater.com).
Location: 0.11 acre unnamed right-of-way 16 feet in width and 300 feet in length adjacent
to the north edge of property located at 3070 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the northern
terminus of Bay Street and approximately 170 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road.
Atlas Page: 244A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.11-acre of road right-of-way to the City of Clearwater;
b) Provide an initial Future Land Use Plan designation to the Commercial General (CG)
Category (City); and
c) Provide an initial zoning designation to the Commercial (C) District (City).
Proposed Use: The site will remain vacant but will be incorporated into an existing property
currently used for overnight" accommodations. -
Neighborhood Associations: Bay Breeze Trailer Park (Robert, Domzalski, 2975 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-796-2175) and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-
3345; email: Diw@gte.neU.
Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner III.
The CDB (Community Development Board) reviewed and recommended approval of this
application on February 15, 2005. However, at the second City Council reading on April 7,
2005, it was noted that the location was listed incorrectly as 170 feet west of U.S. Highway 19
Community Development 2005-05-17
24
.
.
.
North when the site is actually 170 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road. This error has been
corrected in the staff report and ordinances and the request has been re-advertised for COB
and City Council review. This staff report also has been updated to reflect and be consistent
with the City's new staff report format through the provision of recommended findings of fact and
recommended conclusions of law. The content and substance of the application and staff report
is otherwise unchanged.
The subject site is the western half of an unnamed right-of-way located at the northern
terminus of Bay Street, approximately 170 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road. The right-of-way
is 0.11 acre in area and abuts the north side of property located at 3070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard,
which currently is occupied by a 127 -room Fairfield Inn. The subject site is unimproved and
does not provide access to any property. The developer of 3070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is
requesting that the City process this annexation so the unimproved right-of-way can be vacated
and incorporated into this adjacent property. The developer plans to construct another hotel,
consisting of 55 overnight accommodation units, on the Fairfield Inn site (FlD2004-11 081).
The right-of-way is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south and east;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard
to voluntary annexation. The Planning Department is requesting that .an initial Future land Use
Plan designation of Commercial General (CG) and a consistent zoning designation of the
Commercial (C) District be provided for the right-of-way.
The proposed annexation does not need City of Clearwater services, even though all
services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services
could serve the property 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 law regarding municipal annexation.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation of 0.11 acre of
unnamed right-of-way into the City of Clearwater, of the initial Future land Use Plan designation
of Commercial General (CG) pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and of the initial
zoning designation to the Commercial (C) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community
Development Code.
See page 29 for motion of approval
Community Development 2005-05-17
25
.
.
.
10. Case: ANX2005-02004 -1481 Sandy Lane Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Martin Awerbach
Representative: SSS Investments, Inc. (PO Box 596, Safety Harbor. FL 34695, Phone:
727-234-0950, Fax: 727-772-8820)
Location: 0.17-acre parcel and abutting ROW located on the south side of Sandy Lane,
approximately 180 feet west of Highland Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.17-acres 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).
Proposed Use: Single Family Home
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner
This annexation involves a 0.17 -acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
south side of Sandy Lane, approximately 180 feet west of Highland Avenue. The property is
located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the east; therefore,
the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to
voluntary annexation. It is also proposed that the abutting Sandy Lane right-of-way not currently
within the City limits be anl")exed. 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 property already receives City water service. The proposed
- annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding municipal annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning
Department recommends approval of the annexation of 0.17 acre and 0.08 acre of abutting
Sandy Lane right-of-way to the City of Clearwater, of the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land
Use Plan classification, and of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 29 for motion of approval
Community Development 2005-05-17
26
.
.
.
11. Case: ANX2005-02005 - 3001 Lake Vista Drive Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Arthur Steele
Representative: Arthur Steele
Location: 0.32 acre consisting of one parcel, located at the southeast corner of Lake
Vista Drive and Bayview Avenue.
Atlas Page: 283A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.32-acres or 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).
Proposed Use: Single Family Home
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition {Doug Williams; President,
.2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner
This annexation involves a 0.32-acre property consisting of one parcel, located at the
southeast corner of Lake Vista Drive and Bayview Avenue. The property is contiguous to
existing City boundaries to the west; 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. 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 property already receives City water service. The proposed
annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pine!las
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding municipal annexation. .
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the
annexation of 0.32 acre to the City of Clearwater, of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification, and of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2005-05-17
27
.
.
.
12. Case: ANX2005-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Claire Mudaro
Representative: Nancy Mudaro (PO Box 10045, Tampa, FL 33679, Phone: 813-546-
7262)
Location: 0.18 acre, consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Baywood
Avenue, approximately 490 feet south of Drew Street.
Atlas Page: 290A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.18-acres 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).
Proposed Use: Single Family Home
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; em ail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexationirivolves a 0.18-acre property, consistingot one parcel, -located on the
west side of Baywood Avenue, approximately 490 feet south of Drew Street. The property is
located within an unincorporated enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the
north, east, and south; 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. 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
municipal annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation
of 0.18-acres to the City of Clearwater, of the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan
classification, and of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Community Development 2005-05-17
28
.
.
.
Member Coates moved to approve Item E1, Case: FLD2004-02013A for 100 Coronado
Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard with Bases for Approval and Conditions
. of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, Item
E2, Case: FLD2003-09047 A for 1750 North Belcher Road with Bases for Approval and
Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff
report, Item E3, Case: FLD2005-02019 for 1315 South Fort Harrison Avenue with Bases for
Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and the staff report, Item E4, Case: PL T2005-00003 for 100 North Lady Mary Drive with Bases
for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and the staff report, and recommend approval of Item E9, Case: ANX2004-12020 for 3070
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report,
Item E10, Case: ANX2005-02004 for 1481 Sandy Lane, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and the staff report, Item E11, Case: ANX2005-02005 for 3001 Lake Vista Drive, based
on Findings of Fact, Conc!uslons of Law, and the staff report, and Item E12, Case: ANX2005-
02006 for 100 Baywood Avenue, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff
report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
13.
Level Two Application
. .. .
Case: FLD2005-01 008 - 830 Bayway Boulevard . .
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Yacht Club, Incorporated. .
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: nestech@mindsprinq.com).
Location: 1.157 acres located on the north side of Bayway. Boulevard, approximately 50
feet east of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285B.
Zoning Districts: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a three story, 18,500 square-foot Yacht Club
with offices, exercise room, restaurant and parking garage structure, with reductions to the front
(south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet to pavement and four feet to building structure; to
permit a building within the sight visibility triangles along Bayway Boulevard, a reduction of rear
(north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet to paver deck and 18 feet to building and an increase in
building height from 25 feet to 46.5 feet to mean roof height, as a Comprehensive Infill Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Marina.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net);
Clearwater Point 1 Beach House 16 (845 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-535-
2424); Clearwater Point 3 Marina House 17 (868 Bayway Blvd #212, Clearwater, FI33767);
Clearwater Point 8 Shipmaster, Sail (800 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-
442-0664; e-mail: clwpt8@tampabav.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100
Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com);
Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1(895 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-530-
4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, FL 33767;
phone: 727-447-0290); Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FL
33767; phone: 727-441-8'212; e-mail: cpoint7@knoloqv.net).
. Presenter: Mark 1. Parry, Consulting Planner
Member Milam reported a conflict of interest.
Community Development 2005-05-17
29
.
.
.
This Flexible Development case was reviewed at the April 19, 2005, COB meeting. The
design of the parking garage portion of the building did not meet Section 7 of Beach by Design,
which requires that when a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be
designed such that the function of the building is not-readily apparent except at points of ingress
and egress. The COB continued the item to provide the applicant additional time to adequately
meet all of Staff's concerns regarding the design of the parking garage portion of the fac;ade of
the building. The de'sign of the portion of the building housing the parking garage on the east
. . side of the site conceals that use and appears to be a logical extension and utilizes many of the
design elements of the main portion of the building. This resolves Staff's concerns as outlined
at the April 19, 2005, COB meeting. These concerns have been resolved to the satisfaction of
Staff. No other changes have been made to the application or Staff report other than
acknowledging the change to the design of the parking garage portion of the building and
including a recommendation of approval of this application.
The site is 1.16 acres located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard approximately 50
feet east of Gulf Boulevard. The site is currently occupied by the Clearwater Yacht Club and
contains a two-story 8,500 square-foot building. The Clearwater Yacht Club has occupied this
site since 1976. The site is accessed via two curb cuts along Bayway Boulevard with one two-
way driveway located at the east end of the site and one at the west end. The site contains
three docks with approximately 30 slips, which will remain unchanged with this proposal. It is
located along a highly developed area within Clearwater beach and has frontage along
Clearwater Bay. The site is located within the Clearwater Pass District of Beach By Design.
The proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story yacht club facility and replacing
it with a 18,556 square-foot, three-story building, 46 feet in height. The first floor of the building
will be used for 48 parking spaces, lobby, exercise room, men and women's showers, storage,
dock master office, and a tiki bar accessible from the outdoor swimming pool located on the
west side of the site. The second floor will contain 51 parking spaces and primarily meeting and
. office space. The third floor will contain the banquet and dining rooms including a bar and
kitchen. The building will be located approximately four feet from the front (south) property line
along Bayway Boulevard, 10 feet from the side (east) property line, 69 feet from the side (west)
property line and 18 feet from the rear (north) property line. A total of 99 parking spaces will be
provided where 93 are required. The existing driveways along Bayway Boulevard will continue
to serve the site. The proposal includes the installation of landscaping around the perimeter of
the site consistent with the intent of the Code including a variety of palm trees, ixora, jasmine,
ilex and lilies.
The main entrance to the building will be along Bayway Boulevard. The building will
incorporate a modern style of architecture utilizing split-faced masonry block, cementitious
siding board, stucco, and a standing seam metal roof. The primary colors used for the building
will be white (trim) light to medium grey (body) and blue (roof). The proposed number of parking
spaces will adequately serve the site. The design of the parking garage portion of the building
meets Section 7 of Beach by Design, which requires that when a parking garage abuts a public
road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily
apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The design of the portion of the building
housing the parking garage on the east side of the site conceals that use and appears to be a
logical extension and utilizes many of the design elements of the main portion of the building.
Community Development 2005-05-17
30
.
The reductionsto the front (south) and rear (north) setbacks are consistent with other
developments in the area and provide for the reasonable use of the property. The reduction to
zero feet along the rear (south) property line will be to a paver deck only.
The elimination of the sight visibility triangles on the south side of the site will provide
adequate space for a functional parking garage. An adequate distance will be provided
between the edge of the building and the sidewalk and BayWay Boulevard for visibility. The
Traffic Engineer will work with the projects engineer to ensure that the walls within the sight
visibility triangle are designed such that they minimize visibility obstruction. An increase in
building height from 25 feet to 46.5 feet to mean roof height will provide for an aesthetically
pleasing building.
Solid waste service will be provided via trash containers staged within the building. Staff
will move them out on collection days for pick up by the Solid Waste Department. All
stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal with the site.
A sign package has not been submitted with this application, however, all signage will be
required to meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally-integrated with the design of
the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package
submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on December 30, 2004. The CDB reviewed the application and supporting materials on April
19, 2005. The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible
Development approval for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use and with all
applicable standards of the Community Development Code and complies with the design
guidelines set forth within Beach by Design.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 50,417 square-feet (1.16 acres), 284 feet wide,
Tourist (T) District; 2) Applicant seeks relief from front and rear setbacks as a Comprehensive
Infill Development Project under Code provisions of Section 2-803.C.; and 3) The parking
garage portion of the proposed, three-story building design and architectural style is consistent
with the Beach by Design Design Guideline requirement that when a parking garage abuts a
. public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not
readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the Flexible Development
criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C. 1 through 8; 2)
Staff finds the proposal to be compliant with the Flexible Development criterion as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C.9; and 3) Staff further finds
the proposal compliant with the standards of the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-
913. 1 through 6.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application
to permit a three-story, 18,500 square-foot Yacht Club with offices, exercise room, restaurant
and parking garage structure, with reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero
feet to pavement and four feet to building structure; to permit a building within the sight visibility
triangles along Bayway Boulevard, a reduction of rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet
.
Community Development 2005-05-17
31
.
to paver deck and 18 feet to building and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 46.5 feet
to mean roof height, as a Comprehensive Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Member Coates moved to approve Item E13, Case: FLD2005-01008 for 830 Bayway
Boulevard, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report. The motion
was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Coates, Tallman, and Fritsch and Chair Gildersleeve
voted "Aye"; Member Milam abstained. Motion carried.
F- LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1)
.
1. Case: FLD2005-02023/PL T2005-00005 -111 Kenwood Avenue. Level Two Application.
Owner/Applicant: Power Legal Advisory, Inc.
Representative: Liliana Damiani (617 A Cleveland Street, #2, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-742-4361; fax: 727-443-0569; email: plalildam@email.com).
Location: 0.217 acres located on the east side of Kenwood Avenue, approximately 300
feet south of Drew Street.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request:
1) Flexible Development approval to permit two attached dwellings with a reduction to the
minimum lot area from 15,000 square-feet to 9,486 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot
width from 150 feet to 70 feet and a deviation to permit parking that is designed to back into the
public right-of-way, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; and
2) Preliminary Plat approval for a two lot subdivision, under the provisions of Section 4-702
(PL T2005-00005).
Proposed Use: Two attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clea!V!ater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 0.217 acres is located on the east side
of Kenwood Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of DrewStreet. The site is currently vaca~t
and has 70 feet of frontage on Kenwood Avenue. The parcel previously was developed with a
detached dwelling that was demolished in September 2003, due to it being unsafe. A similarly
sized lot abuts to the north, which is also vacant. The parcel to the south is developed with a
four-unit apartment building, with the building oriented east/west, but with the units oriented
north/south. The surrounding area is developed with both attached and detached dwellings.
Parking for the apartments to the northwest of the subject property at the southwest corner of
Drew Street and Kenwood Avenue is located partially within the right-of-way and requires
vehicles to back into the street to exit.
.
Due to the size of the parcel and the maximum density allowed under the Residential
High land use category, this parcel could be developed with a maximum of six dwellings. The
proposal, however, is to develop the property with two attached dwellings, townhome-style, in a
two-story building. Each unit is proposed with 2,127 square-feet of enclosed floor area,
including the one-car garage. An optional, large 10-foot deep by the width of the dwelling patio
at the rear of the unit is proposed. The residential building meets and exceeds all required
setbacks. The building is proposed to have a stucco finish, painted "Homestead Resort Tea
Room Yellow" with white trim, and will have a shingle roof. Trees along the front of the lot will
Community Development 2005-05-17
32
.
.
.
be removed, as these trees have been severely trimmed due to overhead utility lines within the
right-of-way. Each dwelling will have black barrel trash collection service, with the black barrels
stored to either side of the building. These trash barrels will need to be screened from view
from the public right-of-way. A sidewalk will be constructed within the right-of-way of Kenwood
Avenue for pedestrian safety, where no sidewalk presently exists. The two proposed townhome
dwellings are compatible with adjacent lands uses, which is a mixture of attached and detached
dwellings. The townhome units proposed for this parcel, processed as a residential infill project,
will also upgrade the immediate vicinity. With two-story attached dwelling buildings abutting to
the south and on either side of Kenwood Avenue at Drew Street, the proposal will be in
harmony with the scale, bulk, density and character of the surrounding area.
The proposal includes a reduction to the minimurillot area from 15,000 square-feet to
9,486 square-feet and a reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 70 feet. While the
lot area amounts to a 36.8% reduction from that required and the lot width reduction amounts to
a 53.3% reduction from that required, these reductions should be viewed in light of the proposed
number of units. The proposed density is 9.21 units per acre, which represents a 66.7%
reduction from the 30 units per acre allowed within the Residential High Category. The
applicant is not attempting to build to the maximum allowable or overbuild this parcel, which is
also reflected in the proposed setbacks (to building). The parcel to the south is the same lot
area and lot width as the subject parcel and is developed with four attached dwelling units. The
vacant parcel to the north is also the same lot area and width, which would also allow for the
same allowable density. The flexibility requested in regard to lot area and width are justified by
the benefits to community character of the immediate vicinity of this parcel, which includes
detached dwellings, and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
As mentioned above, each townhome dwelling is proposed with a one-car garage, with a
singlewide driveway (11 feet wide each). The design requires that cars back out into the right-
of-way to exit the site, which is a deviation requested as part of this proposal. The Community
Development Code prohibits "back out" parking for any uses other than detached dwellings.
The driveway length will permit a vehicle to completely "back out" of the garage, thus eliminating
the garage walls as a potential view obstruction of the sidewalk and street. The development
will operate as, and have the characteristics of, single-family detached homes, including the
individual garages. The site is located on Kenwood Avenue, which is only one block in length
between Grove Street and Drew Street, and only used by persons living or visiting homes or
apartments on this street. From a traffic standpoint, this concept of "back out" parking for
townhomes may be acceptable on a low volume street such as this. It should not be
considered, however, as a precedent for deviation from the Code provision of restricting "back
out" movement into the right-of-way for single-family residential uses only, and will be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis. Due to the proposed front setback to the dwellings of 36.58 feet and
the depth of the lot, the applicant could increase the front setback to 38-39 feet and be able to
have two cars (one behind the other) within the driveway (as well as the one car in the garage)
or be able to widen the driveway to have two cars side by side irdl riared parking area (again
- two cars outside of the one-car garage). This could provide for off-street visitor parking. The
proposal will minimize traffic congestion.
The proposal includes the subdividing of this parcel into two town home lots. The
northern townhome lot is proposed with an area of 4,771 square-feet and a lot width of 34.83
feet. The southern townhome lot is proposed with an area of 4,761 square-feet and a lot width
of 35.083 feet. A Final Subdivision Plat will need to be approved by City Council and recorded
Community Development 2005-05-17
33
.
in the public records prior to the issuance of building permits. The Preliminary Plat otherwise
meets Code requirements.
Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Landscape Plan will need to be amended to
. indicate the site visibility triangles, ensure the provision of foundation and perimeter landscaping
to Code requirements, provide a variety of trees in concert with the existing tree canopy of the
site and adjacent parcels, ensure proper irrigation of the property and ensure that plant
quantities are accurate. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited
to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residentiallnfill Project criteria (Section 2-
404.F) have been met.
FindinQs of Fact 1) The subject 0.217 acre is zoned Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District, which is consistent with the Residential High (RH) Category; 2) The site is
currently vacant; 3) Similarly sized (lot area and lot width) parcels abut to the north and south; 4)
While the maximum allowable number of dwelling units for this parcel is six units, the applicant
is only proposing to deveiop the property with two dwelling units, amounting to a 66.7%
reduction to that allowed; 5) The proposal meets and/or exceeds all Code requirements with
regard to setbacks, building height and parking; 6) Flexibility requested in regard to lot area and
width are justified by the benefits to community character of the immediate vicinity of this parcel;
7) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, will enhance the character of
the immediate vicinity and will upgrade the appearance of the surrounding area; and 8) There
are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-4C4.F;2) Staff further'
. concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-
913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed
conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit two attached dwellings with a reduction to the minimum lot
area from 15,000 square-feet to 9,486 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width from
150 feet to 70 feet and a deviation to permit parking that is designed to back into the public
right-of-way, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; and
Preliminary Plat approval for a two lot subdivision, under the provisions of Section 4-702
(PL T2005-00005) for the site at 111 Kenwood Avenue, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other
standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a
Final Subdivision Plat be approved by City Council and recorded in the public records prior to
the issuance of any permits; 3) That prior to the issuance of any permits, the Landscape Plan be
amended, acceptable to the Planning Department, to indicate the site visibility triangles, ensure
. the provision of foundation and perimeter landscaping to Code requirements, provide a variety
of trees in concert with the existing tree canopy of the site and adjacent parcels, ensure proper
irrigation of the property and ensure that plant quantities are accurate; 4) That trash containers
.
Community Development 2005-05-17
34
.
.
.
stored outside the dw~lIing be screened from view; 5) That all Parks and Recreation fees be
paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior
to the issuance of any permits; and 7) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site plan be
revised to show the building designed at a setback of 38 - 39 feet from the front property line in
order to accommodate two vehicles front to back in the driveway and/or the driveway be
widened on both sides to have a flared, paved parking space adjacent to the driveway shown,
acceptable to the Traffic Engineering Department.
Mr. Wells said this item was pulled from the action agenda today after staff received
three identical letters expressing concern regarding adequate parking. He said the structure
could be moved back between 38 and 39 feet to accommodate two cars in the driveway. Staff
also suggested the driveway could be widened and flared to provide parking space on either
side of the driveway.
Mario Espaillat, representative, said he would accept the new condition, Condition #7.
Member Coates moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-02023/PL T2005-00005 for
111 Kenwood Avenue, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed and based
on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimous:y. .
G - CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-01 012 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point . Leve/ Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL<33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: nestech@mindsprinq.com)..
Location: 2 parcels of land totaling 0.500 acre located at the western terminus of Skiff
Point, approximately 300 V!est of Labrador Way.
Atlas Page: 267B. . . .
Zoning Districts: Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD)
& Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 15 attached dwelling units with reductions to
the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to building and from 25 feet to three feet to
pavement; a reduction to the side (north and south) setbacks from 10 feet to 6.5 feet to building
and five feet to parking; a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet to pool
deck, five feet to pool and 7.5 feet to parking; and an increase in height from 30 feet to 49 feet
to roof deck and additional four feet for parapet (from roof deck to top of parapet) and an
additional 16 feet for elevator overrun (from roof deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, in the
Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD)/Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) District under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-1602. C and H.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (15 dwelling units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net); Island
Estates Civic Association 76 (140 Island Way, 239, Clearwater FL 33767; phone: 727-692-
2655;e-mail:fdame@ie-ca.com): Dolphin Cove Condo Association (255 Dolphin Point,
Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail: dlphincove1@netzero.com).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
. Community Development 2005-05-17
35
.
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. This Flexible Development case was reviewed at the
April 19, 2005, COB meeting. The CDB approved a continuance of this case to May 17, 2005,
to allow the applicant to further review and possibly make some revisions to the building design.
The applicant did not resubmit any new data. The application, supporting materials, Staff report
and recommendation have not changed with the exception of providing the correct number of
existing dwelling units (six) where the previous Staff report listed an incorrect number (15).
The pie-shaped site is 0.50 acre, located at the western terminus of Skiff Point,
approximately 300 west of Larboard Way. It is located within a highly developed area of Island
Estates and has frontage along Clearwater Harbor.
The site currently is developed with two residential buildings; a two-story building on the
north side of the site ahd a one-story building on the south side of the site. The buildings
contain a total of six dwellings. Vehicle access to the site is from one, undefined existing
driveway along most of the front property line (Skiff Point), where parking spaces "back out" into
the right-of-way. The site also contains two existing docks, approximately 35 feet in length, to
be retained for resident and guest usage only and will not be sub-leased. All existing
improvements (buildings, pavement, walkways, and decks) will be removed as part of the site's
redevelopment. Properties along Skiff Point have been developed with attached dwellings
(condominiums both owner-occupied and rented).
.
The proposal includes constructing a 15-unit, five-story, (four stories over ground level
parking) residential condominium building. A total of 15 dwelling units are permitted for the
subject property, based on the maximum of 30 units per acre. The first level will be utilized for
parking. The next three levels will contain four units on each floor, while the top floor (fifth level)
will have three units. The proposal includes 24 parking spaces under the building where 23
parking spaces are required (1.5 spaces per unit).
The request is being processed as a Residentiallnfill Project to permit attached
dwellings within the Medium High Density Residential District due to setback reductions on each
side of the site due to the irregular shape of the property. The proposed setbacks are
comparable to other developments in the area. The building will be located 6.5 feet from the
side property lines, 15 feet from the front property line, and 18 feet from the rear property line.
The proposal includes increases to building height from 30 feet to 49 feet (to roof deck),
with an additional four feet (from roof deck for perimeter parapets) and an additional 16 feet
(from roof deck) for an elevator shaft. The proposed building of four stories over ground level
parking is consistent with other developments in the area. Code provisions allow parapet walls
to extend a maximum of 30 inches above the roof deck. The applicant is requesting to increase
the parapet to a total of four feet from the roof deck. This four-foot high parapet is located on all
facades of the building, will screen from view rooftop air condensing units, and will be in
proportion with the building fayade. The proposal also includes architectural embellishments to
provide visual interest and screening for the stairwells (on the northeast and southeast corners
of the building) and elevator shaft (centrally located along the east fayade). The waterside side
of the roof will be enclosE:u for safety and Building Code purposes with a railing, which will not
block water views from residents and guests while on the roof deck. Code provisions 'allow, and
the proposal includes, elevator towers, stair towers, and mechanical equipment rooms to be a
.
Community Development 2005-05-17
36
.
maximum of 16 feet above the roof deck. The proposed rooftop pavilion will, therefore, be lower
than the elevator and stairwell towers proposed on the front side of the building.
The Mediterranean-style of architecture of the building will include soft yellow stucco for
the main building color, accented by the elevator and trash towers in darker shades. The
parapet walls will contain barrel tile roofing. Banding, decorative tile, and other architectural
features will provide additional aesthetic interest. The windows, door frames, and railings will be
white in color. The landscape plan utilizes colorful groundcovers (dwarf jasmine and muhley
grass), shrubs (hibiscus, variegated arboricola, Indian hawthorne and sea grape) and trees
(Mexican Fan Palm, cabbage palm and magnolia).
The applicant is not proposing any signs with this development. Any future attached
signs should be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Dumpsters
will be placed within a staging area adjacent to the building and driveway on pickup days. All
required Parks and Recreation fees will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits. On-site utility facilities (electric and communication lines) will be required to be
placed underground as part of the site redevelopment. Provisions for the placement of conduits
. for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way
should be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner
acceptable to the utility companies and the City.
.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 21,820 square-feet (0.50 acres), approximately
160 feet wide, Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District; 2) Parcel is further subject to
the requirements of Section 2-1602. C and H (Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (IENCOD); 3) Applicant seeks relief from minimum front, rear and side setbacks
as a Residentiallnfill Project under Code provisions of Section 2-404.F; 4) The proposed, five-
story building design and architectural style is residential in charactei with regard to size and
scale; and 5) Proposed landscaping mitigates setback reductions, buffering adjacent uses,
adhering to neighborhood character.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the Flexible Development
criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F. 1 through 7 and 2) Staff further finds
the proposal compliant with the standards of the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-
913. 1 through 6.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 3, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development request to permit 15 attached dwelling units with reductions to the front (east)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to building and from 25 feet to three feet to pavement; a
reduction to the side (north and south) setbacks from 10 feet to 6.5 feet to building and five feet
to parking; a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet to pool deck, five feet
to pool and 7.5 feet to parking; and an increase in height from 30 feet to 49 feet to roof deck and
additional four feet for parapet (from roof deck to top of parapet) and an additional 16 feet for
elevator overrun (from roof deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, in the Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD)/Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District under the provisions of Sections 2-404. F and 2-1602. C and H, for the site at
200 and 201 Skiff Point, including Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of
the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the
CDB; 2) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the
Community Development 2005-05-17
37
.
.
.
residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the condominiums; 3) That any future attached sign meet all the requirements of Code and
be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 4) That all applicable
requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 5) That a
condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 6) That
all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground.
Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall
be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits
with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and
number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering
Department prior to the commencement of work; 7) That a right-of-way permit be obtained from
the City prior to open cutting the roadway within the Skiff Point right-of-way for a water
connection prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact Don Melone (727.562.4798) for
permit information; 8) That all street restoration shall be in accordance with Engineering
Standard Detail #104, Revise Sheet C6.1 using City details prior to the issuance of any permits;
9) That revised plans be submitted to and approved by Staff prior tethe issuance of any permits
which indicates that ductile iron pipe be installed between any tap and water meter and tap and
backflow preventor device and at least one joint of ductile iron pipe be installed on the service side
of any backflow preventor device; 10) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the
issuance of any permits; and 11) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the
issuance of any permits. .
Carroll Lovett requested party status.
Member Coates moved to grant party status to Carroll Lovett. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Robert McCreary requested party status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant party status to Robert McCreary. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said development restrictions in the Island Estates
NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District) are limited to properties zoned LMDR
(Low-Medium Density Residential). The subject property is zoned MHDR (Medium-High
Density Residential).. Development regulations for properties in Island Estates that are zoned
MHDR default to City Code,
Troy Purdue, representative for the applicant, said most opposition to the project focuses
on: 1) neighborhood character and 2) project's height. He presented photographs of nearby
properties and a map of a pocket of high-density development on Island Estates. He said the
project is consistent with higher density development on Skiff Point and on the next street and is
consistent with the character of Skiff Point.
Robert Resch III, project architect, said he discussed height and density issues at a May
2, 2005, meeting with residents, who identified items important to them and items that could be
changed or addressed. He said the project opens water views to the north and south. He said
the site could be developed with a larger footprint without CDB approval.
Community Development 2005-05-17
38
.
.
.
Housh Ghovaee, representative for the applicant, said development on nearby
properties does not meet FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) requirements and
all will have to be raised when redeveloped. Currently, parking fer the subject property is in the
right-of-way and backs into the street.
Frank Dame requested party status as representative of the Island Estates Civic
Association.
Don McCreary relinquished his party status as representative of the Island Estates Civic
Association.
Member Coates moved to grant party status to Frank Dame as representative of the
Island Estates Civic Association.
Party status grantees Frank Dame, Neil Spillane, Gary Schaaf, Tim Frary, and Carroll
Lovett spoke in opposition to the project.
In response to questions from Party Status grantees, Mr. Purdue said a building taller
than two stories fronts Skiff Point, even though it is addressed on the intersecting street and that
he had attempted to contact for the meeting all residents who objected to the project at the April
CDB meeting. He said the property does conform to Code requirements that the development
be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties and
the property's zoning allows the requested height. He said nearby homes are non-conforming
and the project is not required to conform to non-conforming lots.
In response to questions from Party Status grantees, Mr. Parry said the Code requires
1.5 parking spaces per unit and does not include a range of spaces for consideration. It is
impossible to tell if parking is adequate until a property is built.
Three residents spoke in opposition to the project.
Mr. Purdue said the project meets Code and will end current back-out parking in the
right-of-way. He said meeting attendees did not want changes offered. He said four nearby
buildings on the water are .t~I'er. than four stories over parking. .
Member Fritsch moved to deny Item G1, Case: FLD2005-01 012 for 200 and 201 Skiff
Point based on the presentation of evidence, the packet of submitted materials, and cited as
applicable Findings of Fact and Matters of Law that the development is not in harmony with the
scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties, the development is not
consistent with the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, the project's
design does not create a form and function that enhances the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel and the City as a whole, development will adversely affect the
health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and the development does
not minimize adverse effects, including visual. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding the definition of neighborhood and comments that the
decision is difficult as the underlying zoning controls how the property should be developed and
Community Development ?00!1-05-17
39
.
.
.
what is allowed, the project and parking meet Code, something less attractive could be built, the
project will enhance the neighborhood, and the CDB should apply the Code consistently.
Concerns were expressed that the project will increase traffic congestion, which could be
dangerous if emergency vehicle access is blocked, that traffic gridlock already occurs with
current levels of development, that the project does not meet Code criteria related to height,
scale, bulk, density, and character of the neighborhood, and that the applicant ignored CDB
requests to modify the design.
Upon the vote' being taken, Members Milam, Coates, and Fritsch voted "Aye"; Members
. Johnson and Tallman and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Nay.". Motion continued automatically to
June 21, 2005, due to a tie vote.
The Community Development Board recessed from 3:01 to 3:12 p.m.
H- LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1)
1. Case: TA2005-04001 Amendment to the Clearwater Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code to revise the termination of status
of nonconformity provisions.
Neighborhood Association: Ciearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
Planner Sharen Jarzen reviewed the proposed amendments to the Code. As tourism is
the leading economic industry in the City of Clearwater, City leaders have become concerned
about the conversion of beach hotel properties to condominiums, thus adversely impacting the
tourist industry. Several of these conversions have occurred recently by making use of the
Termination of status as a nonconformity (Section 6-109. B) provision in the Community
Development Code. This provision is a most unusual zoning reg\..llat;on as its intent is to
facilitate redevelopment. In most cities, regulations for nonconformities are structured to bring
nonconformities into compliance over time with the current zoning regulations.
Community Development Code Section 6-109.B allows a nonconforming structure that
has nonconforming density to be reconstructed on the same site at the same density, upon
approval by the CDB. This subsection has been interpreted to allow the conversion of one type
of density for another, Le., 40 units per acre for hotel is converted to 30 units per acre for
condominium use. Four approved projects on the beach have used the Termination provision
and converted from hotel use to condominium use and are as follows: 1) Ramada Inn -
conversion of 289 existing hotel rooms to 241 hotel rooms and 38 condominiums; 2) Clearwater
Beach Hotel - conversion of 137 hotel rooms approved to remain as 137 hotel rooms (with
additional rooms from the density pool) with 120 condominium units approved on the south half
of the site; 3) Sunspree Hotel- conversion of 210 hotel rooms to 149 condominiums (includes
13 units by virtue of Transfer of Development Rights); and 4) Panorama on Clearwater Beach -
conversion of 15 hotel rooms to 11 condominiums (total project - 15 units).
Although there are not a significant number of approved cases on ttie beach that have
used the Termination provision to convert from hotel to condominium use, it is clear that the
Community Development 2005-05-17
40
.
.
.
current market interest in condominium development is very strong and interest in the use of the
Termination provision is growing. This Code provision provides a strong incentive to developers
to facilitate redevelopment. However, based on current market conditions, which make
residential development more desirable than hotel development, the current Termination
provision may in fact facilitate the loss of hotel units. Market changes are clearly out of the
City's control, but a more refined code related to development choices will assist the City in
developing incentives and disincentives that will implement the City's goals of maintaining a
strong tourism industry.
In an attempt to preclude the use of Code Section 6-109.8 as a redevelopment incentive
for hotel to residential conversions, the proposed amendment will require that the reconstruction
of nonconforming density not result in a change of use. A hotel use could therefore only be
converted to a hotel use or a condominium use could only be converted to a condominium use.
A hotel use could riot be converted to a condominium use. .
Section 2 of proposed Ordinance #7445-05 specifies that the revised Termination
provision will not apply to any site plan application that has been submitted and determined to
be complete and sufficient by August 4, 2005, and approved by September 20, 2005, provided
timeframes established in the development order for permitting and issuance of certificate of
occupancy are met. This Section allows site plan applications submitted to the Planning
Department by the July 1, 2005, application deadline (after the adoption of the proposed
ordinance on June 2, 2005) to be processed. Any site plans received after July 1, 2005,
requesting use of the Termination provision to convert uses will not be processed.
;
The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. Use of the amendment will assist
in enhancing and maintaining the leading economic industry of tourism in the City of Clearwater.
The provision also incentivizes redevelopment in general which results in an upgrade of site
improvements such as parking and stormwater management, as well as an upgrade to overall
design. The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance #7445-05.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said five beach developments have used the
termination provisions to convert hotel units to condominiums. Significant interest currently
exists in the development of condominium projects. The amendments are designed to stop the
conversion of hotel rooms to condominiums and preserve the tot.:r:~t i:1dt.:str/. Due to their
concerns, the City Council directed this change to inhibit use of the termination provision, which
has resulted in the demise of a number of hotel properties. Planning Director Michael Delk said
the City Council does not want to provide incentives that decrease the number of beach hotel
units. Conversions to condohotels will not be affected.
Community Development 2005-05-17
41
'~
. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Amendments to the Community
Development Code to revise the termination of status of nonconformity provisions the
amendments to City Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
I - ADJOURNMENT
Attest:
~ tJt1t4 InttJt t?
oard Reporter
.
.
Community Development 2005-05-17
42
~
.
.
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DOUGLAS J. WEILAND and
ELIZABETH C. SIRNA,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-2265
Appellants,
vs.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
CITY OF CLEARWATER and
SPINECARE PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellees.
FINAL ORDER
This case involves an appeal of the Development Order
issued by the City of Clearwater (City) authorizing SpineCare
Properties, LLC (SpineCare), to construct a two-story medical
office building with an adjacent 225-space parking lot (the
Project) on a 4.5 acre parcel on the west side of McMullen-Booth-
Road (the Property). The appeal was brought by Douglas J.
Weiland and Elizabeth C. Sirna (Appellants), who live
immediately to the west of the Property.
The Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), by contract
and pursuant to Sections 4-501.B.1 and 4-505 of the City's
Community Development Code (Code), has jurisdiction over this
appeal. Oral argument was held in this case on October 12,
2005, before Administrative Law Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II.
At oral argument, the record before the Community
Development Board (Board) was received and argument was
presented by the parties. See Code ~ 4-505.B.1 The parties
submitted briefs detailing their respective positions, and they
were also afforded the opportunity to submit proposed final
orders, which they did. See Code ~ 4-505.D. Due consideration
has been given to the parties' written submittals and oral
arguments.
Code Section 4-505.D was recently amended to eliminate the
requirement that this Final Order include findings of fact. See
City Ordinance No. 7413-05, ~ 21 (effective May 5, 2005). The
Final Order is only required to include "conclusions of law and
a determination approving, approving with conditions, or denying
the requested development application." Code ~ 4-505.D. A
brief procedural history and overview of the Project are
included to provide the context necessary to evaluate the issues
raised by Appellants in this appeal.
I. Procedural History and Project Overview
On April 29, 2005, SpineCare filed a sworn flexible
development application seeking approval of the Project as a
"comprehensive infill redevelopment project." The Project
requires Level Two approval because it proposes reductions in
the minimum setbacks and an increase in the maximum height
specified in the Code and because the parking lot will be
2
~
.
.
.
e
located on property that will be zoned Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
In addition to the flexible development application,
SpineCare filed an application to annex 0.358 acres of the
Property along McMullen-Booth Road into the City, an application
to change the designation of the Property on the future land use
map (FLUM) , and an application to rezone the property. The
parties represented at oral argument that the City Council has
deferred final action on those matters (as well as the
Development Agreement discussed below) pending resolution of
this appeal.
If the FLUM change and rezoning applications are approved
~ by the City Council, the western 2.06 acres of the Property will
be designated Residential Low (RL) on the FLUM and LMDR on the
zoning map, and the eastern 2.44 acres of the Property along
McMullen-Booth Road (including the 0.358 acres being annexed)
will be designated Institutional on the FLUM and the zoning map.
The development currently on the Property consists of a 13-
unit low-income apartment complex in two one-story buildings and
a single-wide trailer with several ancillary sheds. One of the
neighboring property owners who spoke at the hearing referred to
the existing development on the Property as a "blighted low-cost
housing area that we've had to call the police on many times.,,2
~
3
The existing structures on the Property will be demolished to
construct the Project.
The proposed two-story medical office building will be
located on the portion of the Property that will be zoned
Industrial. The parking lot for the building and a stormwater
retention pond will be located on the portion of the Property
that will be zoned LMDR.
McMullen-Booth Road is a six-lane, divided arterial
highway. The parcels across McMullen-Booth Road from the
Property, which are in the City of Safety Harbor, are zoned
Hospital Facility (HF) and are developed with medical office
buildings. The parcel to the south of the eastern half of the
Property is also zoned HF and is developed with a single-story
assisted living facility. The parcels to the south of the
western half of the Property are zoned Low Density Residential
(LDR) and are developed with single-family residences. The
parcels to the north and west of the Property are zoned LMDR and
LDR and are developed with single-family residences.
SpineCare negotiated a Development Agreement with the City
and the homeowners' association that includes the residents to
the north of the Property. The Development Agreement includes
operational restrictions for the medical office building and
buffering requirements that exceed the requirements in the Code.
For example, the Development Agreement requires SpineCare to
4
.
.
.
.
construct and maintain a "6-foot concrete wall (with stucco
finish)" and "vegetation no less than 10 feet in height" along
the north property line and a "6-foot privacy fence" along the
south property line. The Development Agreement also limits the
number of parking spaces along the north property line,
restricts the hours of operation of the medial office building,
requires imaging equipment to be located on the south side of
the building, and requires SpineCare to "attempt to preserve
seventy percent (70%) of all existing trees over 12 inches in
diameter." The restrictions in the Development Agreement will
be recorded as restrictive covenants on the Property, and the
homeowners' association will have standing to enforce the
. restrictions.
The buffers provided for in the Development Agreement are
primarily on the north and south property lines. There is no
wall or fence required on the west property line, which is
adjacent to Appellants' property. However, the Development
Agreement specifically requires SpineCare to "reduce or
eliminate lighting on the West side of the Property during non-
peak times, consistent with safety concerns."
There will be approximately 160 feet between the western
property line of the Property (which abuts Appellants' property)
and the parking lot. The only development in that area will be
. a wet stormwater retention pond. The landscape plan for the
5
Project shows most of the existing trees in that area being
retained and additional trees being planted, primarily around
the stormwater retention pond. The dense stand of trees shown
on the tree survey between the area where the stormwater
retention pond will be located and the existing buildings on the
Property will be removed to construct the parking lot, but the
landscape plan shows a number of new trees and shrubs
surrounding the parking lot as well as trees on the islands that
are interspersed throughout the parking lot.
City planning department staff recommended approval of the
flexible development application for the Project. A detailed
Staff Report was prepared by Mark Parry, Consulting Planner.
Among other things, the Staff Report states that "[t]he
proposed, two story building design and architectural style is
similar in character with regard to size and scale of other
buildings in the area"; that the " [p]roposed landscaping
mitigates setback reductions, buffering adjacent uses, adhering
to neighborhood character"; and that the "development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other
redevelopment efforts." As reflected in the checklists
contained in the Staff. Report, the planning department staff
found the Project to be consistent with the each of the
flexibility criteria in Code Sections 2-2043 and 2-1204, as well
as the general criteria in Code Section 3-913.
6
A I
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Board held a quasi-judicial hearing on the flexible
development application for the Project on May 17, 2005. The
Board also considered the FLUM change and the Development
Agreement at that hearing.
Mr. Parry's testimony at the Board's hearing referenced and
was consistent with the Staff Report. Specifically, he
testified that the City planning department staff found the
Project to be consistent with the Code based upon its review of
the site plan and, also, the Development Agreement.
An attorney representing Spine Care also gave testimony at
the hearing. His testimony focused on the additional
restrictions governing the Project that are contained in the
Development Agreement.
Appellants were granted "party status" and testified in
opposition to the Project. Their testimony focused on the
incompatibility of the proposed medical office building and
parking lot with the surrounding neighborhood because of the
building's height and bulk and also because of the noise
generated by the patients coming and going throughout the day
and into the night.
The witness testimony was sworn,4 and the opportunity for
cross-examination was provided. Neither Mr. Parry nor any of
the other witnesses was cross-examined.
7
In addition to the individuals who testified and were
subject to cross-examination, several individuals spoke on the
Project during the "public comment" portion of the hearing. The
individuals who spoke in opposition to the Project were
neighbors who, like Appellants, had concerns about the
compatibility of the Project with the adjacent residential uses.
A representative of the homeowners' association to the
north of the Property spoke in favor of the Project and focused
on the various concessions agreed to by SpineCare in the
Development Agreement. A representative of the homeowners'
association to the south of the Property also spoke in favor of
the Project, and he stated that the assisted living facility has
been a "great neighbor[]"; that the facility's lighting has
helped to eliminate trespassers in the area; and that the
Project would be an improvement on the "blighted" uses currently
on the Property.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board unanimously
voted to approve the flexible development application for the
Project. The Board also unanimously voted to recommend approval
of the Development Agreement and the FLUM change. (The Board
apparently was not required to take action on the rezoning or
the annexation.)
The Board ,. s approval of the flexible development
application was memorialized in the Development Order dated
8
. I
.
.
.
.
May 27, 2005, which approves the Project with conditions.
Consistent with the Staff Report, the Development Order
expressly finds/concludes that the Project complies with the
criteria in Code Sections 2-1204.A, 2-204.C, and 3-913, and that
"[t]he development is compatible with the surrounding area and
will enhance other redevelopment efforts." Although not
explicitly stated in the Development Order, it is clear from the
Staff Report and the testimony before the Board that the
approval of the Project is also implicitly conditioned on the
City Council's approval of the related annexation, FLUM change,
rezoning, and Development Agreement.5
On or about May 31, 2005, Appellants timely filed an Appeal
. Application contesting the Development Order and the Board's
approval of the Project. The appeal was transferred to DOAR on
June 22, 2005.
II. Scope of Appeal and Standards of Review
In this appeal, the burden is on Appellants to show that:
[1] the decision of the [Board] cannot be
sustained by substantial competent evidence
before the board, or [2] that the decision
of the board departs from the essential
requirements of law.
Code ~ 4-505.C.
The scope of review in this appeal is limited to those two
issues. See Belniak v. Top Flight Development, LLC, Case No.
. 04-2953, at 14-15 (DOAR Nov. 23, 2004).
9
When used as an appellate standard of review (as is the
case in Code Section 4-505.C), competent substantial evidence
has been construed to be "legally sufficient evidence" or
evidence that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a
reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the
conclusion reached." DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916
(Fla. 1957).
In determining whether the Board's decision is supported by
competent substantial evidence, the undersigned is not permitted
to second-guess the wisdom of the decision, reweigh conflicting
testimony presented to the Board, or substitute his judgment for
that of the Board as to the credibility of witnesses. See,
~, Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d
523, 530 (Fla. 1995) i Belniak, supra, at 13-15. Moreover, it is
immaterial that the record contains evidence supporting the view
of the Appellants so long as there is competent substantial
evidence supporting the findings (both implicit and explicit)
"made by the Board in reaching its decision. See,~, Florida
Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Fla.
2000) i Collier Medical Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Health &
Rehabilitative Servs., 462 So. 2d 83, 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) i
Belniak, supra, at 15.
10
.
.
.
.
On these points, the Florida Supreme Court has admonished
that:
the 'competent substantial evidence'
standard cannot be used by a reviewing court
as a mechanism for exerting covert control
over the policy determinations and factual
findings of the local agency. Rather, this
standard requires the reviewing court to
defer to the agency's superior technical
expertise and special vantage point in such
matters. The issue before the court is not
whether the agency's decision is the 'best'
decision or the 'right' decision or even a
'wise' decision,for these are technical and
policy-based determinations properly within
the purview of the agency. The circuit
court has not training or experience -- and
is inherently unsuited -- to sit as a roving
'super agency' with plenary oversight in
such matters.
.
Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275-76
(Fla. 2001).
The issue of whether the Board's decision departs from the
essential requirements of law is synonymous with whether the
Board applied the correct law. See,~, Haines City Community
Development Corp., 658 So. 2d at 530; City of Deerfield Beach v.
Valliant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Belniak, supra, at
14.
III. Analysis of Appellants' Arguments
and Conclusions of Law
First, Appellants argue that the Board departed from the
essential requirements of law by failing to consider Goal 2,
. Objective 2.2, and Policy 2.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element
11
(FLUE) of the City's comprehensive plan in reaching its
.
decision. Those provisions state:
Goal 2
THE CITY OF CLEARWATER SHALL UTILIZE
INNOVATIVE AND FLEXIBLE PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING PRACTICES, AND URBAN DESIGN
STANDARDS IN ORDER TO PROTECT HISTORIC
RESOURCES, ENSURE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION,
REDEVELOP BLIGHTED AREAS, AND ENCOURAGE
INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
Objective 2.2
The City of Clearwater shall continue to
support innovative planned development and
mixed use development techniques in order to
promote infill development that is
consistent and compatible with the
surrounding environment.
Policy 2.2.1
.
On a continuing basis, the Community
Development Code and the site plan approval
process shall be utilized in promoting
infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
A determination of the consistency of the Project with the
FLUE (or any other portion of the City's comprehensive plan) is
beyond the scope of this appeal. That issue must be litigated
in a "de novo action for declaratory, injunctive or other
relief" filed pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes.
The fact that such an action need not be filed until after this
"local administrative appeal" is exhausted, see ~ 163.3215(3),
Fla. Stat., does not change the fact that a civil action is the
.
12
.
"exclusive method []
. . to appeal and challenge the
consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan .
"
~ 163.3215(1), Fla~ Stat.
Nevertheless, the Board's failure to consider the
"compatibility" of the Project with surrounding development
(which is the crux of Appellants' argument related to the
comprehensive plan provisions) is cognizable in this appeal
because Code Section 3-913 requires that issue to be considered
by the Board. See,~, Code ~ 3-913 (Criteria Nos. 1 and 5) .
However, contrary to Appellants' argument, the record reflects
that the Board did consider the compatibility issue in approving
the Project. For example, the completed checklists in the Staff
Report show that staff considered each of the criteria in Code
Sections 2-204.C, 2-1204.A, and 3-913; the Staff Report states
that "[p]roposed landscaping mitigates setback reductions,
buffering adjacent uses, adhering to neighborhood character" and
that the "development is compatible with the surrounding area";
and Mr. Parry testified that staff took into account the
surrounding uses in its review of the Project.
It appears that what Appellants are actually arguing on
this issue is not that the Board failed to consider the
compatibility of the Project with surrounding development, but
rather that the evidence presented to the Board on this issue
. establishes that the Project is not compatible with the
.
13
surrounding residential development. See,~, Initial Brief,
at 6-8. The fact that there was testimony before the Board
supporting Appellants' position that the Project is incompatible
with the surrounding development is immaterial for purposes of
the undersigned's review. See Florida Power & Light, 761 So. 2d
at 1093. As long as the record contains competent substantial
evidence to support the Board's decision that the Project is
compatible with surrounding properties, the decision must be
affirmed. Id.
The record contains competent substantial evidence
supporting the Board's conclusion that the Project is compatible
with the surrounding development. The proposed medical office
building will be located on the far east side of the Property,
adjacent to McMullen-Booth Road and is similar to the other
institutional uses along that road. The parking lot is
adequately buffered from the adjacent residential uses with a
six-foot high wall and trees along the north property line, a
six-foot high privacy fence along the south property line, and
approximately 160-feet of open space with trees and a stormwater
retention pond between the west property line and the parking
lot.
Next, Appellants argue that the Board departed from the
essential requirements of law with respect to its approval of
the parking lot as part of the Project within the LMDR zoning
14
.
.
.
e
district. Appellants rely primarily on Code Section 2-204.C.3,
which provides that off-street parking spaces in the LMDR zoning
district are to be "screened by a wall or fence of at least
three feet in height which is landscaped on the external side
with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine."
Appellees contend that Appellants waived this issue by not
raising it before the Board. That contention is rejected. Even
though Code Section 2-204.C.3 was not specifically mentioned
during Appellants' presentations to the Board, the issues of the
parking lot's incompatibility with the adjacent residential uses
and the insufficiency of the buffer area to minimize the
incompatibility were generally raised by Appellants and the
~ other individuals who spoke in opposition to the Project.
Appellees also contend that Code Section 2-204 must be read
together with Code Section 2-1204 because the Project was
approved as a "comprehensive infill redevelopment project."
Specifically, Appellees cite Code Section 2-1204.A.7, which
allows flexibility "in regard to lot width, required setbacks,
height and off-street parking [if] justified by benefits to the
community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole"
(emphasis supplied).
Code Section 2-1204.A establishes the flexibility criteria
~ for development in the Institutional zoning district. By
15
contrast, Code Section 2-204.C establishes the flexibility
.
criteria for development in the LMDR zoning district. The
medical office building is to be located in the Institutional
zoning district, whereas the parking lot is to be located in the
LMDR zoning district. As reflected in the Staff Report (and as
acknowledged at oral argument), Level Two approval is required
for both aspects of the Project even though the Project was
considered and approved as a whole.
The flexibility criteria in Code Section 2-204.C (not those
in Code Section 2-1204.A) govern the approval of the parking
lot. The checklist in the Staff Report indicated that the
Project is "consistent" with the above-quoted requirement in
Code Section 2-204.C.3, but the basis of that finding as it
.
relates to the west property line appears to be the buffering
provided by the stormwater retention area because it is
undisputed that no fence or wall is proposed along the west
property line. On this point, the Staff Report states:
The residential uses to the west will be
buffered from the parking lot by
approximately 150 [sic] feet in which will
be located a stormwater retention facility.
Residential uses to the north and south will
be buffered by solid fencing and walls six
feet in height.
Appendix III, Exhibit 7, at 3.
Similarly, Appellees contend on appeal that the 160-foot
buffer area satisfies the "purpose" of Code Section 2-204.C.3,
.
16
.
.
.
which they assert is to "provide a buffer between non-
residential off-street parking and adjacent properties." See
Joint Response to Initial Brief, at 14. While that may be true,
there is nothing in Code Section 2-204.C that authorizes the
Board to approve off-street parking spaces in the LMDR zoning
district without a fence or wall even if an expansive buffer
area is provided. Thus, to the extent that the Board's approval
of the parking lot was based upon its determination that the
160-foot buffer area is a reasonable substitute for a fence or
wall and/or that the approval of the parking lot"is governed by
Code Section 2-1204.A, rather than Code Section 2-204.C, the
Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Next, Appellants argue that the Board departed from the
essential requirements of law by not imposing conditions on the
approval of the Project as required by Code Section 3-913. That
Code section no longer requires conditions to be imposed, but it
does require the Project to meet "each and everyone of" the
following criteria to be approved:
1. The proposed development of the land
will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of adjacent
properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not
hinder or discourage the appropriate
development and use of adjacent land and
buildings or significantly impair the value
thereof.
17
3. The proposed development will not
adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed use.
.
4. The proposed development is designed
to minimize traffic congestion.
5. The proposed development is consistent
with the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development.
6. The design of the proposed development
minimizes adverse effects including visual,
acoustic and olfactory and hours of
operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
Code ~ 3-913, as amended by City Ordinance No. 7413-05, ~ 18
(effective May 5, 2005).
There is competent substantial evidence in the record to
support the Board's determination that the Project meets the
.
criteria in Code Section 3-913, including the three criteria
(Nos. 1, 5 and 6) specifically contested by Appellants. See
Initial Brief, at 10. For example, in addition to the evidence
referenced above relating to the "compatibility" issue, there is
competent substantial evidence in the record that the Project
will not generate traffic congestion; that adverse effects on
the surrounding properties have been minimized through the
additional buffering requirements and operational restrictions
in the Development Agreement; that the medical use to the south
of the Property (i.e., the assisted living facility) enhances
safety on the surrounding residential properties; and that the
.
18
Project will similarly enhance the area by removing the
"blighted" low-income housing complex that is currently on the
Property.
The conclusion that there is competent substantial evidence
to support the Board's finding that the Project meets the
criteria in Code Section 3-913 is not inconsistent with the
conclusion that the Board departed from the essential
requirements of law in approving the parking lot in the LMDR
zoning district without a fence or wall along the west property
line. The latter conclusion was based upon the Code Section 2-
204.C.3, which, as noted above, unambiguously requires the
parking lot to be screened by a wall or fence even though there
is competent substantial evidence that the parking lot will be
adequately buffered from the residential uses to the west of the
Property.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Board's decision is not
supported by competent substantial evidence to the extent that
it is based upon the testimony of Mr. Parry because (1) he did
not provide his resume to the Board as experts are required to
do under Code section 4-206 and (2) his testimony "consisted
only of simple conclusory statements." This argument is
rejected.
On the first point, it has been held that an expert's
~ failure to submit a resume in accordance with Code Section 4-206
~
~
19
is the nature of a due process violation that is beyond the
scope of this appeal. See Belniak, supra, at 16. Moreover,
because Appellants did not object at the hearing regarding Mr.
Parry's failure to submit a resume, they may not raise the issue
on appeal. Id. at 19 n.2. Accord Clear Channel Communications,
Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 2005 WL 2219617, at *1 (Fla.
3d DCA Sept. 14, 2005) (concluding that circuit court sitting in
its appellate capacity over a local government's resolution did
not misapply the law "in holding that petitioners failed to
preserve legal challenges for appellate review by not filing
proper objections before the city commission"). In light of
these conclusions, it is not necessary to reach the Appellees'
contention that Mr. Parry has been designated as a "standing
expert" and, therefore, is not required to submit a resume each
time he appears before the Board. See Joint Response to Initial
Brief, at 18-19 (relying on Supplemental Appendix Exhibits 3-5,
which were not received as part of the record in this appeal) .
On the second point, that portion of Mr. Parry's testimony
that was specifically directed to the flexible development
application must be considered in conjunction with the detailed
Staff Report on the application and Mr. Parry's testimony on the
interrelated FLUM change and Development Agreement that were
being considered by the Board at the same time. Indeed, Mr.
Parry began his presentation to the Board stating that he tit
20
tit
tit
.
intended to address all of the pending applications related to
the Property in "one presentation" and the Board agreed to that
procedure. See Supplemental Appendix, Exhibit 1, at 8-9.
In any event, contrary to Appellants' argument, Mr. Parry's
testimony at the hearing consisted of more than just "simple
conclusory statements." He specifically testified regarding the
consistency of the Project with the other institutional uses
along McMullen-Booth Road, and he also testified that staff
reviewed the site plan, took into account the surrounding uses,
and considered the provisions of the Development Agreement in
formulating the Staff Report that recommended approval of the
Project. In that regard, Mr. Parry's testimony was fact-based
. and is similar to that which was found sufficient to support the
local government's decision in City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-
Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA
2003).
In sum, Appellants failed to show that the Board's decision
is not supported by competent substantial evidence, but they did
show that the Board departed from the essential requirements of
law when it approved the parking lot in the LMDR zoning district
without requiring a fence or wall along the west property line.
IV. Determination
As noted above, Code Section 4-505.D authorizes the
. undersigned "approv[e], approv[e] with conditions, or deny[] the
21
requested development application." The Code does not
specifically authorize a remand of the matter to the Board for
additional fact-finding, as suggested by the parties at oral
argument. In any event, a remand is not necessary under the
circumstances of this case.
In approving the flexible development application for the
Project, the only area in which the Board departed from the
essential requirements of law was its approval of the parking
lot without a wall or fence along the west property line as
required by Code Section 2-204.C.3. That error can be cured by
conditioning the approval of the Project on a requirement that
SpineCare construct and maintain "a wall or fence of at least
three feet in height which is landscaped on the external side
with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine" along the west
property line. The Board could have imposed such a condition as
part of its approval of the Project, see Code ~ 4-404 (last
sentence), and such a condition is a minor revision that does
not require additional Board review. See Code ~ 4-406.A.
Additionally, the approval of the flexible development
application should be expressly conditioned on the City
Council's approval of the related annexation, FLUM change,
rezoning, and Development Agreement. The parties agreed at oral
argument that this condition is implicit in the Board's approval
of the Project, but the condition should be made explicit. 4It
22
4It
4It
.
.
.
Based upon the foregoing, the Board's decision approving
the flexible development application for the Project is
affirmed, and the application is approved subject to:
1. the conditions set forth in the Development Order;
2. the City Council's approval of the related annexation,
FLUM change, rezoning, and Development Agreement; and
3. a requirement that SpineCare construct and maintain a
wall or fence of at least three feet in height, which is
landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge or non-
deciduous vine, along the west property line.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2005, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LP/~
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 31st day of October, 2005.
ENDNOTES
1/ The "record before the community development board" is
defined by Code Section 4-505.A, but with the agreement of the
23
parties, the record received at oral argument also includes
transcripts of the Board's hearing on the application (Appendix
I and Supplemental Appendix, Exhibit 1) and the Development
Agreement considered by the Board in conjunction with the
flexible development application for the Project (Supplemental
Appendix, Exhibit 6). Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 in the Supplemental
Appendix were not received because those exhibits were not part
of the record before the Board and no timely motion to
supplement the record was filed. See Code ~ 4-505.A.
.
2/ Board Member Coates made a similar comment prior to making
the motion to approve the application. He stated:
I just wanted to make one comment addressed
to safety issues as regards what is out
there right now. And having a parking lot
that's well lit at night, I would take the
parking lot, frankly. Having been out there
and seen the place and driven around, I'll
take an open parking lot any day.
Supplemental Appendix, Exhibit I, at 58-59.
3/ The checklist on pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report refers to
Code Section 2-20~, but the correct reference is Code Section 2-
204.
.
4/ The transcripts of the Board's hearing do not reflect that
any of the witnesses was sworn immediately prior to giving their
testimony. However, it was represented at oral argument that
the Board's practice is to swear all individuals who intend to
make presentations to the Board en masse at the outset of the
hearing, and there is no dispute that the policy was followed in
this case.
5/ Counsel for each of the Appellees confirmed at oral argument
that if those items are not approved by the City Council, then
development of the Project cannot go forward.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk
Official Records and Legislative Services
Clearwater City Hall, Second Floor
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
.
24
.
.
.
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire
City of Clearwater
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748
David A. Theriaque, Esquire
Theriaque Vorbeck & Spain
1114 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2651
Gina K. Grimes, Esquire
Hill Ward & Henderson
3700 Bank of America Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33602-5195
Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire
Zimmet, Unice, Salzman,
HeYman & Jardine, P.A.
Post Office Box 15309
Clearwater, Florida 33766
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
This decision is final and is subject to judicial review by
filing a petition for common law certiorari with the appropriate
circuit court in accordance with Section 4-505.D of the City of
Clearwater Community Development Code.
25
..
'-"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued from April 19, 2005 (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2005-0 1 008 - 830 Bayway Blvd - Clearwater Yachet
~es no
2. Case: FLD2005-0l0l2 - 200 Skiff Point - Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC
~es no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2004-020l3A - 100 Coronado Drive & 2001, 215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd - K & P
Clearwater
~yes
no
2. Case: FLD2003-09047 A - 1750 N Belcher Road - GTE Federal Credit Union
~ yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-020l9 -1315 S. Fort Harrison Avenue - Corbett Development, Inc.
/yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-02023 - 111 Kenwood Avenue - Power Legal Advisory, Inc.
~es no
5. Case FLD2005-0l0l4 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Level Three (Related to ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-0000l) Spinecare Properties, LLC.
~yes no
6. Case:PL T2005.00003 . 100 N7Y Mary Drive - Four Seasons Town Homes, LLC.
yes no
.
,
..
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: ANX2005-02004 - 1481 Sandy Lane - Martin A werbach
~no
yes
2. Case: ANX2005-02005 - 3001 Lake Vista Drive - Arthur Steele
/ no
yes
3. Case: ANX2005-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue - Cclaire Mudaro
yes / no
Signature:
Date: ':; /If/tr;
2
'II
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued from April 19, 2005 (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2005-0 1 008 - 830 Bayway Blvd - Clearwater Yachet
/yes no
2, Case: FLD2005-0 1 0 12 - 200 Skiff Point - Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC
yes ~no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive & 2001,215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd - K & P
Clearwater
yes
.,./" no
2. Case: FLD2003-09047A - 1750 N Belcher Road - GTE Federal Credit Union
~es no
3. Case: FLD2005-020l9 -1315 S. Fort Harrison Avenue - Corbett Development, Inc.
yes
'/ no
4. Case: FLD2005-02023 - 111 Kenwood Avenue - Power Legal Advisory, Inc.
yes ~no
5. Case FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Level Three (Related to ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-00001) Spinecare Properties, LLC.
~s no
6. Case:PL T2005-00003 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive - Four Seasons Town Homes, LLC.
~o
yes
f
..
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: ANX2005-02004 - 1481 Sandy Lane - Martin A werbach
~o
yes
2. Case: ANX2005-02005 - 3001 Lake Vista Drive - Arthur Steele
Jno
yes
3. Case: ANX2005-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue - Cclaire Mudaro
V no
Signature:
yes
1
Date: S-/21!OS-
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
..
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued from April 19, 2005 (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2005-0 1008 - 830 Bayway Blvd - Clearwater Yachet
~ yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-0 1 0 12 - 200 Skiff Point - Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC
V
yes no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive & 2001, 215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd - K & P
Clearwater
V' yes
no
2. Case: FLD2003..09047A - 1750 N Belcher Road - GTE Federal Credit Union
/' yes no
3. Case: FLD2005-020l9 - 1315 S. Fort Harrison Avenue - Corbett Development, Inc.
V yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-02~3 - 111 Kenwood Avenue - Power Legal Advisory, Inc.
V yes no
5. Case FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Level Three (R70 ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-0000 1) Spinecare Properties, LLC.
yes no
6. Case:PL T2005-0~3 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive - Four Seasons Town Homes, LLC.
~ yes no
.
.
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: ANX200S-02004 - 1481 Sandy Lane - Martin A werbach
V yes no
2. Case: 7005-02005 - 300 I Lake Vista Drive - Arthur Steele
yes no
3. Case: ANJ200S-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue - Cclaire Mudaro
t;I yes no
--
----.._-
\0/rvY&tt1QOC). Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
.
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued from April 19, 2005 (Items 1-2)
I. Case: FLD200~~ 830 Bayway Blvd - Clearwater Yachet
yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-01012 - 200 Skiff Point - Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC
~s no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2004-020 13A - 100 Coronado Drive & 2001, 215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd - K & P
Clearwater
~
no
2. Case: FLD2003-09047 A - 1750 N Belcher Road - GTE Federal Credit Union
l ./ yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-02019 - 1315 S. Fort Harrison Avenue - Corbett Development, Inc.
\ .L'fis
'"
no
4. Case: FLD2005-02023 - 111 Kenwood Avenue - Power Legal Advisory, Inc.
/yes no
5. Case FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Level Three (Related to ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-0000 1) Spinecare Properties, LLC.
~yes
no
6. Case:PLT2005-00003 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive - Four Seasons Town Homes, LLC.
~ no
Signature:
Date:
..
II
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: ANX2005-02004 - 1481 Sandy Lane - Martin A werbach
~s no
2. Case: ANX2005-02005 - 3001 Lake Vista Drive - Arthur Steele
~s no
3. Case: ANX2005-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue - Cclaire Mudaro
~s
no
:)Q
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
r
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued from April 19, 2005 (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2005-01008 - 830 Bayway Blvd - Clearwater Yachet
-/ yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-01012 - 200 Skiff Point - Skiff Point of Clearwater, LLC
~/
yes no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive & 2001, 215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd - K & P
Clearwater
,/
yes
no
2. Case: FLD2003-09047A - 1750 N Belcher Road - GTE Federal Credit Union
yes / no
3. Case: FLD2005-02019 - 1315 S. Fort Harrison Avenue - Corbett Development, Inc.
v
yes
no
4. Case: FLD2005-02023 - III Kenwood Avenue - Power Legal Advisory, Inc. ~,
yes / no
5. Case FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Level Three (Related to ANX2005-02003ILUZ2005-02002/DV A2005-00001) Spinecare Properties, LLC.
V no
yes
6. Case:PLT2005-00003 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive - Four Seasons Town Homes, LLC.
\/ yes
no
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: ANX2005-02004 - 1481 Sandy Lane - Martin Awerbach
yes ~ no
2. Case: ANX2005-02005 - 3001 Lake Vista Drive - Arthur Steele
yes
V no
3. Case: ANX2005-02006 - 100 Baywood Avenue - Cclaire Mudaro
yes
v
no
Signature:
1{~~ dfie
Dates(;t (D'S'
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2