06/21/2005
.
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 21, 2005
Present: David Gildersleeve
Alex Plisko
J. B. Johnson
Dana K. Tallman
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Daniel Dennehy
Chair - departed 3:36 p.m.
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Absent: Kathy Milam
Thomas Coates
Board Member
Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Michael L. Delk
Gina Clayton
Neil Thompson
Brenda Moses
Attorney for the Board
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director - arrived 3:42 p.m.
Assistant Planning Director
Planning Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: May 17, 2005
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 17, 2005,
as corrected: Item D1, paragraph two, to read "Member Fritsch. . .," and page 39, paragraph 10,
to read "...the development is not consistent with..." The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
D. - DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Items 1-2)
1. Expert Witness List Addition
Staff presented the resume of Planner Robert Tefft.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in
the areas of Land Use Planning, Site Plan Review, and Zoning. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
2. William Vola, Emerqency Manaqer
City Emergency Manager William Vola reviewed the City's emergency management, an
umbrella for disaster planning and management, and how CDB (Community Development Board)
actions interact and affect it. Mr. Vola's primary function is planning and preparation and he is
Community Development 2005-06-21
1
.
.
.
available to assist the CDB regarding public safety and disaster issues. He said no standards
currently connect emergency management with development.
E. - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1)
1.
Case: FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Hiqhwav 19 North Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Retail Partners, LLC.
Representative: Robert E. Gregg (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-796-8774 ext. 331; fax: 727-791-6942; email: archreq@aol.com).
Location: 0.803 acre located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 N approximately 400
feet north of Nursery Road.
Atlas Page: 318A.
Zoning District: Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit retail sales and services with a
reduction to the front (west along US Highway 19 N) setback from 25 feet to 17.17 feet
(to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 5.59 feet (to
building) and from 10 feet to 9.5 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to 5.21 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback
from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement), increases to building height of an additional six
feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck - roof deck at 18.67 -foot height) and an
additional 13.83 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck) and a deviation to
allow direct access to a major arterial street (US Highway 19 N), as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to
the interior landscaping requirement from 10% to 6.8%, as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program,. under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and services (7,350 square-feet).
Neighborhood Associations: Bay Aristocrat Village (Ron Barnes, 18675 U.S. Highway 19
North, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727-531-4906; fax: 727-535-0925; email:
patbar@aol.com); 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 applicant has requested this item be continued to July 19, 2005.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to continue Item E 1, Case FLD2005-02017 for
18419 U.S. Highway 19 North to July 19, 2005. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
F. - 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 - 9)
1. . Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2003-02007 AlPL T2005-00013 - 130 Briqhtwater Drive
Owner/Applicant: Brightwater Cove Townhomes 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).
Community Development 2005-06-21
2
.
Location: 0.52 acre located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 500
feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit nine attached dwellings
(town homes) with a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to
building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C, as an amendment to a previously approved Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project (Case No. FLD2003-02007 [which permitted attached dwellings
within the Tourist District with reductions of the side (east and west) setbacks from 10
feet to seven feet and six feet, respectively, (to building), reduction in the rear (north)
setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and 13 feet (to pool) and to permit
parking that is designed to back into the public right-of-way, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C]); and (2) Preliminary
Plat for the replatting of nine town home lots.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (nine townhomes).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com);
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.
.
This 0.52-acre site is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 500
feet east of Hamden Drive. On April 15, 2003, the CDB approved the development of this site
for nine townhome attached dwellings, with various reductions. On February 24, 2004, building
permits were issued to construct the site and building improvements. The site and building
improvements have been constructed. A tie-in survey was submitted May 4, 2005. It came to
the attention of the City after the tie-in survey was submitted, that the building was located one-
foot closer to the east property line than originally approved (six-foot setback rather than a
seven-foot setback). The applicant has submitted this application in an effort to correct the
location oversight.
Also on April 15, 2003, the CDB approved Preliminary Plat PL T2003-00001 for the nine
townhome lots and a common area. This plat for Brightwater Cove was recorded February 20,
2004, in Plat Book 127, Pages 76-77. A replat of this subdivision was recorded as Brightwater
Cove NO.2 April 7, 2005, in Plat Book 129, Pages 62-63, eliminating the common area. The
CDB has not approved the requisite Preliminary Plat, pursuant to Section 4-702. This
application has been submitted to correct this procedural oversight.
The proposal is to legitimize the location of the townhome building as it has been
constructed at an east side setback of six feet, rather than the seven feet originally approved.
The applicant has indicated there was a surveying error, utilizing an incorrect site plan drawing,
to stake out the property for the building location. The change in location from the east property
line is not perceptible generally to the surrounding area, as the west side setback originally was
approved at six feet and constructed to this setback.
.
The proposed Preliminary Plat provides that unit lot lines run from the front to the rear
property lines, eliminating the prior common areas, and includes easements for the common
elements and utilities. Section 4-702 sets out the Required Approvals of subdivision plats,
Community Development 2005-06-21
3
.
requiring Preliminary and Final Plats, and is intended to be processed simultaneously with other
required approvals. City Council must approve the Final Plat prior to recordation. Approval of
this Preliminary Plat will correct the procedural oversight of the approval and recordation of the
Final Plat prior to the CDB approval.
The building and site improvements were originally found to be compatible with the
surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to
General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
criteria (Section 2-803.C), as well as Article 4, Division 7 for Subdivisions/Plats, have been met.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.52-acre site is zoned Tourist (T) District; 2) On April
15, 2003, the CDB approved the Flexible Development application for the development of this
site for nine townhome attached dwellings, with various reductions, with the Preliminary Plat and
nine conditions of approval; 3) The townhome building has been substantially constructed in
accordance with approved plans, with the exception of the previously approved east setback; 4)
The reduction of setback to six feet from the east property line for the building is not perceptible
generally to the surrounding area, as the west side setback was originally approved at six feet
and constructed to this setback; and 5) The approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat will match
that recorded in the public records.
.
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 concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per
Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 3) Staff further concludes that the proposal
is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Division 7, for Subdivisions/ Plats; and 4)
Based on the above findings, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The Development Review Committee originally reviewed the application and supporting
materials on March 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the (1)
Flexible Development application to permit nine attached dwellings (town homes ) with a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to building), as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, as an amendment to a
previously approved Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Case FLD2003-02007 [which
permitted attached dwellings within the Tourist District with reductions of the side (east and
west) setbacks from 10 feet to seven feet and six feet, respectively, (to building), reduction in
the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and 13 feet (to pool) and to
permit parking that is designed to back into the public right-of-way, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C]); and (2) Preliminary Plat for
the replatting of nine town home lots for the site at 130 Brightwater Drive, 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; 3) The proposal is in compliance with the requirements
of Article 4, Division 7, for Subdivisions/Plats; and 4) The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area. AND Conditions of Approval: (* Previously imposed under Case FLD2003-
02007) 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 all Solid Waste Code requirements
be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) * That all signage meet the requirements of Code
and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regards to color, materials
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
4
.
.
.
and finish; 4)* That all Fire Code requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 5)*
That a tree survey be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits;
6)* That all Stormwater requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 7)* That a
site plan indicating a sidewalk four feet in width within the right-of-way be submitted to and
approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 8)* That all required Transportation
Impact Fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 9) * That evidence of a SWFWMD
(Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit be submitted to and approved by Staff
prior to the issuance of any permits.
See page 21 for motion of approval.
2.
Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2005-03026 and PL T2005-00009-1871 Kinqs Hiqhwav
Owner: Harold Barian
Applicant: Dave Smart
Representative: Bret Krasman (31564 U.S. Highway 19 North Palm Harbor, FL 34684
phone: 727-787-4684; fax: 727-781-3345; email: bret@krsenqr.com).
Location: 0.895 acre located on the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and Kings
Highway.
Atlas Page: 261A
Zoning District: High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet
to 17 feet (to pavement) and reduce the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 4.5 feet (to
pavement) under the provisions of Section 2-404, to reduce the front (north) landscape
buffer from 15 feet to seven feet, and reduce the front (west) landscape buffer from 10
feet to five feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of
Section 3-1202.G. and a Preliminary Plat.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (10 townhome units)
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
The 0.895-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and Kings
Highway. The site is a corner lot because it has frontage along two streets; Sunset Point Road
and Kings Highway. The parcel is zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and
currently is vacant.
The proposal includes two town home-style buildings with a total of ten dwelling units.
The site, with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification of Residential (RH), is permitted up
to 26 dwelling units (30 dwelling units per acre). Building "A," located on the east side of the
site, will have six dwelling units. Building "A" will be located 13 feet from the side (east) property
line, 60 feet from the front (north) property line and 15 feet from the side (south) property line.
Building "B" is located on the west side of the site and will contain four dwelling units. Building
"B" will be located 60 feet from the front (north) and 47 feet from the front (west) property lines
and 15 feet from the side (south) property line. The buildings will be 23 feet in height (two-
stories) and each dwelling unit will have 1,527 square-feet of living space. The units will be
oriented towards Sunset Point Road.
Community Development 2005-06-21
5
.
.
.
Parking will be provided within two-car garages allotted to each dwelling unit providing
20 spaces (two spaces per unit) where 15 spaces (1.5 spaces per units) are required. In
addition, adequate room for two additional spaces will be provided on each unit's driveway. A
private drive will provide access to the site from a driveway located along Sunset Point Road at
the eastern end of the site. The drive will be located along the north side of the site and will be
17 feet from the front (north) property line. Existing sidewalks along each street frontage will be
maintained and/or replaced with this proposal. The applicant is not proposing any signage at
this time. The buildings will incorporate asphalt shingle roofs, stucco exteriors and will be
painted a light sand with white trim.
The proposal includes deviations from the Code including a setback reduction from 25
feet to 17 feet to pavement along Sunset Point Road and a reduction in the landscape buffers
along Sunset Point Road and Kings Highway from 15 feet to seven feet and 10 feet to five feet,
respectively. The front (north) setback reduction is greater than the setbacks of existing
development to the east along Sunset Point Road and is consistent with the requirements of
Section 2-404.A. The reduction in landscape buffer is mitigated by a creative and extensive
design along both street frontages. The reductions in the landscape buffer are instigated by site
constraints, which have dictated the location of the site's stormwater facilities.
The north side of Sunset Point Road has been development with single-family dwellings
generally located approximately 25 feet from their respective front (south) setbacks along
Sunset Point Road. The south side of Sunset Point Road in the vicinity of the subject site has
been developed with a variety of non-residential uses including day car, retail sales and service
and office. These sites have been developed with buildings incorporating a variety of front
(north) setbacks ranging from approximately 25 feet to more than 60 feet. The parking for all of
these uses is located in front (to the north) of each building and generally located up to their
respective front (north) property lines resulting in zero foot front setbacks. The proposal
includes a reduction of the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet to pavement while the
building is located 60 feet from the front (north) property line. The proposal provides a setback
to pavement and building similar to or greater than other setbacks in the area.
The proposal likely will enhance the area through the provision of an attractive multi-
family town home development with extensive landscaping along the perimeter of and within the
interior of the site. The reduction to the side (east) setback is to a dumpster enclosure and will
not prevent access to the rear of the building by emergency vehicles. The reduction will result
in an improved site plan by eliminating the need for an additional driveway along Kings
Highway, which otherwise would be needed to provide access for Solid Waste Department
vehicles servicing the site. Solid waste service will be provided through a dumpster located on
the east side of the site. All stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement), under the
provisions of Section 2-404.A, a Preliminary Plat and to reduce the front (north) landscape
buffer from 15 feet to seven feet and reduce the front (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to
five feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of Section 3-
1202.G for property located at 1871 Kings Highway based upon the following recommended
findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law and with the following conditions:
Community Development 2005-06-21
6
.
.
.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property, 0.895 acre, is within the Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) District/Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan classification; 2)
Currently the site is vacant; 3) Adjacent uses are zoned Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) and Office (0) Districts developed with multi-family dwellings generally between one
and two stories in height and a school. The surrounding area is a mixture of detached and
attached dwellings, office and neighborhood commercial uses. Adjacent properties located on
the same side of the street as the subject site have been development with buildings and
pavement with similar setbacks to that proposed with this development; 4) The proposed
structure heights are 23 feet to the mid-point of the roof; 5) The only deviations from the Code
are a setback reduction from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement along the front (north) property line,
a reduction from 10 feet to 4.5 (to dumpster enclosure) along the side (east) property line and
reductions in the landscape buffers along the front (north and west) property lines from 15 feet
to seven feet and from 10 feet to five feet, respectively; 6) There are no pending Code
Enforcement issues with these sites; 7) Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of
Section 2-404.A; 8) Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provision of Section 3-1202.G; and 9) Staff finds the proposal
meets the General Applicability criteria of Section 3-913.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per
Section 2-404.A.1. a and band 6.a. - c; 2) The proposal complies with other standards in the
Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal complies
with the Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G; 4) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
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 any future
freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and designed to
match the exterior materials and color of the building; 3) That all Fire Department requirements
be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) 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 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;
5) That Open Space and Recreation Impact Fees are due prior to issuance of building permits
or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first; 6) That a site plan which clearly labels the
dumpster be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 7)
That a Tree Preservation Plan be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of
any building permits; 8) That black barrel service be arranged with the Solid Waste Department
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 9) That approved right-of-way permits
be secured from Pinellas County for any work in County rights-of-way (Sunset Point Road and
Kings Highway) and copies of same be submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any building
permits; 10) That a revised site plan which shows that the southernmost swale removed and
otherwise meets the requirements of the City's Land Resource Specialist prior to the issuance
of any permits; and 11) That a final plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate
of Occupancy.
See page 21 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2005-06-21
7
.
.
.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-03030 - 2155 Montclair Road Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Beckett Lake Lodge, L TD
Representative: Roger A. Larson, Esquire; Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
(PO Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 462-1368;
email: roqerl@jpfirm.com).
Location: 10.625 acres located on the south side of Montclair Road 1,200 feet west of
Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 253B
Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the transfer of one dwelling unit
(TDR2005-04021) from the portion of the subject site within the Preservation (P) district
and Preservation (P) future land use plan (FLUP) category to a portion of the site within
the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and Residential Low Medium (RLM)
FLUP category under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 - 1403 and to allow an assisted
living facility on the site located at 2155 Montclair Road as a Residential lnfill Project
without fronting on a major arterial street approved by the Community Development
Board on March 21, 2000) by expanding the number of beds from 144 beds to 180 beds,
reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 23 feet, not providing a landscaped wall
or fence which will screen parking from adjacent parcels of land as required by Section
3-304.A.2 and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 90 spaces
(one space per two residents) to 72 spaces (one space per 2.5 residents), as a
Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: 180-bed Assisted Living Facility.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
Consulting Planner Mark Parry reviewed the request. This site was the subject of a
Flexible Development approval to permit a 144-bed ALF (Assisted Living Facility) without
fronting on a major, arterial street, as a Residentiallnfill Project. The CDB approved the
application on March 21, 2000. The site has since been developed with a 130 bed ALF in
accordance with the approved site plan.
3.
The site is 10.625 acres, located on the south side of Montclair Road, 1,200 feet west of
Belcher Road. It includes the Beckett Lake Preserve/wetland area (4.71 acres) located on the
southern portion of the site. The site is developed with a 130-bed ALF and is accessed via
three driveways along Montclair Road. The western two driveways are an ingress- and egress-
only pair, with the third driveway providing two-way access to the site.
Slightly more than half of the site (5.91 acres) is located within the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) district. The remainder of the site (4.71 acres) is located within the
Preservation (P) district with most of that acreage submerged. Approximately one acre of land
within the Preservation (P) district is not submerged.
The proposal includes a two-story ALF, 38,080 square-feet in area, to be located at the
northeast corner of the site. The existing building located on the eastern portion of the site
Community Development 2005-06-21
8
.
.
.
contains 130-beds 28 of which will be relocated to the proposed building. An additional 47 beds
will be located within that building. A total of 180 beds are proposed for the site. The building
will be located approximately 81 feet from the front (north) property line along Montclair Road,
53 feet from the side (east) property line, over 360 feet from the side (west) property line (the
proposed building is on the eat side of the existing building which is located 62 feet from the
side (west) property line and 25 feet from the Preservation (P) district line per Section 3-907 (the
rear [south] property line is located within Beckett Lake). A total of 72 parking spaces will be
provided where 90 are required. The existing driveways with an additional two-way driveway (at
the northeast corner of the site) along Montclair Road will serve the site.
The proposal includes the continuation of landscaping along the north and east sides of
the site to match and complement the existing landscaping on the west portion of the site. The
landscaping will be consistent with the intent of the Code and will include India hawthorn,
variegated pittosporum, viburnum and magnolia, live oak and bald cypress.
The main entrance to the building will be along Montclair Road. The building will utilize
the architectural style as the existing building incorporating the use of exposed beams, asphalt
shingle roof, exposed brick and stonework, raised banding, and an extensive use of windows.
The proposed materials will be cultured stone and stucco painted shades of yellow with white
accents and a green asphalt shingle roof. The proposed, two-story building in concert with its
extensive setbacks and landscaping design and architectural style is residential in character.
The proposed number of parking spaces will adequately serve the site based on the
submitted parking study. The study shows that at peak usage time (between noon and 3:00
p.m.) there are 44 occupied spaces and 28 unoccupied spaces. There are 29 employees
present during those times. In addition, there are eight resident vehicles. The remaining seven
vehicles are assumed to belong to visitors. The proposed building will have an additional 14
employees during the peak time. Furthermore, the proposed building will have half the
occupancy of the existing building, so it is assumed that it will generate approximately half the
number of visitor vehicles or four cars. This will result in a total of 18 additional vehicles on the
site, or an expected total of 62 vehicles. The proposed number of parking spaces should
exceed the maximum needed during peak usage time by 10 spaces. Lastly, Beckett Lake
Lodge operates a 25-passenger bus to transport residents of the community for off-site activities
such as shopping, banking, social outings and medical appointments, further reducing the
amount of on-site parking needed.
The decrease in the front (north) setback is to pavement only, constitutes a reduction of
less than two feet and will not result in the reduction of any required landscape buffer. While the
site is relatively large (over 10 acres) almost half the site, either submerged land and/or within
the Preservation (P) district, is undevelopable. The applicant desires to develop the property
with relatively large setbacks in order to provide a more residentially scaled development with
extensive landscaping sensitive to the surrounding residential area. Single-family dwellings to
the west and south (on the far south side of Beckett Lake), a retail/wholesale plant nursery to
the east and three-story attached dwellings to the north characterize the area. The reduction in
setback is negligible and will provide a more economically, viable project without a significant
reduction in the quality of the site, building or landscape design.
Section 2-304.A.2 requires that off-street parking serving ALFs be screened by a
landscaped wall or fence'a minimum of four-feet in height. The applicant is requesting relief
Community Development 2005-06-21
9
.
from this requirement for aesthetic purposes. Extensive landscaping proposed along the front
(north) property line to match the landscaping already in the place on the western portion of the
site will effectively screen the parking area from Montclair Road. In addition, the proposed
parking area on the east side of the site is approximately four feet lower than the adjoining
property to the east and will be effectively screened by the landscaping proposed along that
property line.
The application also includes an application for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
to permit the transfer of one dwelling unit from the portion of the site within the Preservation (P)
district and Preservation (P) FLUP category. The subject site is within two zoning districts;
Medium Density Residential and Preservation (P) and three FLUP categories; Residential
Medium (RM), Preservation (P) and Water. The portion of the site designated as Water on the
Countywide Future Land Use Map does not yield any density. The portion of the site
designated as Preservation (P) on the Countywide Future Land Use Map is 1.049 acres and
has a development potential of one dwelling unit. In order to use this one dwelling unit, the
Countywide Rules require the transfer of up to one dwelling per acre from land within the
Preservation (P) FLUP category to land outside of that FLUP category regardless of whether or
not the sending portion and receiving portion are located on the same property as is true in this
case.
.
Solid waste service will be provided via an enclosed dumpster located centrally on the
site between the existing and the proposed buildings. All stormwater requirements have been
met with this proposal with the site. A freestanding monument-style site is located on the north
side of the site along Montclair Road at the west driveway. The sign is architecturally-integrated
with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish and no
change is proposed for that sign and additional signs are not proposed for the site outside of
generic entrance signs indicating the location of the proposed driveway.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 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 Residential lnfill Project use and
with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit the transfer of one dwelling unit (TDR2005-04021) from the portion of the
subject site within the Preservation (P) district and Preservation (P) future land use plan (FLUP)
category to a portion of the site within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and
Residential Low Medium (RLM) FLUP category under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 - 1403
and to revise a previously approved site plan which allowed an assisted living facility on the site
located at 2155 Montclair Road as a Residential lnfill Project without fronting on a major arterial
street (approved by the Community Development Board on March 21, 2000) by expanding the
number of beds from 144 beds to 180 beds, reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 23
feet, not providing a landscaped wall or fence which will screen parking from adjacent parcels of
land as required by Section 3-304.A.2 and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces
from 90 spaces (one space per two residents) to 72 spaces (one space per 2.5 residents), as a
Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G. based on the following
recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and the conditions:
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
10
.
.
.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 462,780 square-feet (10.62 acres) with 257,635
square-feet (5.91 acres) of upland area and 205,145 square-feet (4.71 acres) of submerged
land, approximately 690 feet wide, Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P)
district; 2) Parcel is further subject to the requirements of Section 2.3.3.7.1 of the Countywide
Plan Rules; 3) Applicant seeks relief from minimum front setback, minimum parking
requirements and the requirement to screen parking serving an ALF with a landscaped wall or
fence a minimum of four-feet in height as a Residentiallnfill Project under Code provisions of
Section 2-304.G; 4) The proposed, two-story building design and architectural style is residential
in character with regard to size and scale; 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 Residential Infill Project per Section 2-304.G. 1 through 7; 2) Staff further finds the
proposal compliant with the standards of the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 1
through 6; 3) Staff further finds the proposal compliant with the standards of Transfer of
Development Rights per Section 4-1403. 1 through 5; therefore Staff recommends Board
approval of FLD2005-03030 based on the above-recommended findings of fact and conditions
proposed.
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 any future
attached sign meet all the requirements of Code and be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building; 3) 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;
4) That a Tree Preservation Plan be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of
any building permits; 5) That the arborists field notes are transferred in "typeset" on the Tree
Inventory Plan and be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building
permits; 6) That a detailed wetland enhancement plan be submitted to and approved by Staff
prior to the issuance of any building permits; 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met
prior to the issuance of any permits; and 8) That applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees
be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
Roger Larsen, representative, reviewed the request, which is a result of the high number
of current residents who require Alzheimer's care. In reference to residents' concerns regarding
property values, he said the project is located a substantial distance from nearby residences
and foliage most likely will prevent residents from seeing this facility from across the lake. He
said the applicant accepts staffs recommended conditions.
Richard Reynolds requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Richard Reynolds party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-06-21
11
.
.
.
David Carpenter requested party status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant David Carpenter party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Barbara Gurian requested party status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Barbara Gurian party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Party status holders Richard Reynolds, David Carpenter, and Barbara Gurian spoke in
opposition to the project.
In response to a question, Land Development Engineering Manager Scott Rice said the
applicant has agreed to remove all exotic vegetation from the lake and submit a wetlands
enhancement plan, as a condition of approval. He was not aware of plans to test the lake's
water and had no information regarding use of motorized vessels on the lake. A stormwater
treatment pond on site meets SWFWMD requirements. It was stated that runoff from all
properties causes problems. In response to a question, Mr. Rice said eight houses front the
west side of the lake.
In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds said he was unaware of deed restrictions
prohibiting motorized vessels on the lake.
Barbara Gurian said the property owner could clean up the lakefront.
David Carpenter said the nursery's shoreline is very clean.
Roger Larson said the preservation area cannot be touched.
Keith Zayac, representative, said the applicant is providing a 25-foot buffer along the
preservation area, and will remove nuisance species, plant natural native species in the buffer,
and construct a stormwater pond for runoff. He said the applicant met with staff regarding traffic
issues. Traffic was monitored at different hours and staff determined the size of the parking lot
is sufficient. In response to a question, Planning Manager Neil Thompson said the water
enhancement plan is part of the public record and signs on the property are subject to Code.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #F3, Case FLD2005-03030 for 2155 Montclair
Road with Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
as listed, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Robert B. Boos; Boos Development Group, Inc.
Representative: David Morse; Boos Development Group, Inc. (2651 McCormick Drive
Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-669-2900; fax: 727-669-2915; email:
dmorse@boosdevelopment.com).
Location: 29.82 acres located on the south side of East Palmetto Street and the north
side of Marilyn Street approximately 620 feet west of North Belcher Road.
Community Development 2005-06-21
12
.
.
.
Atlas Page: 280B
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) district (pending case
ANX2005-03009)
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a fence\wall six feet in height within
the front (north and south) setbacks along East Palmetto and Marilyn Streets,
respectively on a property within the Medium High Density Residential District (MHDR)
(pending case ANX2005-03009), under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1.
Proposed Use: 144 attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. The site is 29.82 acres located on the south side of
East Palmetto Street and the north side of Marilyn Street, approximately 620 feet west of North
Belcher Road. The site is developed with two single-family dwellings (one of which is in an
advanced state of disrepair) and is accessed via three driveways. A variety of small sheds also
are located on the property. The site is the subject of a pending annexation application (case
ANX2005-03009), which will provide an initial zoning and future land use plan (FLUP)
classifications within the City of Clearwater of Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and
Residential Medium (RM) FLUP classification. Approximately 13.29 acres of the 29.82-acre site
are located within jurisdictional wetlands as identified by SWFWMD and constitutes the
southern portion of the site.
The proposal includes 144 attached dwellings within 20, two-story buildings. A
combination of fencing and walls six feet in height will be located along the side (east and west)
and front (north) property lines. Because the fence/wall will be six feet in height and located
within the required 25 foot front setback along the length of the front (north) property line along
East Palmetto Street and at the southeast and southwest corners of the site along Marilyn
Street, the development must be reviewed as a Level Two application where it would otherwise
be reviewed as part of a Level One Flexible Standard Development. The buildings will be 24
feet in height where a maximum of 30 - 40 feet is permitted, located a minimum of 25 feet from
any front property line where 25 feet is required and 21 feet from any side property line where
five feet is required. A minimum of 211 parking spaces will be provided where 207 spaces are
required. The northern portion of the site, located outside the jurisdictional wetlands, is 16.53
acres. Up to 247 dwelling units could be located on the site based on 15 dwelling units per acre
permitted by the Residential Medium (RM) FLUP classification where the proposal includes 144
attached dwelling units (8.71 dwelling units per acre). The site will be accessed via two, two-
way driveways, with one each located at the northwest and southeast corners of the site. All
parking is either located under the buildings in two-car garages for each unit or screened by
landscaping and the proposed six-foot perimeter wall/fence.
The proposal includes extensive landscaping along East Palmetto Street including live
oak, bald cypress, bird of paradise, Indian hawthorn, saw palmetto, jasmine and iris. The south
side of the site along Marilyn Street will be left natural as the existing wetlands area will be
preserved. Solid waste service will be provided via individual black barrels for each unit. All
stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal with the site. Four freestanding
monument-style signs each 12 square-feet in area will be located on the site with two each
located at the north and south entrances. The signs will be architecturally incorporated into the
Community Development 2005-06-21
13
.
design of the perimeter wall and to the buildings with regard to proportion, color, material and
finish and meets the requirements of the Code.
In the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district, brick or other masonry walls or
walls with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work are permitted to a maximum height
of six feet in a required front setback area as a Level Two (Flexible Development) approval.
The only Code criterion is that such walls shall be architecturally compatible with the principal
structure on the property and compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed wall
will utilize a stucco finish painted to complement the residential building proposed with the
application. The wall steps back every 100 feet along East Palmetto Street to provide horizontal
relief. Aluminum picket fencing is used in these stepbacks to provide additional relief. The
same fencing is used up to the front (south) property line along Marilyn Street along the side
(east and west) property lines. Surrounding uses along East Palmetto Street include a church,
offices, self-storage and light industrial uses such as manufacturing and warehouses. Uses
along Marilyn Street include a Church, retail, park and single-family residential the side or back
yards of which are along Marilyn Street. The site plan otherwise fulfills all of the requirements of
a Flexible Standard Development application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 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 Residentiallnfill Project use and
with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code.
.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit a fence/wall six feet in height within the front (south) setback along East
Palmetto Street on a property within the Medium Density Residential district (MDR) (pending
case ANX2005-03009), under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1. based on the following
recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and the conditions:
Findinqs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 1,299,329 square-feet (29.82 acres) with
720,047 square-feet (16.53 acres) of upland area and 578,912 square-feet (13.29 acres) of
submerged land, approximately 1,011 feet wide; 2) The site is proposed to be within the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and the Residential Medium (RM) future land use
plan classification subject to the approval of pending annexation case ANX2005-03009; 3)
Applicant seeks relief from maximum wall/fence height limitation under Code provisions of
Section 3-804.A.1; 4) The proposed, two-story building design and architectural style is
residential in character with regard to size and scale; 5) Proposed landscaping, use of aluminum
picket fencing and stepbacks every 100 feet mitigate the height of the wall; 6) The wall materials
(painted stucco over concrete block) complements the materials, architectural style and color of
the proposed buildings; 7) The proposal is in conformance with the Minimum Standard
Development requirements under the provisions of Section 2-302 including setbacks, height and
parking; and 8) The proposal is in conformance with the Maximum Development Potential
provisions of Section 2-301 including impervious surface ratio and density requirements.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the Flexible Development
criterion per Section 3-804.A.1; 2) Staff further finds the proposal compliant with the standards
of the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 1 through 6; 3) Staff further finds the
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
14
.
proposal with the standards of Flexible Standard Development per Section 3-302.A; and 4) Staff
recommends Board approval of FLD2005-03028 based on the above-recommended findings of
fact and conditions proposed.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the site is annexed into the City of Clearwater with a
zoning of Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and a future land use category of
Residential Medium (RM classification (Case ANX2005-03009); 2) That the final design and
color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified
by, the CDB; 3) That any attached sign meet all the requirements of Code and be designed to
match the exterior materials and color of the building; 4) That a condominium plat be recorded
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 5) 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; 6) That solid waste service be arranged with the Solid Waste
Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 7) That revised site plans
which incorporate a vegetated littoral shelf over 35% of the cover of the pond under normal
conditions be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 8)
That a Tree Preservation Plan which also indicates the palmetto area to be preserved expressed in
square feet and depicts the species to be preserved be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to
the issuance of any building permits; 9) That a revised irrigation plan in which the irrigation system
is located at the back of curb be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any
building permits; 10) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits; 11) That Open Space and Recreation Impact Fees are due prior to issuance of building
permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first; 12) That the portion of fence/wall to be
located on the north side of Marilyn Street extend westward from the southeast corner of the
site, only past the southeast access road area, and not extend adjacent to the vegetated
wetland area; and 13) Restrict major construction entrance to Palmetto Street.
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes reported a conflict of interest. Assistant City
Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides served in her place.
In response toa question regarding the need for a second entrance off Marilyn Street,
Mr. Parry said there is no evidence that entrance would be harmful and nothing in the Code
prohibits access from Marilyn Street. Considering the site's configuration, staff anticipates that
70% of trips would be generated at the Palmetto Street entrance and 30% would occur at the
Marilyn Street entrance. The City's traffic engineer has determined the project will create no
significant degradation to the Level of Service on either street.
David Morse, representative, reviewed the request and stated that the applicant will
accept staff's conditions of approval. He said the applicant has agreed to requests from the
Marilyn Palms Condominium Association to: 1) lower the fence along the abutting property line
to four feet, and 2) the development will not impede stormwater runoff from the condominium
property.
.
Mark Schevchik requested party status.
Community Development 2005-06-21
15
.
.
.
Member Johnson moved to grant Mark Schevchik party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
It was remarked that this applicant can build this project legally without COB approval
and this request only affects the wall.
Michael Groom, representing Marilyn Palms Condominium Association Unit 2, requested
party status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Michael Groom party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Patricia M. Touchton requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Patricia M. Touchton party status.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry reviewed the location of the six-foot high wall, which
will be within 25 feet of the property line along Marilyn Street. He said the gates will be set back
farther.
Ron Storis requested party status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Ron Storis party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Robert Spanzak requested party status.
Member Tallman moved to grant Robert Spanzak party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Parry said no fence is proposed along Marilyn Street. It was requested that the
applicant clarify the intent as the application indicates a fence will be in that location.
Mr. Morse said the wall on Marilyn Street will be set back three feet off the property line
and will not extend into the preservation area. The applicant is granting additional right-of-way
to the City. He reviewed a drawing of the location of the wall and four-foot chain link fence. He
said a wall is proposed behind the condominium units and the applicant will replace the church's
chain link fence.
Party status holders Mark Schevchik, Michael Groom, Patricia M. Touchton, Ron Storis,
and Robert Spanzak spoke in opposition to the project, the Marilyn Street entrance, and location
of the stormwater pond.
One person spoke in opposition to the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Rice said a portion of Marilyn Street will be widened as
part of the project.
Community Development 2005-06-21
16
.
.
.
Party status holders asked questions of staff and the applicant. In response, it was
stated that the wetlands will not be touched. Mr. Morse said the project primarily fronts on
Palmetto Street where a six-foot buffer is necessary. He said while the number of vehicles
egressing onto Marilyn Street would be minor, he agreed the main construction entrance should
be off Palmetto Street.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Item #F4, FLD2005-03028 for 2077 East Palmetto
Street, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, materials provided in the packet, evidence presented, and the staff report.
Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended adding a condition: That the portion of fence/wall to
be located on the north side of Marilyn Street extend westward from the southeast corner of the
site, only past the southeast access road area, and not extend adjacent to the vegetated
wetland area. It also was requested that another condition be added: Restrict the major
construction entrance to Palmetto Street. Staff and Mr. Morse agreed to the added conditions.
Member Fritsch agreed to amend the motion, adding Conditions #12 and #13 as stated
above. The motion, as amended, was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The COB recessed from 4:59 to 5:14 p.m.
5.
Case: LUZ2005-03004 - 137 Fernwood Avenue Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Faith Housing, Inc.
Representative: George Scheitinger (2701 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, FL 33759;
phone: 727-796-7555; e-mail: steves@a1speciaIMours.com).
Location: 0.67 acre located at 137 Fernwood Avenue on the east side of Fernwood
Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Drew Street.
Atlas Page: 290A.
Request:
(a) Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (INS) Classification (City) to the
Residential Medium (RM) Classification (City); and
(b) Rezoning from the Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater) to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Up to 12 attached dwellings (10 dwelling units with a transfer of
development rights of up to two dwelling units).
Type of Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Large Scale.
Neighborhood Association(s): 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.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves three
parcels of land, approximately 0.67 acre in area on the east side of Fernwood Avenue,
approximately 400 feet south of Drew Street. The site is currently vacant. The site has a FLUP
classification of Institutional (INS) and a zoning designation of Institutional (I). The applicant is
requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential Medium (RM)
classification and to rezone it to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District in order to
develop the site with up to 10 attached dwelling units. While the current FLUP permits
Community Development 2005-06-21
17
.
.
.
residential development as a secondary use the existing zoning designation precludes
residential uses.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the future land use plan amendment is
subject to approval by the Pine lias Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting
as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the density of the amendment request, review
and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
Based on its analysis and recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions
of law, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) The land use plan amendment
from the Institutional (INS) Classification (City) to the Residential Medium (RM) Classification
(City); and 2) The rezoning from the Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater) to the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District (City of Clearwater).
See page 21 for motion of approval.
6.
Case: ANX2005-03007 - 2346 Ella Place Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Tracy Lynn
Representative: Tracy Lynn
Location: 0.20-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of Ella
Place, approximately 160 feet west of Dora Avenue. .
Atlas Page: 281 A.
Req uest:
(a) Annexation of 0.20-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single Family Home.
Neighborhood Association(s): 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 0.20-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Ella Place, approximately 160 feet west of Dora Avenue. The property is located
within an enclave and is not contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed
annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation.
The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City.
It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The property receives water service from Pinellas County. The proposed annexation is
consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County
Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Community Development 2005-06-21
18
.
.
.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of 0.20-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2)
Approval of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's
Community Development Code.
See page 21 for motion of approval.
7.
Case: ANX2005-03008 - 2300 Drew Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: CARS-DB4 LP
Representative: Ariel A. Santos, P.E., Spring Engineering (3014 US Highway 19,
Holiday, FL 34691; phone: 703-288-3075; fax: 703-288-3375).
Location: 1.18-acre property consisting of two parcels abutting Terrace and Anne
Avenue and 0.51-acre right-of-way, located on the north side of Drew Street, between
Terrace Drive E. and Anna Avenue.
Atlas Page: 281 A.
Req uest:
(a) Annexation of 1.18 acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial General (CG) Category
(County) to Commercial General (CG) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from C-2, General Retail Commercial and Limited Services District
(County) to Commercial (C) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Car Collision Repair.
Neighborhood Association(s): 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 1.18-acre property consisting of two parcels located on the
north side of Drew Street between Terrace Drive E. and Anna Avenue. The property is located
within an unincorporated enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the west, east,
and south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements
with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting Terrace Drive East and
Anna Avenue right-of-way not currently within the City limits also be annexed. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer from the City. It is proposed that
the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG) and
a zoning category of Commercial (C).
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. The site complies with the minimum dimensional standards of the
Commercial (C) zoning district, however, the existing use will be nonconforming upon
annexation.
Based on the above analysis and recommended findings of fact and recommended
conclusions of law, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request:
Community Development 2005-06-21
19
.
.
.
1) approval of the annexation of 1.18 acres of property and abutting 0.51-acre of abutting
Terrace Drive East and Anna Avenue rights-of-way to the City of Clearwater; 2) approval of the
Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) approval of Commercial
(C) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 21 for motion of approval.
8.
Case: ANX2005-03009 - 2077 Palmetto Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Boos Development Group
Representative: Harry Cline, Esq. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FI 33757; phone: 727-
441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470).
Location: 29.83-acre property consisting of four parcels, located on the south side of
Palmetto Street, approximately 800 feet west of Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 2808.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 29.83 acres of property and .0928 acre of abutting Palmetto Street
right of way to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Medium (RM) Category (County)
to Residential Medium (RM) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Attached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s): 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 29.83-acre property consisting of four vacant parcels located
on the south side of Palmetto Street, approximately 800 feet west of Belcher Road. The
property is located within an unincorporated enclave and is contiguous to existing City
boundaries to the north, east, west, 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 water service from the City. It
is proposed that the abutting Palmetto Avenue right-of-way not currently within the City limits
also be annexed. The property should be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Medium (RM) and a zoning category of Medium Density Residential (MDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including water,
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
municipal annexation.
Based on the above analysis, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) approval of the annexation of
29.83 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) approval of the Residential Medium (RM) Future Land
Use Plan classification; and 3) approval of the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Community Development 2005-06-21
20
.
.
.
In response to audience member requests that this item be pulled from the Consent
Agenda, it was reported that this item only requests annexation. Audience members then
indicated they did not wish the item to be pulled.
Member Plisko moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2003-02007 A1PL T2005-00013 for
130 Brightwater Drive with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the staff report; Item F2, Case FLD2005-
03026 and PL T-00009 for 1871 Kings Highway with Bases for Approval and Conditions of
Approval as listed, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, as listed, and the staff report;
and recommended approval of Item F5, Case LUZ2005-03004 for 137 Fernwood Avenue based
on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the staff report; Item F6, Case ANX2005-
03007 for 2346 Ella Place based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the staff report;
Item F7, Case ANX2005-03008 for 2300 Drew Street based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and the staff report; and Item F8, Case ANX2005-03009 for 2077 Palmetto Street, based
on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
G. - CONTINUED ITEM: (Item 1)
1.
Case: FLD2005-01 012 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point Level 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 west of Labrador Way.
Atlas Page: 2678.
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 Residential Infill 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 2005-06-21
21
.
.
.
This Flexible Development case was reviewed at the April 19, 2005, COB meeting. The
COB 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 for that meeting and the application, supporting materials, Staff report and
recommendation did not change with the exception of the provision of the correct number of
existing dwelling units (six) where the original Staff report (April 19, 2005) listed an incorrect
number (15 units).
The application was reviewed a second time at the May 17, 2005 COB meeting where a
motion to deny the application was made and seconded. The final vote on that motion was
three in support of the denial and three against the denial resulting in an automatic continuance
to June 21, 2005. The applicant did not resubmit any new data for this meeting and the
application, supporting materials, Staff report, and recommendation have not changed.
The pie-shaped site is 0.50 acre, located at the western terminus of Skiff Point,
approximately 300 west of Larbord 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 and 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, 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 feetfrom 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 fac;:ade. 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 fac;:ade). The waterside side
Community Development 2005-06-21
22
.
.
.
of the roof will be enclosed 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
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.
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, based on the following recommended findings of fact, recommended
conclusions of law and with conditions:
FindinQs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 21,820 square-feet (0.50 acre), 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 character 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; 2) Staff further finds the
Community Development 2005-06-21
23
.
proposal compliant with the standards of the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 1
through 6; therefore 3) Staff recommends Board approval of FLD2005-01 012 based on the
above-recommended findings of fact and conditions proposed.
.
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 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 Engine~ring 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; 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 to the 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.
Troy Purdue, representative, reviewed the request, stating the requested setbacks are
needed, as the developer has chosen to narrow the building and preserve neighborhood views.
He said the proposed multifamily use is consistent with nearby uses and enhances the
character of the community. He said this area needs redevelopment, the project is aesthetically
pleasing and will enhance property values, create off street parking, and meet FEMA (Federal
Emergency Management Authority) regulations. He said the building height is consistent with
other approved projects in the area.
Ethyl Hammer, representative, said the proposed development is compatible with
surrounding land uses, the Comprehensive Plan, and City land development regulations. She
used HUD's community development and planning guidelines to define "neighborhood" to
evaluate the project and found it is consistent with this neighborhood. She compared
similarities of this project to others nearby. She said this entire portion of Island Estates is
dominated by multistory projects, many four stories in height. She said the neighborhood's
character is mixed and features a variety of architectural styles. She opined this neighborhood
is in transition with older structures appropriately being converted to more dense residential
development as encouraged by the City's comprehensive plan category. She recommended
the CDB consider bulk and scale, not height.
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
24
.
.
.
Party status holders Neil Spillane, Frank Dame, and Carroll Lovett spoke in opposition to
the project.
Sheila Cole requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Sheila Cole party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Kevin Barry requested party status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Kevin Barry party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Lawrence Bagan requested party status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant Lawrence Bagan party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Jack Bodziak requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Jack Bodziak party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Frank Monahan requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Frank Monahan party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Joseph Wink requested party status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant Joseph Wink party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Party status holders Sheila Cole, Kevin Barry, Lawrence Bagan, Jack Bodziak, Frank
Monahan, and Joseph Wink spoke in opposition to the application.
Party status holders asked questions of staff and the applicant.
In response, Mr. Parry said the developer meets all six criteria of Code Section 2-404.
The development would be deemed impractical without deviation to the Code due to its pie-
shaped size. He said the project would not affect property values negatively. The Code does
not protect views, only visibility triangles. He felt the five-story project is compatible with
adjacent three-story buildings. He reviewed FEMA's method to measure building heights. He
did not know if the project will block views from Palm Island West. He did not know the number
of full-time residents on Skiff Point. He could not predict if the project would create traffic
congestion or parking problems. Ms. Hammer said she may have misspoken regarding
terminology but felt this neighborhood is in transition and all neighborhood fingers feature similar
character and all have buildings approved that are taller than four stories over parking.
Community Development 2005-06-21
25
.
.
.
In response, Mr. Parry reviewed staff methods for considering community character,
including mass, scale, style, etc. Staff feels this proposal will enhance the community's
character. He said this development is consistent with the intent for higher density land use and
with the zoning district. Staff suggests the area has been underdeveloped for some time and
feels the project is consistent with the land use and zoning. This property is not adjacent to the
Low Density Residential District, as a P (Preservation) designation separates the two districts.
Staff reviewed the site plan and considered what exists and how what exists has been
developed in relation to current codes and FEMA regulations with respect to bulk, scale, and
character of adjacent properties. Staff also reviewed issues related to parking, safety, drainage,
etc. He said this project's height is consistent with the area.
In response, Mr. Purdue reported that Northside Engineering had prepared this
application. Mr. Parry said the Code does not require consideration of the shadowing effect of a
project. Staff was not required to consider properties to the north when assessing this
application. Ms. Hammer said a deed restriction will require owners to park on site. She said
visitors will park where they choose. Mr. Parry said the developer has a right to develop to
capacity. He said staff had determined this project would create no adverse affects on the land
use of adjacent properties. After review by impacted City departments, all endorsed the project.
He said an evacuation or emergency plan for Island Estates was not discussed during review of
this project.
The CDB recessed from 2:58 to 3:07 p.m.
Four persons spoke in opposition to the application.
Ms. Hammer agreed with staff's analysis of the flexible criteria and general standards in
the Code, felt this project meets all criteria, and is far superior to what could be built on the site.
Mr. Purdue said the applicant has tried to reach a compromise with neighbors and proposed
some revisions, however none satisfied project opponents. He said the applicant could not
meet with staff in time to obtain responses related to alternatives that were discussed. He said
an application for boat docks will be submitted in the future.
It was commented that tradeoffs should occur when applicants request deviations and
the ordinance should be reviewed as it did not anticipate multiple flex requests from an applicant
for everything from setbacks to heights, etc. for the same project. Concern was expressed that
development on Brightwater has been disastrous and that Clearwater citizens need
representation and protection. It was stated the project is too massive and tall and features
insufficient setbacks, creating very little open space.
Member Plisko moved to deny the application as submitted, based on Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, as the City ordinance has been overanalyzed, citizens
should get back something in return for each deviation from Code, and this building does not
provide an adequate return, and the applicant did not prove that this project was uneconomical
if it met current setbacks and height requirements.
Ms. Grimes requested Mr. Plisko restate his motion to include Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Community Development 2005-06-21
26
.
Member Plisko moved to deny Item #G1, Case FLD2005-01012 for 200 and 201 Skiff
Point, based on the presentation of evidence, the packet of submitted materials, and applicable
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the applicant did not prove that this project was
impractical and uneconomical to meet the current setbacks and heights requirements, that the
development of the parcel proposed for development as a Residentiallnfill Project impacts the
fair market value of abutting" properties based on mass and scale and shadowing of the project
to the north, the applicant meets the criteria that the uses within the Residentiallnfill Project are
otherwise permitted in the district, regarding the uses within the Residentiallnfill Project being
compatible with adjacent land uses on Skiff Point, the bulk of this building impacts the adjacent
buildings, development of the parcel will have a negative impact on the immediate vicinity, the
project does not enhance the scale and bulk of existing buildings on the street, setbacks and
height do not meet the intent of Code and proposed parking is inadequate, the development will
not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, the
development is out of character with buildings that exist on Skiff Point, and the proposed
development impacts shading factors of the building to the northeast. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Plisko and Fritsch voted "Aye"; Members
Johnson, Tallman, Gildersleeve, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Nay." Motion
failed.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #G1, Case FLD2005-01012
for 200 and 201 Skiff Point, with Conditions of Approval, as listed, based on the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law, as listed, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Johnson, Tallman, Gildersleeve, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye";
Members Plisko and Fritsch voted "Nay." Motion carried.
. H. - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 - 4)
1. Case: FLD2005-03025 - 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Del Mar Development LLC (Robert Szasz, Vice President).
Representative: Bill WoodslTerri Scapik, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm
Harbor, FL 34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq).
Location: 0.858 acre located on the west side of North Ft. Harrison Avenue,
approximately 400 feet south of Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 259B.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 322.5 square-foot addition to a
previously approved 466 square-foot multi-use dock for a total of 14 slips (10 existing;
four proposed), under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Dock addition to a condominium project.
Neighborhood Associations: 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 0.858-acre site is located on the west side of North Ft. Harrison Avenue on the
Clearwater Harbor side of Stevenson Creek, approximately 400 feet south of Sunset Point
Road. On March 19,2002, the CDB approved Case FL 01-12-38 with two conditions to
redevelop the upland portion of this site with 24 attached dwellings (condominiums). The four-
Community Development 2005-06-21
27
.
.
.
story over ground level parking building has been constructed under BCP2003-04801. On
February 17, 2004, the Planning Department signed off on plans to construct 10 slips with a
dock area of 466 square-feet on the north side of the property (Case No. MIS2003-00009A).
Two existing docks were removed. Those 10 slips on the north side have recently been
constructed.
Section 3-601.C.3 requires docks over a total of 500 square-feet in area (in association
with a multi-family development or condominium) to be treated as a commercial dock and
approved as part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. The proposal includes the
construction of two docks, each with two slips, on the west side of the site within the Blanton
Channel, totaling 322.5 square-feet of dock area for use by the owners/tenants of the
condominiums. A total of 14 slips will be provided for this site, with a total of 788.5 square-feet
of dock area.
The northernmost dock with two slips is proposed near the north property line. The
southernmost dock with two slips is proposed a little south of the midpoint of the property. The
slips for both docks will be accessed from the pool area on a sidewalk on top of the seawall.
Catwalks for all four slips are proposed six feet away from the seawall due to oyster beds or
clusters adjacent to the seawall. Tie poles also are proposed to prevent boaters from navigating
over the oysters. The walkouts are designed with a ramp down from the seawall to access the
catwalks and will extend 22 feet from the seawall. Individual slips are proposed 12 feet in width.
The overall length of 22 feet for both docks from the seawall is the maximum permitted by Code,
based on a maximum of 25% of the width of the Blanton Channel waterway (88 feet). Code
provisions otherwise restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot width (291 feet). A
minimum side setback of 38.8 feet is required for the docks, based on a maximum of 10% of the
property width of 388 feet. The southern dock is proposed 39.1 feet from the southern property
line. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75% of the lot width, or 291
feet in this case. The proposed combined dock width, including the dock on the north side of
the property that was recently constructed, is 42% of the lot width (163 feet). While not
consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent with newer
docks required to meet today's Codes, wherein the length takes into account the water depth at
mean low water and submerged resources.
SWFWMD requires a minimum three feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the
slips. All slips have at least three feet of water depth. There are no issues regarding navigation
with the proposal. All other criteria for docks have been met. All applicable Code requirements
and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and dock
criteria (Section 3-601.C.3) have been met.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.858 acre is zoned Tourist (T) District; 2) The recently
constructed upland development includes a 24-unit, four-story (over ground level parking)
residential condominium building, which was approved by the COB on March 19,2002 (FL 01-
12-38); 3) Adjacent uses to the south are zoned Tourist and are developed with overnight
accommodations uses; 4) Adjacent uses across the Blanton Channel to the west are zoned Low
Medium Density Residential and are developed with detached dwellings; 5) The proposal
permits a 322.5 square-foot addition to a previously approved 466 square-foot multi-use dock
(total of 788.5 square-feet) for a total of 14 slips (10 existing; four proposed) for use by the
owners/tenants of the condominiums; 6) The proposed dock addition complies with the Code
provisions for setbacks, length and width of Section 3-601.C.3; 7) The proposed docks on the
Community Development 2005-06-21
28
.
.
.
west side of the site preserve existing oyster beds or clusters; 8) There are no issues regarding
navigation with the proposal; and 9) The proposal meets the Commercial Dock criteria.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Commercial
Docks criteria of Section 3-601.C.3; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with
the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913; 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 May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit a 322.5 square-foot addition to a previously approved 466 square-foot
multi-use dock for a total of 14 slips (10 existing; four proposed), under the provisions of Section
3-601, for the site at 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria
under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in
the Code including the general applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The dock
development is compatible with the surrounding area.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by
the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased
separately from the condominiums and 2) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection) Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of
permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to commencement of construction.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reported staff had received three letters of objection.
Sherry Bagley, Woods Consulting, reviewed an aerial view of the property showing the
width of the canal and the length of proposed docks.
Steven Schultz requested party status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant Steven Schultz party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Russell Latimer requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Russell Latimer party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Status holders Steven Schultz and Russell Latimer spoke in opposition to the
req uest.
Marine & Aviation Director Bill Morris said to the best of his knowledge, this canal never
was designated as a yacht basin and never was on any City lists for dredging. This canal is
treated the same as any other canal in the City. In response to a question, Mr. Morris said
docks are on both sides of most Island Estates canals, which are extremely narrow and require
boaters to traverse down the center. According to Code, docks can be up to 25% of the width of
Community Development 2005-06-21
29
.
.
.
a waterway. The proposed docks will not exceed 25% of the waterway's 88-foot width. The
county reviewed and approved this request. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said staff did
not request the applicant to locate the docks on the north side of the canal.
Ms. Bagley said the north side of the canal is sovereign, submerged land and belongs to
the State; the western side is privately owned. She said the State will not approve construction
on the property's north side. She did not know who owns the private property.
Party status holders asked questions of staff and the applicant. In response, Mr. Morris
said City waterways feature various types of silting. The subject basin is impacted by outflow
from Stevenson Creek. He said vessels generally use the center of a channel, which keeps the
channel clear. Mr. Wells said vessel size in the canal is limited by the waterway's width. This
request also includes boatlifts. No illumination is proposed, however, Mr. Wells suggested a
condition of approval could require a low wattage light. He said the same Code provisions
would restrict future area dock requests.
One person spoke in opposition to the application.
Party Status Holders expressed concern the docks will not be safe and should be
located elsewhere. Ms. Bagley said the docks will extend 22 feet due to oyster beds and State
water depth requirements.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item H1, Case FLD2005-03025 for 1860 North Ft.
Harrison Avenue with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
2.
Cases: FLD2005-01 006/TDR2005-01 016 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
Owners: Adelheid Hanghofer and Duvoisin Cottages.
Applicant: Ocean Breeze, 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@mindsorinq.com).
Location: 0.400 acre located at the southeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Somerset
Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning Districts: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and Tourist (T) Districts.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 14 attached dwellings in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and the Tourist (T) District with a
reduction to lot area in the MHDR District from 15,000 square-feet to 8,700 square-feet
and in the T District from 10,000 square-feet to 8,700 square-feet, a reduction to lot
width in the MHDR District from 150 feet to 100 feet, reductions to the front (north along
Somerset Street) in the MHDR District from 25 feet to 13.67 feet (to building) and from
25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and in the T District from 15 feet to 13.67 feet
(to building), a reduction to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) in the T District from
15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero
feet (to trash staging area) in the MHDR District, an increase to building height in the
MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 feet to 50.25 feet (to roof deck)
with perimeter parapets of 5.25 feet (from roof deck) and rooftop, open pavilions of 11.75
Community Development 2005-06-21
30
.
feet (from roof deck) and to allow a building within the required sight visibility triangles,
as a Residentiallnfill Project in the MHDR District, under the provisions of Sections 2-
404.F and 2-803.B; (2) Reduction to the landscape buffer in the MHDR District along
Somerset Street from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and to the side (west)
landscape buffer in the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area),
as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G;
and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-01016) of two dwelling units to this
site from 200 Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (14 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com);
Coral Resort Condominiums (483 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-
446-3711; email: coraI483@aol.com); 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 OAO-acre site is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Somerset
Street. The proposed site is composed of four lots and has basically 200 overall feet of frontage
on Somerset Street (north) and 87 feet of frontage on Mandalay Avenue (east). The western
two lots are zoned Medium High Density Residential District and are currently developed with
two duplex dwellings and one detached dwelling, while the eastern two lots are zoned Tourist
District and are vacant. All existing improvements are planned to be demolished.
.
Attached dwellings to the north include the Chalets on White Sands at 14 Somerset
Street nearing completion. The Chateaus on White Sands to the west at 15 Somerset Street
currently is under construction. Other attached dwellings are located to the south, while
commercial uses are located to the south along Mandalay Avenue.
The proposal is to construct 14 attached dwellings (condominium) on the subject
property, where 12 dwelling units are permitted based on 30 dwellings per acre. The applicant
is requesting the Transfer of Development Rights of two dwellings units from 200 Brightwater
Drive. The proposal is unique from other attached dwelling projects on the beach in that all
units are two stories in height, with one dwelling unit stacked over another dwelling. Units will
be primarily 2,468 square-feet of living area, with the eastern unit proposed at 2,406 square-feet
and the western unit at 2,258 square-feet. Ground level parking is provided under the building.
Each elevator will provide access to four dwellings, each with their own lobby, with the
exception of the western elevator, which will serve only two dwellings. These elevators also will
provide access to rooftop decks.
.
Reductions to lot area and lot width for attached dwellings are part of this proposal in the
MHDR District from 15,000 square-feet to 8,700 square-feet and in the T District from 10,000
square-feet to 8,700 square-feet and with a reduction to lot width in the MHDR District from 150
feet to 100 feet. While these reductions have been advertised, and the reduction to lot area
amounts to a 58% reduction in the MHDR District and an 87% reduction in the T District, when
viewed in light of the overall property this development concern is diminished in its severity.
The overall property has 17,432 sq uare-feet of lot area and 200 feet of frontage on Somerset
Street. However, these reductions should be reviewed in light of all other reductions or
increases requested.
Community Development 2005-06-21
31
.
.
.
The request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project in the MHDR District and
otherwise as attached dwellings in the T District due to the height increase and setback
reductions being requested to the building and dumpster staging area. The proposal includes
reductions to the front (north along Somerset Street) in the MHDR District from 25 feet to 13.67
feet (to building) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and in the T District from
15 feet to 13.67 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) in the T
District from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to
zero feet (to trash staging area) in the MHDR District.
With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building
will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will
be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within
the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site. The
adjoining attached dwelling building to the west at 15 Somerset Street is to be constructed 10
feet from the common lot line with this proposal, which will have landscaping and retention
areas within this 10-foot area. The proposed placement of the trash staging area appears to be
the most logical location for this site and should have minimal negative impacts on the adjacent
property.
Regarding the front setback reduction to Somerset Street and Mandalay Avenue, the
reductions requested are less than or equal to those setbacks approved for attached dwelling
projects at 14 Somerset Street (FLD2002-09031 , approved by the CDB on November 19, 2002)
and 15 - 17 Somerset Street and 16 Cambria Street (FLD2004-01 002/TDR2004-01 006,
approved by the CDB on June 15, 2004). Both of these prior projects provided 10-foot front,
side and rear setbacks. This applicant proposes a 13.67-foot front setback from Somerset
Street and a 10-foot front setback from Mandalay Avenue. The lot depth of 87 feet from
Somerset Street restricts site design, especially compliance with parking lot design standards.
For 90-degree parking, the proposal meets the dimensional requirements for parking stall length
and drive aisle width, which totals 62 feet. It is noted that the proposal complies with the
required 10-foot side setback on the west and south sides of the property. Taking into account
wall depths along with the parking dimensional requirements, as well as complying with the
south side setback, this produces the front setback proposed.
Concurrent with the front setback reductions, this proposal includes reductions to the
front landscape buffer along Somerset Street in the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to
trash staging pad) and to the side (west) landscape buffer in the MHDR District from 10 feet to
zero feet (to trash staging area). As with the front setback reduction requested, the location of
the trash staging area within the front landscape buffer area is necessary to eliminate the
necessity of the trash truck coming on-site. Site drainage has been designed to be located
within a vault under the building, allowing the proposed setback areas to be fully usable for
landscaping. The adjoining attached dwelling building to the west at 15 Somerset Street is to be
constructed 10 feet from the common lot line with this proposal, which will have landscaping and
retention areas within this 10-foot area. The proposed placement of the trash staging area
appears to be the most logical location for this site and should have minimal negative impacts
on the adjacent property. The Code does not require perimeter buffering in the Tourist District.
The site today has some existing on-site parking spaces, but there is existing parking
that straddles the front property line along Somerset Street (partially on-site and partially within
Community Development 2005-06-21
32
.
the right-of-way). The proposal is to eliminate all parking within the right-of-way and provide 25
parking spaces on-site (Code requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit or 21 spaces; proposal is at
1.78 spaces per unit). Parking will be provided within the ground level parking garage and will
be fully screened from view by solid walls and railings similar to those for the residential units
above. The driveway on Somerset Street has been located on the northwest corner of the
building, has been designed 24 feet in width (as requested by the Fire Department so that it will
act as a fire truck turn around), and will be gated.
.
The proposal includes constructing 14 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building
with four living floors over ground level parking. The proposal includes an increase to the
building height from 30 feet (MHDR District) and 35 feet (T District) to 50.25 feet from the BFE
(Base Flood Elevation) to the highest roof deck. The site is located within the "Old Florida
District" of Beach by Design where the preferred form of development includes low- to mid-rise
new single-family dwellings and townhomes. The Planning Department has interpreted mid-rise
as maximum of 50 feet based on the height standards in the Medium Density Residential
(MDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts.
Beach by Design calls for renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited
new construction where renovation is not practical within the "Old Florida District." While the
proposal is not one of the preferred development types, the proposed height of this building at
50.25 feet to the roof deck may be viewed as being consistent with building heights approved by
the CDB in the "Old Florida District," and close to that interpreted by Staff as being "mid-rise" in
height. The proposed height of 50.25 feet is also a function of requirements of the Fire
Department for this site to provide a fire truck turn around. Complying with this requirement
necessitated raising the building to meet a 14-foot building clearance for the truck, pushing the
parking level taller than normal (15 feet ground level to first floor level rather than generally a
1 O-foot floor to floor).
Other attached dwelling buildings of comparable height are in close proximity. These
include the Colony Surf Condominium building to the southwest on the north side of Cambria
Street (three living floors over ground level parking; approximately 35 feet in height from BFE to
roof deck), the Chalets on White Sands condominium to the north at 14 Somerset Street (almost
complete at 56 feet in height) and the Chateau on White Sands condominium to the west at 15
Somerset Street (under construction at 61.66 feet in height).
.
The proposal includes a request to increase the height of perimeter parapets around the
edge of the roof deck an additional 5.25 feet (from roof deck), where the Code permitted
maximum is 30-inches. This 5.25-foot increase only occurs at the curved portions of the
parapets on the north elevation. Railings otherwise as part of the parapet are 42-inches in
height, which is required under Building Code provisions. This increase may be viewed as
providing visual interest to the building, making the parapets proportional in respect to the height
of the building and to aid in the screening of the rooftop air conditioning units.
The primary staff concern with this project is that, while the proposed building height has
been proposed and advertised at 50.25 feet from BFE to the roof deck, there are too many
projections above the roof deck making the building appear as approximately 62 feet in height.
There are four elevators and two stair towers each projecting 12 feet above the roof deck (within
Code permitted limitations of 16 feet). However, the roof has been designed as private
recreation areas, each with an open pavilion (except the eastern two units). When all of these
projections above the main roof are totaled, their square footage amounts to 31.7% of the main
Community Development 2005-06-21
33
.
.
.
roof area. Along with this percentage, it is the dispersed location of these projections that make
the building appear 62 feet tall rather than 50.25 feet tall. With the roof being private recreation
areas, the elevator and stair projections are a necessity. Due to these projection's design and
percentage of the main roof, Staff recommends eliminating the open pavilions as a means to
ensure the advertised building height maintains this height appearance.
The addition of the two dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights does
not produce a building out of character with the surrounding area and is in compliance with the
criteria of Section 4-1403. A sidewalk will be constructed within the right-of-way of Somerset
Street for pedestrian safety, where no sidewalk presently exists, which will complete the
sidewalk on the south side of Somerset Street between the project at 15 Somerset Street and
Mandalay Avenue. Site drainage is proposed within a vault under the east side of the building.
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does
not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property.
Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign
must be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building.
Staff's general support for this proposal is based on reasons enumerated above. The
proposal is compatible with the surrounding properties. The redevelopment of this site will
improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements
and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913),
Residentiallnfill Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) and attached dwelling criteria in the Tourist
District (Section 2-803.B) have been met.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.400 acre is zoned Medium High Density Residential
and Tourist Districts and is located within the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design; 2) The
current use of the site is for four attached dwellings and one detached dwelling, which will be
demolished as part of this proposal; 3) Based on current Land Use Category density limitations
of 30 dwelling units per acre, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 12
dwelling units; 4) The applicant proposes to redevelop the entire site for 14 attached dwellings
in a residential building 50.25 feet tall; 5) The applicant is deriving the proposed density through
the Transfer of Development Rights of two dwellings from 200 Brightwater Drive; 6) The lot
depth of 87 feet from Somerset Street restricts site design, especially compliance with setback
requirements; 7) Reductions to setbacks to the building and trash staging area proposed are
similar to those approved for other projects within the "Old Florida District" west of Mandalay
Avenue and represent improvements over that existing; 8) The proposed building height
increased to comply with a Fire Department requirement for a fire truck turn around,
necessitating a 14-foot building clearance; 9) The proposed building height of 50.25 feet is
considered a mid-rise development; 10) The open rooftop pavilions, coupled with the elevator
and stairway projections above the roof, amount to 31.7% of the main roof area, with these
projections dispersed as to their location on the roof and produces an overall building
appearance of 62 feet in height; 11) The proposal is otherwise compatible with the surrounding
development, will enhance the character of the immediate vicinity and will improve the
appearance of this site and the surrounding area; and 12) There are no active code
enforcement cases for the parcel.
Community Development 2005-06-21
34
.
.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-2-404.F; 2) Staff concludes that
the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section
2-803.B; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability
criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the
proposal is in compliance with the criteria and standards for the Transfer of Development Rights
per Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403; 5) Staff further concludes that the proposal complies with
Beach by Design; and 6) 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 3 and May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the (1)
Flexible Development application to permit 14 attached dwellings in the Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) District and the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot area in the MHDR
District from 15,000 square-feet to 8,700 square-feet and in the T District from 10,000 square-
feet to 8,700 square-feet, a reduction to lot width in the MHDR District from 150 feet to 100 feet,
reductions to the front (north along Somerset Street) in the MHDR District from 25 feet to 13.67
feet (to building) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and in the T District from
15 feet to 13.67 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east along Mandalay Avenue) in the T
District from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to
zero feet (to trash staging area) in the MHDR District, an increase to building height in the
MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 feet to 50.25 feet (to roof deck) with
perimeter parapets of 5.25 feet (from roof deck) and rooftop, open pavilions of 11.75 feet (from
roof deck) and to allow a building within the required sight visibility triangles, as a Residential
Infill Project in the MHDR District, under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-803.B; (2)
Reduction to the landscape buffer in the MHDR District along Somerset Street from 10 feet to
zero feet (to trash staging area) and to the side (west) landscape buffer in the MHDR District
from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program,
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-
01016) of two dwelling units to this site from 200 Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of
Section 4-1402, for the site at 19 - 21 Somerset Street, 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 complies with the Flexible
Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 3) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; 4) The proposal is in compliance with the criteria and standards for the Transfer
of Development Rights per Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403; 5) The development is compatible with
the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6) The proposal is in
compliance with the Old Florida District of Beach by Design.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be con?istent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a special
warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 200
Brightwater Drive and being transferred to this site, be recorded prior to the issuance of any
permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in
perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 200 Brightwater Drive due to the transfer of development
rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (200 Brightwater Drive) shall consent to the
transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a Unity of Title be
Community Development 2005-06-21
35
.
.
.
recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That the rooftop, open
pavilions be eliminated; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a
maximum four feet in height and designed to match the exterior materials and color of the
building; 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 condominium plat be
recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 8) That all Parks and
Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all Fire Department
. requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 10) That Transportation Impact
Fees be paid prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Wells said the City had received letters of objection to the request. He stated a
correction is needed on Page 7 of 12 (table) of the Residentiallnfill Project criteria #1 of the staff
report to delete a reference to the word "economically" which does not exist in the Code.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said use of roof areas for private and/or commons
areas is not a problem, however, staff is concerned that the proposed open pavilions give an
appearance from the street level that the building is higher than it is. Rooftops can have the
same function without a covered area.
Ethyl Hammer, representative, distributed graphics of the project. She said the applicant
disagrees with staff recommended Condition of Approval #4 and requested that it be deleted.
She said the applicant has used this type of architectural feature in the past. She said the
rooftop space is intended to be an amenity, providing owners with recreational open space that
can be covered if weather is inclement. She said the rooftop area would add architectural
interest to the roofline. She said the Code allows 33% rooftop coverage and this project is at
31.7%. She said the proposed height of 62 feet is consistent with nearby projects, many of
which are taller than 50 feet. She said a project immediately to the west was approved at 61.66
feet in height, without consideration of architectural features. She said this project provides a
unique opportunity for buyers to purchase something more than the usual one-floor
condominium. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said Section 10.34 under Elevator
Equipment of the Code explains accessories for building uses.
One person spoke in support of the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said most of the building is outside the visibility
triangle, however some obstruction may exist at the building entrance, at the driveway. The
Traffic Department reviewed the request and felt the encroachments are minor and would not
create traffic problems. The area designated for trash pick up is a staging area. The trash
container will be stored in the parking garage.
Discussion ensued with comments that it appears one elevation exceeds the allowable
lateral distance, three elevator protrusions seem to exceed the allowable size, and the proposed
rooftop pavilions provide little sun protection. It was suggested that Condition #4 could be
eliminated, as this is an overuse of the property.
Community Development 2005-06-21
36
.
.
.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Item #H2, Case LD2005-01 006rrDR205-01 016 for
19 - 21 Somerset Street with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, based on
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, as listed, and the staff report. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Johnson, Tallman, Fritsch, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted
"Aye"; Member Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried.
3.
Cases: FLD2005-03031 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
Owner: Warner Hospitality.
Applicant: Newkirk Ventures, Inc.
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: 0.35 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300
feet west of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (16 existing attached
dwelling units; 16 attached dwelling units proposed), under the provisions of Section 6-
109; and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 16 attached dwellings with
reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to nine feet (to pavement) and from
15 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10
feet to 7.8 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the
side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.5 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to 5.3 feet (to
pavement), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building) and
from 20 feet to 11.4 feet (to pavement) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to
87.3 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 5.67 feet (from roof deck), under the
provisions of Section 2-803.B.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (16 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: 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, FI 33767); Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1 (895 S
Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-530-4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral
House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-447-0290);
Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone:
727-441-8212; e-mail: cpoint7@knoloQy.net);ClearwaterPoint8Shipmaster.Sail (800
S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-442-0664; e-mail:
clwpt8@tampabay.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); 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 0.35-acre site is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300
feet west of Gulf Boulevard. The site has approximately 135 feet of frontage on Bayway
Boulevard and currently is developed with 16 attached dwellings. Parking for the current
development is located partially within and backs into the right-of-way. The existing building is
primarily one-story in height, except the front portion is two-stories in height, and wraps around
a pool in the center of the building. All existing improvements are proposed to be demolished.
Community Development 2005-06-21
37
.
A City police substation abuts the west side of this site. Attached dwellings (town homes
and condominiums) are east and west of this site on the north side of Bayway Boulevard. An
existing overnight accommodation use is southwest across Bayway Boulevard, while retail sales
(shopping center) is south across Bayway Boulevard.
The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the
nonconforming density of 16 dwelling units (45.71 du/acre). Based on current Land Use
Category density limitations of 30 dwelling units per acre for residential uses, the overall subject
site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 10 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to
terminate the nonconforming density in order to redevelop the site with 16 new attached
dwellings. Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, four improvements are
required: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist
District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing
improvements and is providing parking that meets Code provisions; 3) Removal of
nonconforminq sians. outdoor liahtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing
all existing improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4)
Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proaram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy
requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential
properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary.
.
Staff's concern relative to the termination of the nonconforming density, resulting in a net
increase of six dwelling units over that permitted under current regulations, is its relationship to
the overall site and building improvements proposed. Based on the proposal that has been
submitted, Staffs concern is that the site is being overbuilt with too many units. As such, Staff
does not support this proposal, with the reasons outlined below.
The proposal includes reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to nine feet (to
pavement) and from 15 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to 7.8 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement),
reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.5 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to 5.3
feet (to pavement) and reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building)
and from 20 feet to 11.4 feet (to pavement). In regard to the placement of the building versus
pavement on the property, the residential portion of building itself is designed 19 feet from the
front property line, approximately 21 feet from the east and west property lines and 10 feet from
the rear property line. There are one-story portions at the rear of the building that are for a fire
pump room and a fire pump generator room, at a side setback of 7.8 feet (east) and 8.5 feet
(west). The pavement for the parking areas extend closer to the property lines than the
building, at a front setback of nine feet, an east side setback of five feet, a west side setback of
5.3 feet and a rear setback of 11.4 feet.
The primary Staff concern and objection is to the proposed rear setback of 10 feet to the
building and 11.4 feet to pavement. This proposed setback is not only to the rear stair tower
and the fire pump and generator rooms, but also to the cantilevered balconies along the rear of
the building. Section 3-908.0 allows balconies that linearly extend 50% or less of the width of
the width of the building to which they are attached to extend into a required setback not more
than 24 inches. These rear balconies are approximately 83% of the rear building width and are
fully within the required 20-foot rear setback at approximately 11 feet from the rear property line.
There is also a Building Code requirement to have the building set back at least 18 feet from the
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
38
.
.
.
seawall. The applicant's response to this rear setback issue has been to apply to the City's
Board of Adjustment and Appeals to reduce the Building Code setback, with a hearing date of
July 13, 2005. This has no bearing on the Community Development Code setback concern
raised by Staff (however, it works in concert with the Building Code setback requirement). This
proposed rear setbacks to the building and to pavement are inconsistent with setbacks
approved by the COB for properties along Bayway Boulevard. Staff advised the applicant of
these inconsistencies through the review process. Projects at the following addresses have
been approved with the following rear setback to the building: 620 Bayway Boulevard (27 feet);
656 Bayway Boulevard (28 feet); 674 Bayway Boulevard (30 feet); 692 Bayway Boulevard (30
feet); 830 Bayway Boulevard (18 feet); and 850 Bayway Boulevard (20 feet). Staff advised the
applicant that a reduction by at least two dwelling units, with its required three parking spaces,
could result in a relocation of the building southward through the elimination of the southernmost
three parking spaces. While this would produce a front setback to the building of nine feet, it
would increase the rear setback to the building to 19 feet, which would be consistent with the
other projects approved by the COB. The residential living area of the building is set back
farther from the stairwell, elevator and trash chute portion of the front of the building, which
projects approximately 21 feet from residential living portions. This building is taller than other
buildings proposed along this portion of Bayway Boulevard (which were less than 50 feet in
height), but the project at 692 Bayway Boulevard also was approved at a front setback of nine
feet to the stairwell portion of the building. The City police substation building abutting to the
west is approximately seven feet from the front property line (one-story above ground-level
parking). The proposed rear setback is inconsistent with the criteria for attached dwellings in
the Tourist District, which states "the reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved
site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance" in that the proposal does
not represent an improvement over site plans normally nor an improved site design due to the
setback issue. The proposal also is inconsistent with two of the General Applicability criteria,
which requires the proposed development to be "consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity" and the "design of the proposed development" to minimize "adverse effects,
including visual...impacts on adjacent properties." The site plan submitted is not an
improvement over normal conditions, due to the circumstance of the attempt to reconstruct 16
dwelling units on this site through the Termination provision, nor does it result in more efficient
parking, since the project meets the bare minimum Code requirements for the number of
required parking spaces. The site design submitted represents an improvement with a rear
setback that is inconsistent with other approved and/or recently constructed projects along this
portion of Bayway Boulevard.
With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building
will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will
be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within
the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is
common with many newer developments.
The subject parcel has a greater front lot width at the property line than at the rear
property line, producing a slightly "pie slice" angle of the side property lines. The location of the
building and parking improvements places these improvements closer to the side property lines
towards the rear of the lot than at the front of the lot. By Building Code requirements, the rear
stairs must be provided with a sidewalk out to the sidewalk within the Bayway Boulevard right-
of-way. The introduction of this required sidewalk severely reduces the area for landscaping
along the west side, narrowing the landscape area toward the rear of the property, such that it
Community Development 2005-06-21
39
.
.
.
will be difficult to plant any meaningful landscaping along the eastern half of the west side of the
. property. The landscape plan submitted distorts the reality of this insufficiency of adequate
planting area to provide meaningful landscaping along this portion of the property.
Parking spaces for the current site improvements straddles the front property line along
Bayway Boulevard (partially on-site and partially within the right-of-way). The. proposal will
eliminate all parking within the right-of-way and provide 24 parking spaces on-site (Code
minimum requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit or 24 spaces for 16 dwellings). Parking will be
provided at ground level either under the building or projecting from the building envelope. The
applicant is proposing a four-foot high screening wall along the side property lines and partially
along the spaces along the front of the property, which will be augmented by landscape
screening (see discussion above regarding landscaping along the north property line). Parking
is proposed to be accessed by one-way driveways on Bayway Boulevard, with a one-way traffic
flow on-site.
The proposal includes constructing 16 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building .
of Mediterranean architecture with eight living floors over ground-level parking. The proposal
includes two dwellings per floor of 2,360 square-feet each of living area and an increase to the
building height from 35 feet to 87.3 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the highest roof
deck. The site is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design,
which is a distinctive area of mixed uses including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels, and
commercial uses. Beach by Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic
revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater
beach. While adjacent to existing buildings less than 50 feet in height, there are various
attached dwelling projects (existing or proposed) that are close to, or exceed 100 feet in height
(Clearwater Point to the east of Gulf Boulevard, Continental Towers at 675 S. Gulfview
Boulevard, the Clearwater Grande Hotel at 655 S. Gulfview Boulevard, and the Sunspree
Condominiums at 715 S. Gulfview Boulevard). While the proposed height appears compatible
and consistent with other projects within this "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District," this
increased height also must be viewed in concert with the proposed number of dwelling units
proposed through the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density where this increased
height is inconsistent with the criteria for attached dwellings in the Tourist District, which states
"the increased height results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance."
This increased height proposed appears to be a contributing factor to the site being overbuilt.
The proposal includes a request to increase the height of perimeter parapets around the
edge of the roof deck an additional 5.67 feet (from roof deck), where the Code permitted
maximum is 30 inches. This increase may be viewed as making the parapets proportional in
respect to the height of the building and to aid in the screening of the rooftop air conditioning
units.
No recreation amenities, suc~ as a pool, are proposed for this development. Other
recently approved and/or constructed developments on the beach with a similar number of
proposed dwelling units have provided recreational amenities. Site drainage is proposed within
vaults under the south side of the parking lot.
Regarding the fire pump and fire pump generator one-story buildings at the rear of the
property, Building Codes require the finished floor for these equipment rooms to meet the
required BFE of 11 feet. The Building Code also requires an interior height of these rooms of a
Community Development 2005-06-21
40
.
.
.
minimum of 7.5 feet. Based on information submitted that these small buildings will have a flat
roof and the building elevations submitted, there will be approximately only five feet of interior
height, which will not meet Building Code requirements. Staff raises this concern in that the
building elevations submitted for CDB review distort reality and will necessarily need to change,
as the easternmost window in the family room will need to diminish in height or be eliminated in
order to comply with this Building Code requirement.
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does
not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property.
Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign
would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the
exterior materials and color of the building.
Staff's opposition for this project is based on the reasons enumerated above. While the
proposal would appear compatible with the height of existing or approved projects within this
"South Beach/Clearwater Pass District," the proposed number of units and setbacks create
unacceptable development issues and a development inconsistent with previously approved
projects along this portion of Bayway Boulevard.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and attached dwelling criteria (Section 2-803.B) have not
been met.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.35 acres is zoned Tourist District and is located within
the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is
for 16 attached dwellings, which is nonconforming to current density maximums at 45.71
dwelling units per acre; 3) Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30
dwelling units per acre, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 10
dwelling units; 4) The applicant is deriving the proposed 16 attached dwelling units through the
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the existing 16 attached dwelling units; 5) The
applicant proposes to redevelop the entire site in a residential building 87.3 feet tall; 6) The
proposed reductions to the rear setback to building and pavement are inconsistent with
setbacks approved by the CDB for properties along Bayway Boulevard; 7) The required
sidewalk on the west side severely reduces the area for landscaping along the west side,
narrowing the landscape area toward the rear of the property, such that it will be difficult to plant
any meaningful landscaping along the eastern half of the west side of the property; 8) While the
proposal will eliminate all existing parking within the right-of-way, the proposal meets the bare
minimum Code required amount of parking spaces for the proposed number of dwellings; 9)
While the proposed height appears compatible and consistent with other projects within this
"South Beach/Clearwater Pass Distri~t," this increased height appears to be a contributing factor
to the site being overbuilt; 1 0) There are no recreation amenities, such as a pool, proposed for
this development; 11) The building elevations submitted for CDB review distort reality related to
the Building Code interior height requirement for the fire pump and fire generator rooms and the
easternmost window in the family room, which will need to diminish in height or be eliminated in
order to comply with this Building Code requirement; 12) While the proposal would appear
compatible with the height of existing or approved projects within this "South Beach/Clearwater
Pass District," the proposed number of units and setbacks create unacceptable development
issues and a development inconsistent with previously approved projects along this portion of
Bayway Boulevard; and 13) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Community Development 2005-06-21
41
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity
for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109, but the number of units, based on the
submitted site and building design, create setback issues; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal
does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-
803.B; 3) Staff further concludes that the proposal is not in compliance with the General
Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes
that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 5) Based on the above findings, Staff
recommends denial of this application.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development
request for (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (16 existing attached dwelling
units; 16 attached dwelling units proposed), under the provisions of Section 6-109; and (2)
Flexible Development application to permit 16 attached dwellings with reductions to the front
(south) setback from 15 feet to nine feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to three feet (to trash
staging area), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 7.8 feet (to building) and from
10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.5 feet
(to building) and from 10 feet to 5.3 feet (to pavement), reductions to the rear (north) setback
from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.4 feet (to pavement) and an increase
to building height from 35 feet to 87.3 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 5.67 feet
(from roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2-803.B for the site at 706 Bayway Boulevard,
with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible
Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is not in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) The development is not compatible with the surrounding area and will not
enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said the current site is almost 100% impervious and the
building does not meet Code requirements. He said the proposed project creates more open
space and visual effects. He said the building will be shifted to the site's rear to provide an
aesthetic 40-foot setback on Bayway. He said it may be possible to reduce further the size of
the area proposed to house the generator, fire pumps, etc. He said the rear setback enhances
the project and has no visual affect on neighbors. He said the project is consistent with the
surrounding area. He reported that Building Official Kevin Garriott had indicated he would
approve the project if a portion of the sidewalk is removed.
Mr. Wells said this project is an overbuilding of the site, even with the rear setback
proposed. In response to a question, he said there are many different ways to design a site.
Staff objects to the site design and setbacks proposed. Staff has reviewed with the applicant
how to reduce or eliminate staff concerns by eliminating one floor of the project and reducing
the number of units to 14.
Mr. Ghovaee said the two buildings, raised to meet FEMA regulations, will not affect
water views. He noted that no objectors were present. He said this project would terminate a
nonconformity and provides sufficient parking spaces, which do not back out onto the street.
.
Discussion ensued with comments that this project would enhance the neighborhood
and deserves consideration, the building design is attractive, and density is a concern, and
Community Development 2005-06-21
42
.
.
.
disappointment was expressed that the building was pulled in as tight as possible due to the
mechanical space requirement.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to deny approval of Item H3, Case FLD2005-
03031, for 706 Bayway Boulevard to include Bases for Denial, as listed, based on Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, as listed, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Plisko, Tallman, Fritsch, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member
Johnson voted "Nay." Motion carried.
4.
Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
Owners: Anthony Menna - North Clearwater Beach Development, LLC.
Keith Hardison, Managing Agent - Beach-Gulf Sands, Inc.
Applicant: Anthony Menna, Managing Agent - Palazzo Clearwater
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: 0.348 acre on the south side of Bay Esplanade approximately 200 feet east of
Poinsettia Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A
Zoning District: Tourist (T) district
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 13 attached dwellings in the Tourist
District and an increase in height from 35 feet to 64 feet (as measured from base flood
elevation to the roof deck), an increase in the height of a parapet wall from 30 inches to
42 inches, permit two parking spaces within the required sight visibility triangles along
Bay Esplanade, a reduction in the front (north) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to
pavement) and three feet (to trash staging area), reduction in the side (east) setback
from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), 10 feet (to pool) and seven feet (to building),
reduction in the side (west) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to trash staging area) and
a reduction the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet to pool deck, eight feet (to
pool) and 10 feet (to building), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-
03019) of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive (donor site) to 657 Bay
Esplanade (receiver site) under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 and a
request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity under the provisions of Section 6-
109.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (13 condominium units)
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
The site consists of 0.348 acre on the south side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 200
feet east of Poinsettia Avenue. The site has 132 feet of frontage on Bay Esplanade. The parcel
is zoned Tourist (T) District and currently is developed with seven attached dwelling units where
10 are permitted by the Resort Facilities High (RFH) future land use plan classification (FLUP).
The site includes three one-story buildings and is accessed via a single driveway along Bay
Esplanade, which spans the width of the property. The site is located within the special area
redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District." The immediate
vicinity is almost entirely composed of attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single-
Community Development 2005-06-21
43
.
family dwellings farther to the north. Structures in the area vary in height between one and
three stories. Within this section of Bay Esplanade are three approved condominium
developments, La Risa I, located at 650 Bay Esplanade, is 69.5 feet in height, La Risa II,
located at 669 Bay Esplanade, is 52 feet in height and 665 Bay Esplanade, is 59 feet in height.
The proposed building will have five living floors (64 feet from BFE to roof deck), with
floors two through four containing three dwellings each and floors five and six containing two
dwelling units each. All five living floors will include approximately 6,600 square-feet of livable
space. The living units will be a mix of two-, three- and four-bedrooms. Elevators, located
centrally along the north fa<;ade of the building, will provide access to the units. Two stairwells,
also located centrally along the north facade, are adjacent to the elevator shafts.
Sidewalks will be constructed within the rights-of-way of Bay Esplanade for pedestrian
safety, where no sidewalks presently exist. Amenities for the proposal include a swimming pool
at the southeast corner of the site. Parking and a solid waste staging area will be located on the
ground floor. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time.
.
The proposal also includes a termination of status of nonconformity to permit a total of
11 existing dwelling units to remain on the site where 10 dwelling units are permitted. The site
is located within the RFH FLUP category, which permits up to 30 dwelling units per acre, and is
0.348 acre, therefore, the site is permitted up to 10 dwelling units. The site has been developed
with 11 dwelling units. The applicant desires to maintain the 11 dwelling units on the site and
then transfer two additional dwelling units to the site for a total of 13 proposed dwelling units
(see transfer of development rights analysis below). The termination of status of nonconformity
criteria including meeting perimeter buffer requirements, providing required landscaping for off-
street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures
into compliance with the Code are met with this proposal.
Beach by Design regulates development within certain areas of the beach. Beach by
Design calls for renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new
construction where renovation is not practical. The site is located within the "Old Florida
District" of Beach by Design where the preferred form of development includes low- to mid-rise
new single-family dwellings and townhomes. The Planning Department interprets mid-rise as
maximum of 50 feet based on the height standards in the Medium Density Residential (MDR),
Tourist (T) and High Density Residential (HDR) districts. The immediate vicinity is composed of
attached dwellings, small motels and condominiums. Building styles generally resemble
architecture from the 1950s and appear to have been progressively expanded. The proposed
height (64 feet to roof deck; 67.5 feet overall from BFE) of the building and the form of
development (condominium) are inconsistent with the preferred development type and permitted
height of the "Old Florida District." The height also is inconsistent the majority of existing
buildings in the area.
Staff has found instances within the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design where
developments approved by the CDB, with Staff support, have and are dramatically changing the
character of the area. These changes have generally not been consistent with the vision and
requirements of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. Due to these conditions, Staff has
taken a more conservative approach to development within the Beach by Design plan area,
especially related to building height and type of use, and, therefore, cannot support the height
and the condominium use requested for this project. This proposal is inconsistent with the "Old
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
44
.
Florida District" of Beach by Design with regard to height (64 feet to roof deck and 67.5 feet
overall from BFE) where low- to mid-rise buildings are required and type of use (condominium
where single-family or townhomes are required).
.
As such, the proposal does not meet the following Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project criteria: 1) The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development
is otherwise economically impractical without deviations from the intensity and development
standards. Staff agrees that the requested reduction in rear setback is warranted given the size
and shape of the lot and historical development patterns in the area. However, the applicant
has not shown how the increase in height from 30 feet to 64 feet (to roof; 67.5 feet overall from
BFE) is necessary for the development of the site; 2) The uses within the comprehensive infill
redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent lands uses. The proposed overall building
height of 67.5 feet from BFE is taller than most surrounding buildings and is inconsistent with
the requirements of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. The proposed condominium
use is not compatible with adjacent land uses; 3) The development of the parcel proposed for
development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal continues the current trend of
oversized buildings on small lots with reduced setbacks (which further emphasize the over-sized
scale of the building with regard to both the lot on which the building is located and the
surrounding neighborhood) further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by
Design and will result in a building out of scale with surrounding buildings; 4) The design of the
proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale
with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the
proposed overall height of 67.5 feet as measured from BFE; and 5) Flexibility in regard to lot
width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community
character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole. The applicant has not clearly shown that an overall height of 67.5 feet
from BFE provides a benefit to the community character and the immediate vicinity of the
property. The proposal will result in a building out of scale with the site on which it will be
located.
Additionally, the proposal does not meet the following General Applicability (3-913.1 & 5)
criteria: 1) Development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density
and character of adjacent properties. The proposal includes a building with an overall height of
67.5 feet (64 feet to roof deck from BFE). The proposed height is inconsistent with the majority
of the buildings in the neighborhood and is inconsistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach
by Design and will result in a building out of scale with the site on which it will be located and 2)
Development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The
development is inconsistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity which
consists primarily of buildings less than 50 feet in height and the preferred type of development
in this area is single family dwellings and town home units.
This proposal includes the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) of two dwelling units
to this site from 116 Brightwater Drive. The maximum number of permitted units for 116
Brightwater Drive is 10 dwelling units. The site has been developed with six dwelling units,
therefore, an excess of four unused dwelling units exists. The maximum number of dwelling
units permitted on 657 Bay Esplanade is 30 dwelling units per acre or 10 dwelling units (0.378
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
45
.
.
.
acre by 30). The maximum number of units permitted to be transferred to 657 Bay Esplanade is
20% of the otherwise permitted number of dwelling units (10 dwelling units) or two dwelling
units. The applicant is proposing a termination of status of nonconformity to permit the 11
existing dwelling units to remain where 10 units are permitted. The total number of proposed
dwelling units for the subject site is 13 dwelling units. Code, under provisions of Section 4-
1403.E.3, and Beach by Desigri allows the use of TDRs, provided both the sender and receiving
sites are located within the Beach by Design redevelopment area. The proposal is in
compliance with the Plan policy regarding TDRs and with the TDR criteria per Section 4-1402.
The proposal is not in compliance with the following standards and criteria set forth in
Community Development Code Section 4-1403: 1) The development of the parcel proposed for
development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal continues the current trend of
oversized buildings on small lots with reduced setbacks (which further emphasize the over-sized
scale of the building with regard to both the lot on which the building is located and the
surrounding neighborhood) further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by
Design and will result in a building out of scale with surrounding buildings and 2) The design of
the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale
with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the
proposed overall height of 67.5 feet as measured from BFE and will result in a development out
of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development
application to permit 13 attached dwellings in the Tourist District and an increase in height from
35 feet to 64 feet (as measured from base flood elevation to the roof deck), an increase in the
height of a parapet wall from 30 inches to 42 inches, permit a two parking spaces within the
required sight visibility triangles along Bay Esplanade, a reduction in the front (north) setback
from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and three feet (to trash staging area), reduction in the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), 10 feet (to pool) and seven feet (to
pavement), reduction in the side (west) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to trash staging area)
and a reduction the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet to pool deck, eight feet (to
pool) and 10 feet (to building), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under
the provisions of Section 2-803.C., Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-03019) of two
dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive (donor site) to 657 Bay Esplanade (receiver site)
under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 and a request for Termination of Status of
Nonconformity under the provisions of Section 6-109 based upon the following recommended
findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) Subject property, 0.348 acre, is within the Tourist (T) District/Resort
Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan classification; 2) Currently the site developed with
11 attached dwelling units; 3) The site is permitted 10 dwelling units (30 dwelling units per acre);
4) The site is overdeveloped by one dwelling unit requiring a termination of status of
nonconformity to permit that additional dwelling unit to remain on the site; 5) A transfer of
development rights is required to provide two additional dwelling units for a total of 13 dwelling
units; 6) Adjacent uses are zoned Tourist District developed with multi-family dwellings generally
between one and three stories in height, surrounding area a mixture of attached dwellings and
Community Development 2005-06-21
46
.
.
.
overnight accommodations; 7) The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan,
Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District"; 8) Beach by Design specifies a preferred
form of development as low- to mid-rise new single-family dwellings and townhomes, with mid-
rise interpreted as maximum of 50 feet based on the height standards in the Tourist (T) District;
9) The proposed structure height is 64 feet to roof deck; 67.5 feet overall from BFE including
height gained by the elevator shafts and architectural embellishments; 10) There are no pending
Code Enforcement issues with these sites; 11) Staff finds the proposal does not meet the
following General Applicability criteria (section 3-913: a) Development of the land will be in
harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties. The
proposal includes a building with an overall height of 67.5 feet (64 feet to roof deck from BFE).
The proposed height is inconsistent with the majority of the buildings in the neighborhood and is
inconsistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design and b) Development is consistent
with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The development is inconsistent with
the community character of the immediate vicinity which consists primarily of buildings less than
50 feet in height and the preferred type of development in this area is single family dwellings
and townhome units; 12) Staff finds the proposal does not meet the following Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment criteria (Section 2-803.C): a) The development or redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development is otherwise economically impractical without deviations from
the intensity and development standards. Staff agrees that the requested reduction in rear
setback and minimum lot width is warranted given the size and shape of the lot and historical
development patterns in the area. However, the applicant has not shown how the increase in
height from 30 feet to 64 feet (to roof; 67.5 feet overall from BFE) is necessary for the
development of the site. In addition, the proposed setbacks reductions will result in a building
out of scale with the character of the area an out of scale with regard to the parcel on which it
will be sited; b) The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible
with adjacent lands uses. The proposed overall building height of 67.5 feet from BFE is taller
than most surrounding buildings and is inconsistent with the requirements of the "Old Florida
District" of Beach by Design. The proposed condominium use is not compatible with adjacent
land' uses; c) The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive
. infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development. The proposal continues the current trend of oversized buildings on small lots
further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beacry by Design and will result in a
building out of scale with surrounding buildings and out of scale with the parcel on which it will
be located; d) The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a
form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the
building is out of scale with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in
height, well below the proposed overall height of 67.5 feet; and e) Flexibility in regard to lot
width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community
character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole. While the reduction in lot width are warranted given the pie shape of the
site and the existing development pattern within the neighborhood, the proposed height is not
consistent with Beach by Design. The increase in height and the reduction in the side (east)
and rear (south) setbacks will result in a building out of scale with the lot on which the building
will sit and with the surrounding area. The applicant has not clearly shown that an overall height
of 67.5 feet from BFE and a decrease in setbacks provides a benefit to the community character
and the immediate vicinity of the property; 13) Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the
following Transfer of Development Rights per Section 4-1403: a) The development of the parcel
proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the
Community Development 2005-06-21
47
.
.
.
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal continues the current
trend of oversized buildings on small lots with reduced setbacks (which further emphasize the
over-sized scale of the building with regard to both the lot on which the building is located and
the surrounding neighborhood) further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by
Design and will result in a building out of scale with surrounding buildings and b) The design of
the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale
with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the
proposed overall height of 67.5 feet as measured from BFE. The reduction in setback in
combination with the reduction in lot width and increase in building height result in a
development out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood; 14) The proposal meets the
requirements for a termination of status of nonconformity per Section 6-109 to permit 11
dwelling units where 10 units are allowed; 15) The proposal does not meet the requirements of
the Solid Waste Department where the submittal does not indicate where recycling carts will be
placed or if recycling will be offered to residents; and 16) The proposal does not meet the
requirements of the Fire Department where the applicant must demonstrate that an adequate
water supply for fire fighting purposes is present.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal does not comply with the "Old Florida District" of
Beach by Design where the preferred form of development is low- to mid-rise new single-family
dwellings and townhouses; 2) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development
criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project per Section 2-803.F.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7; 3) The proposal
does not comply with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913.1 and 5; 4) The proposal is in compliance with the criteria for a termination of
status of nonconformity per Section 6-109; 5) The proposal is not in compliance with the criteria
for a Transfer of Development Rights per Section and 4-1403.4 and 5; 6) The development is
not compatible with the surrounding area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; 7)
The development is in compliance with Section 4-1402; and 8) The proposal does not comply
with requirements of the Fire and Solid Waste Departments and the Public Works
Administration.
Mr. Parry said staff will delete Condition #15 of the staff report.
Nathan Hightower, representative, presented an aerial view and artist's rendering of the
property. He reported the outcome of meetings, held with residents regarding future
development in this area, recommended area building heights to be between zero and 75 feet
and that multifamily and overnight accommodations were the preferred use. He said no one
opposed the project at the June 14,2005, meeting at the Clearwater Beach Recreation
Complex. He reviewed nearby approved projects, with one just under 60 feet in height. He
reviewed the height requested, stating staff has requested a 14-foot decrease. He said the
applicant disagrees with this recommendation. He said the project meets Code requirements.
He said reducing the project's height would have an aesthetically negative affect on the project.
He said this project would be a dramatic improvement to the area, is compatible with the
surrounding area, and is the best use of the property.
In response to a remark regarding submitted materials, Mr. Hightower said no structures,
canopies, or other amenities are proposed for the roof. Anthony Menna, applicant, said he
would agree to a condition prohibiting roof amenities.
Community Development 2005-06-21
48
.
.
.
Peter Meroli requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Peter Meroli party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party status holder Peter Meroli spoke in support of the project.
In response to questions from Mr. Hightower, Mr. Parry said the project's proposed
height would be incompatible with surrounding buildings. He said this site is governed by Beach
by Design and is within the "Old Florida District." Mr. Parry said structures currently on site
probably do not meet current FEMA regulations.
The CDB recessed from 6:56 to 7:03 p.m.
Seven persons spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. Hightower displayed a rendering of the "Old Florida District," and referenced the
number of condominiums in the north half of the district. He said the applicant spent significant
time ensuring the quality of the project's design and meeting with adjoining property owners. He
opposed staff's recommendation, stating it was based on their refusal to consider buildings taller
than 50 feet. He reported that issues in staff's Findings of Fact referencing the Solid Waste
Department had been amended. He said the applicant is willing to accept an amendment to the
Conditions of Approval related to the underground vault.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #H4, Case FLD2005-03032 and TDR 2005-
03019 for 657 Bay Esplanade, based on the presentation of evidence, the packet of submitted
materials, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) the development or redevelopment
of the parcel proposed for development is not otherwise impractical without the deviations from
the use, intensity and development standards; 2) development of the parcel proposed for
development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will not reduce the fair market
value of abutting properties; 3) uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are
otherwise permitted in the City; 4) uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill
redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; 5) development of the parcel
proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 6) the design of the proposed
comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function, which enhances the
community character for the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the
City of Clearwater as a whole; 7) flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and
off-street parking are justified by the benefits to the community character and the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; 8)
adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in
division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development; 8) the design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District
design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3, development of the land will be in harmony with the
scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties; 9) the development will not
adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; 10)
development is designed to minimize traffic congestion; 11) the development is consistent with
the community character of the immediate vicinity; 12) the design of the proposed development
Community Development 2005-06-21
49
.
.
.
minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation
impacts on adjacent properties; 13) development of the parcel proposed for development will
upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and 14) the design of
the proposed project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a
whole. The motion was duly seconded.
It was suggested that the motion require staff to submit conditions of approval.
Member Johnson agreed to amend his motion to require staff to submit conditions of
approval. The seconder agreed.
In response to a question, Mr. Ghovaee agreed to amend the site plan to incorporate a
12-foot rear setback.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Johnson, Tallman, and Alternate Board Member
Dennehy voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Fritsch voted "Nay." Motion failed due to the lack of
four votes, the minimum required to approve a motion, and the item was continued
automatically to July 19, 2005.
5.
Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PL T2005-0001 0 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard
Owners (receiver site): Americana Gulf Motels, Ltd.; Lucca Development, LLC. and
Thomasz and Stella Wilk; US - Eurotrade, Inc.
Owners (sender site): Fifth South, LLC (401 Coronado Drive) and Bay Lawn (406
Hamden Drive)
Applicant: Lucca Development, LLC.
Representative: Keith Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite
404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email:
keith@keithzayac.com).
Location: 2.37 acres generally bound by Hamden Drive to the east, South Gulfview
Boulevard to the west and Fifth Street to the south.
Atlas Page: 276A
Zoning District: Tourist (T) district
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in the Tourist
District (Parcels A and B) and an increase in height from 30 feet to 148 feet (as
measured from base flood elevation to the roof deck) (Parcel A), an increase in the
height of a parapet wall from 30 inches (2.5 feet) to seven feet (Parcel B), permit a
building within the required sight visibility triangles along Coronado Drive and 5th Street
and an increase in height from 30 feet to 64 feet (as measured from base flood elevation
to the roof deck) (Parcel B) as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., a Termination of the status of a nonconformity
(equivalent of 119 hotel units [116 hotel units and three dwelling units] where 93 hotel
units are permitted) within the Tourist District under the provisions of Section 6-109.C
(Parcels A, B and C), Preliminary Plat and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-
03020) of 18 hotel units from 401 Coronado/406 Hamden Drives (donor site) to 325
South Gulfview Boulevard (receiver site - Parcels A, B and C) under the provisions of
Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (102 units)
Community Development 2005-06-21
50
.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com);
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
The site is 2.37 acres, generally bound by Harnden Drive to the east, South Gulfview
Boulevard to the west, and Fifth Street to the south. The subject site, consists of three parcels:
Parcel A (located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive), Parcel B (located
between Coronado and Harnden Drives) and Parcel C located between Clearwater Harbor and
Harnden Drive. All three parcels will be joined together through a Unity of Title prior to the
issuance any building permits.
Parcel A, located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 300 feet
south of Third Street and 170 feet north of Fifth Street, consists of two properties (Howard
Johnson Express Inn and the Americana Gulf Motel) and includes 1.41 acres. Parcel A has
been developed with three buildings between one- and five-stories in height. There are a total
of 69 overnight accommodation units on Parcel A.
The site currently is accessed via two driveways along Coronado Drive with one each at
the north and south sides of the site. A single, egress-only driveway is located centrally along
the west side of the site along South Gulfview Boulevard. The existing buildings, driveways and
parking spaces will be demolished with this proposal. The two properties comprising Parcel A
will be joined together through a Unity of Title with this proposal.
.
Parcel B is 0.93 acre, consists of three properties, and is bound by Coronado and
Harnden Drives to the west and east, respectively and Fifth Street to the south. Property
located at 341 and 343 Coronado Drive and 342 Harnden Drive border the north side of Parcel
B and are not part of this proposal. Parcel B has been developed with four, one-story and two,
two-story buildings with a total of 46 overnight accommodation units and three dwelling units.
Access to Parcel B is characterized by several undefined driveways along Coronado and
Harnden Drives, which provide direct access to parking spaces, which back out directly into
those abutting public rights-of-way. The existing buildings, driveways, and parking spaces will
be demolished with this proposal. The three properties comprising Parcel B will be joined
together through a Unity of Title with this proposal.
Parcel C, associated and currently joined together with two properties included with
Parcel B, is 0.03 acre and has been developed with two docks (four slips). Approximately half
of the parcel is joined with 346 Harnden Drive (currently the Albatross Motel) and the other half
is joined with 350 Harnden Drive (currently the Tropicana Motel). The two existing docks will
remain with this proposal and will serve as an accessory use for the remainder of the
development consisting of Parcels A and B.
Parcels A, B, and C in their entireties will be joined together through a Unity of Title with
this proposal. Although Parcels A and Band Band C are each separated by public rights-of-
way (Coronado and Harnden Drives, respectively), Section 4-1601.C allows for lots to be joined
together through a unity of title provided no more than 100 feet of public right-of-way separates
them.
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
51
.
The Resort Facilities High (RFH) FLUP category permits up to 40 overnight
accommodation units, or 30 dwelling units per acre. Parcels A, B, and C are all within the RFH
FLUP category. There is a 75% conversion rate between overnight accommodation and
dwelling units. Parcel A, at 1.41 acres in area, is permitted 56 overnight accommodation units
(42 dwelling units) (1.41 by 40). The site currently has 13 overnight accommodation units in
excess of the maxim otherwise permitted by the FLUP.
Parcel B (0.93 acre), as outlined, includes 46 overnight accommodation units and three
dwelling units (the equivalent of four overnight accommodation units) or 50 overnight
accommodation units. Parcel B is permitted up 37 overnight accommodation units (0.93 by 40).
The site also has 13 overnight accommodation units in excess of the maximum otherwise
permitted by the FLUP.
In determining maximum permitted density, the City of Clearwater rounds down to the
nearest whole dwelling unit. The total permitted density of Parcels A, B, and C is 93 overnight
accommodation units where 119 units exist. This results in a total excess of 26 overnight
accommodation units. A termination of status of nonconformity to permit the existing density on
Parcels A, B, and C to remain on the site is part of this proposal.
.
The proposal includes a Transfer of Development Rights (18 overnight accommodation
units), the construction of 102 dwelling units within two structures with one structure 148 feet in
height and the other 64 feet in height and permitting a building to be located within required
sight visibility triangles. The proposal also includes a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
existing, excess density (26 overnight accommodation units). These requests are examined
individually in greater detail below.
This proposal includes the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) of 18 overnight
accommodation units to this site (Parcels A, B, and C) from 401 Coronado and 406 Hamden
Drives. The maximum number of permitted units for 406 Hamden Drive is 12 units (the site
currently has an occupational license for 15 overnight accommodation units). The maximum
number of permitted units for 401 Coronado Drive is six overnight accommodation units. The
total, maximum number of permitted overnight accommodation units permitted on the donor site
(401 Coronado and 406 Hamden Drives) is 18 units. The maximum number of units permitted
to be transferred from 401 Coronado and 406 Hamden Drives may not exceed the otherwise
maximum permitted by the Resort Facilities High (RFH) FLUP category (18 overnight
accommodation units). Therefore, should the termination of status of nonconformity be
approved for this site, three overnight accommodation units will remain on the site without the
possibility of being used elsewhere. Should those units be removed prior to an approval as part
of a termination of the status of a nonconforming use (15 hotel units where 12 hotel units are
permitted) the units will not be permitted to be re-established on the site. The Code, under the
provisions of Section 4-1403.E.3, and Beach by Design allows the use of TDRs, provided both
the sender and receiving sites are located within the Beach by Design redevelopment area. In
addition, the maximum number of units, which may be transferred to a receiver site, may not
exceed 20% of the permitted development potential of the site prior to the transfer (Section 4-
1402.4). The maximum development potential for Parcels A, B, and C is 93 overnight
accommodation units. Therefore, 20% of the maximum number of permitted overnight
accommodation units (receiver site - Parcels A, B, and C) is 18 units. The proposal is in
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
52
.
compliance with the Plan policy regarding TDRs and the standards and criteria set forth in
Community Development Code Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403. .
A site plan for this site, the donor parcel, has not yet been submitted to the City for
review.
Parcel A:
The proposal includes 92 attached dwellings within a single building 148 feet in height
(as measured from BFE) centrally located on the site. The building will be approximately 17 feet
from the front (west) property line along South Gulfview Boulevard, 15 feet from the side (north,
south and west) property lines, and 15 feet from the front (east) property line along Coronado
Drive. A total of 137 parking spaces will be provided under the building at grade and on the
second floor where the Code requires 1.5 parking spaces (138 spaces) per dwelling unit be
provided. Parcel B, examined in greater detail below, provides an additional 102 parking
spaces where 10 are required for that portion of the site. A total of 239 parking spaces are
provided (2.34 spaces per unit) where 153 spaces (1.5 space per unit) are required. A single,
two-way driveway located along Coronado Drive will serve the site.
The proposal includes the installation of landscaping around the perimeter of the site
consistent with the intent of BeachWalk and the Code including India hawthorn, sea grape,
viburnum, crepe myrtle, oleander and sabal palms.
.
The main entrance to the high-rise building will be along South Gulfview Boulevard and
incorporates arched elements, canopies, balconies, and an extensive use of windows as part of
a Mediterranean-Influenced architectural style. The proposed materials will be painted stucco
with natural colors and a terra cotta tile roof. The increase in height above 35 feet is consistent
with the BeachWalk District of Beach by Design, which calls for creating a "world class" address
for revitalized properties.
The design of the building is consistent with the Design Guidelines section of Beach by
Design. The building presents a finished primary facade towards the South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive rights-of-way. The proposed materials will be stucco, limestone
balustrades, wrought iron railings, and a terra cotta barrel tile roof. Architectural details include
green, fabric awnings, raised window trim, and coping differentiating the third; fifth, tenth, and
fourteenth floors. While the main roof extends to 148 feet in height, architectural
embellishments, an additional 16 feet in height, conceal elevator shafts and provide additional
visual interest. The area is characterized by several existing or approved, but as of yet un-built,
taller buildings including the existing Adam's Mark Hotel (155 feet) and the proposed Hyatt Hotel
(150 feet). The remainder of the buildings in the area constitutes a great range of height from
15 to 60 feet. An extensive use of stepbacks and articulation of the fenestration minimize the
height and bulk of the building. The building is further articulated through the use of recesses
and projections to vary its width, building stories are differentiated by architectural features
including cornice lines and balconies. Stepbacks are provided along all fayades beginning at
the third floor through the top floor, including a stepback of 24 feet at the 11 th floor
(approximately 110 feet) on the north, south, and west side, and a stepback of 32 feet at the
14th floor (approximately 140 feet) on the west side. This results in extensive negative and
positive space on all sides of the building adding to the visual aesthetics. All fayades of the
building utilizes the same high level of detail and architectural embellishments as the formal
.
Community Development 2005-06-21
53
.
front (west fac;ade) of the building facing South Gulfview Boulevard. The building provides for a
floor plate less then 25,000 square-feet for all floors between 42 and 100 feet and averages less
than 10,000 square-feet per floor above 100 feet. The building meets all requirements of Beach
by Design and its Design Guidelines.
Solid waste services will be provided via one solid waste staging area at the southeast
corner of the site. All stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal with the site.
No signage is proposed with this application however should a sign package be submitted it
would need to meet all Code requirements.
Parcel A has been developed with two overnight accommodation establishments
(Howard Johnson Express Inn and the Americana Motel) on two properties with a total of 69
overnight accommodation units. Under the Resort Facilities High (RFH) FLUP category 56
overnight accommodation units are permitted on this site. The site currently has 13 overnight
accommodation units in excess of the maxim otherwise permitted by the FLUP. A termination
of status of nonconformity to permit the existing density to remain on the site is part of this
proposal. The proposal is in compliance with the Community Development Code standards and
criteria set forth in Section 6-109.C for a termination of status as a nonconformity.
Parcels Band C:
.
The proposal includes 10 attached dwellings within a building 50 feet in height. The
building will occupy almost the entire site and will be located between 15 and 16 feet from any
property line. A total of 102 parking spaces will be provided under the building at grade and on
the second floor where the Code requires 1.5 parking spaces. As outlined above in the analysis
for Parcel A, a total of 237 parking spaces will be provided for the entire development where
153 spaces are required. Two, two-way driveways, with one centrally located along Coronado
Drive and a second on the east side of the site along 5th Street, will serve the site.
The proposal includes the installation of landscaping around the perimeter of the site
consistent with the intent of BeachWalk and the Code including India hawthorn, sea grape,
viburnum, crepe myrtle, oleander and sabal palms.
The main entrance to the high-rise building will be along South Gulfview Boulevard and
incorporates arched elements, canopies, balconies, and an extensive use of windows as part of
a Mediterranean-Influenced architectural style. The proposed materials will be painted stucco
with natural colors and a terra cotta tile roof. The increase in height above 35 feet is consistent
with the Small Motel District of Beach by Design.
The design of the building, which will complement the building located to the west on
Parcel A, is also consistent with Beach by Design. The building presents a finished primary
fac;ade towards the South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive rights-of-way. The proposed
materials will be stucco, limestone balustrades, wrought iron railings, and a terra cotta barrel tile
roof. Architectural details include green, fabric awnings, raised window trim, and coping
differentiating the third and fifth floors.
.
The building is articulated through the use of recesses and projections to vary its width,
building stories are differentiated by architectural features including cornice lines, balconies and
coping, and stepbacks are provided at the upper floors on all fac;ades. The increase in height
Community Development 2005-06-21
54
.
.
.
above 35 feet to 50 feet is consistent with the Small Motel District of Beach by Design and will
serve as an adequate transition area between the Brightwater Drive area of the Small Motel
District, which, in that specific location, limits the height of development to two- to four-stories
above parking, and the BeachWalk District, which allows for more intense development. While
the main roof extends to 50 feet in height, a parapet roof structure extends up to an additional
seven feet above the roof deck where an additional 2.5 feet is otherwise permitted. Additional
architectural embellishments, concealing mechanical equipment and an elevator shaft, extend
16 feet above the roof deck, are permitted by Code, and provide additional visual interest.
Consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, the building incorporates articulation
of the fenestration along the front (east and west) and side (north and south) fac;ades. The front
(east and west) fac;ades provide significant stepbacks of a minimum of 36 feet at the first floor.
The side (north fac;ades) provides smaller setbacks of approximately four feet at the first floor.
In addition, the east fac;ade of the building utilizes the same level of detail and architectural
embellishments as the front (west fac;ade) of the building facing Coronado Drive.
Solid waste services will be provided via a fully enclosed trash staging area at the
northeast corner of the building staff of the condominium will bring the containers out on pick-up
days and return them to the staging area after servicing. All stormwater requirements have
been met with this proposal with the site. No signage is proposed with this application,
however, should a sign package be submitted, it would need to meet all Code requirements.
The two docks located on Parcel C will be maintained with this proposal and will serve
the dwelling units on Parcels A and B.
Parcel B has been developed with two overnight accommodation establishments (the
Tropicana and Albatross Motels) with a total of 46 overnight accommodation units and three
dwelling units (equivalent of four overnight accommodation units) where the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) FLUP category permits up to 37 units on this size site. The site currently has 13
overnight accommodation units in excess of the maximum otherwise permitted by the FLUP. A
termination of status of nonconformity to permit the existing density to remain on the site is part
of this proposal. The proposal is in compliance with the Community Development Code
standards and criteria set forth in Section 6-109.C for a termination of status as a
nonconformity.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 5, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit attached dwellings in the Tourist District (Parcels A and B) and an increase
in height from 30 feet to 148 feet (as measured from base flood elevation to the roof deck)
(Parcel A), an increase in the height of a parapet wall from 30 inches (2.5 feet) to seven feet
(Parcel B), permit a building within the required sight visibility triangles along Coronado Drive
and 5th Street and an increase in height from 30 feet to 64 feet (as measured from base flood
elevation to the roof deck) (Parcel B) as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., a Termination of the status of a nonconformity
(equivalent of 119 hotel units [116 hotel units and three dwelling units] where 93 hotel units are
permitted) within the Tourist District under the provisions of Section 6-109.C (Parcels A, B, and
C), Preliminary Plat and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-03020) of 18 hotel units
from 401 Coronado/406 Hamden Drives (donor site) to 325 South Gulfview Boulevard (receiver
site - Parcels A, B, and C) under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 for the site at
Community Development 2005-06-21
55
.
325 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on the following recommended findings of fact,
recommended conclusions of law and with conditions:
Findinos of Fact: 1) Subject property is a total of 103,155 square-feet (2.37 acres) and a
minimum of 185 feet wide; 2) Applicant seeks to locate attached dwellings within the Tourist (T)
District and relief from maximum height limits and sight visibility requirements as a
Comprehensive Infill Development Project under Code provisions of Section 2-803.C; 3) The
development potential for the entire site (Parcels A, B, and C) is 93 overnight accommodation
units (69 dwelling units); 4) The existing development on the site is 115 overnight
accommodation units and three dwelling units or the equivalent of 119 overnight
accommodation units (the equivalent of 89 dwelling units); 5) The site is over-dense by 26
overnight accommodation units (the equivalent of 20 dwelling units); 6) The applicant seeks
terminate the status of a nonconformity existing for the subject parcel (Parcels A, B, and C) with
regard to density to permit 119 overnight accommodation units where 93 units are permitted
under the provisions of Section 6-109.C; 7) The applicant proposes a transfer of development
rights (18 overnight accommodation units) under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403;
8) The applicant proposes to convert a total of 137 overnight accommodation units (119 existing
and 18 transferred) to 102 dwelling units (137 be .75); 9) The applicant proposes and is required
to file a Unity of Title joining Parcels A, Band C under the provisions of Section 4-1604; 10) The
proposed, 14- and four-story building designs and architectural styles are similar in character
with regard to size and scale of other buildings in the area and/or are consistent with the Design
Guidelines contained within Beach by Design; and 11) The applicant proposes a preliminary plat
under the provisions of Division 7;
.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for
a Transfer of Development Rights per Section 4-1402 and 1403; 2) The proposal complies with
the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section
2-803.C; 3) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 4) The proposal is in compliance with the
Termination of Status of a Nonconformity per Section 6-109; 5) The proposal complies with the
Preliminary Plat requirements of Division 7; 6) The development is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 7) The development is in
compliance with the Beach Walk and Small Motel Districts within Beach by Design.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That evidence of filing of a final plat with Pinellas County be
submitted to staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 2) That all building permits are
applied for within two years (June 21, 2007) of CDB approval and that all certificates of
occupancy are applied for within two years to receipt of the first building permit; 3) That a
sidewalks which matches the City's BeachWalk plan with regard to materials be installed per
City standards and specifications; 4) That the final design and color of the building be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by
Staff;.5) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to signs attached
directly to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with
regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final Comprehensive Sign Program
package (as required) submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any sign
permits which includes that: a) All signs be designed as part of an overall theme that respect,
enhance and contribute to the architectural style, detailing and elements of a building; b) All .
signs consist of design, colors, materials, size, shape and methods of illumination which
reinforce the overall design of the fa<;ade; c) All attached signs are installed so the method of
Community Development 2005-06-21
56
.
.
.
installation is concealed or made an integral part of the design of the sign; d) All wall signs be
located on flat, unadorned parts of a faC(ade such as the horizontal band between the storefront
and second floor or on windows, awning flaps, fascia, etc.; and e) The letter size, letter and
word spacing, font style and other design elements of all signs create an overall high quality
aesthetic appearance; 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(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 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 revised
plans be submitted which accurately depict all required erosion and sediment control
techniques; 8) That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication
facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the
building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy; g) That all Traffic Impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy; 10) That Open Space and Recreation Impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of
buildings permits or final plat (as applicable); 11) That a Tree Preservation Plan be submitted to
and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 12) That the "Tree
Removal" calculations be revised to reflect that palms are replaced at one-inch per palm if they
are greater than 10 feet of clear trunk; 13) That the arborists field notes are transferred in
"typeset" on the Tree Inventory Plan and submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits; 14) That a revised site plan be submitted to and approved by
Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits which provides traffic control devices for
vehicles approaching the tops and bottoms of garage ramps at gO-degree angles and that
shows all drive aisles at a minimum of 24 feet in width; and 15) That a special warranty deed,
specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 401 Coronado and 406
Hamden Drives and being transferred to 325 South Gulfview Boulevard, be recorded with a
notarized copy submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project.
The special warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all
platted lots at 401 Coronado and 406 Hamden Drives due to the transfer of development rights.
Any mortgage holder of the sending site (401 Coronado and 406 Hamden Drives) shall consent
to the transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #H5, Case FLD2005-02021,
TDR2005-03020 and PL T2005-0001 0 for 325 Gulfview Boulevard based on the packet of
materials and Findings of Fact. . .
Ed Armstrong interrupted the motion and reported that an abutting property owner was
present and wished to speak. David Little requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant David Little party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party status holder David Little spoke in opposition to the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Armstrong confirmed that Clara Bulldog owns some of the
subject property.
Community Development 2005-06-21
57
.
.
.
Member Plisko reported he had a conflict of interest and recused himself.
A lack of quorum resulted.
The item was continued automatically to July 19, 2005.
I. - DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Discussion of "Live - Work Product" identified in Beach Bv Desian
This item was tabled.
August/September COB meetings
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said staff will inform the CDB if additional
meetings are to be scheduled for August or September.
J. - ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
1:!wilJGJ71th0
oard Reporter
Community Development 2005-06-21
58
.",
I
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 21, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item: (Item 1)
1. 7:FLD200S-01012 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point
yes no
*Level Two Applications (Items 1-10)
1. ~2003-02007 AlPL T200S-00013 - 130 Brightwater Drive
yes no
2. Case: FLD200S-07 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
yes no
3. Case: FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
~s no
4. Case: FLD2005-0 1 006/TDR2005-0 10 16 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
yes
no
5. Ca~: FLD2005-03031 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
v/' yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfvit
Boulevard.
~es no
7. Case: FLD200S-030~ PL T200S-00009- 1871 Kings Highway
yes no
8. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-030 19 - 657 Bay Esplanade
yes V no
I~
.
9. Case: FLD2005-03072155 Montclair Road
yes no
10.Case: FLD2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street
yes ~no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-4):
1. Case: LUZ2005-03004 - 137 Femwood Avenue
yes ~ no
2. Case: ANX2005-0300/ 2346 Ella Place
yes ~ no
3. Case: ANX2005-03008 - 2300 Drew Street
/ yes no
4. Case: ANX2005-0300~ 2077 Palmetto Street
yes lJf no
--------'.----
Signature:
S:\Planning e artment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
Date:
bIZ'joS-
t
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 21, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item: (Item 1)
1. C se: FLD2005-01012 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point
yes
no
*Level Two Applications (Items 1-10)
1. Cre: FLD2003-02007 AlPL T2005-000 13 - 130 Brightwater Drive
~yes no
2. Caf: FLD2005-03025 - 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
~yes no
30 7e~FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
es no
4. ~ar: FLD2005-01006/TDR2005-01016 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
~yes no
50 1e: FLD2005-03031 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfvi(
Bou!vard.
~es no
70 ct: FLD2005-03026 and PLT2005-00009-1871 Kings Highway
yes no
8. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
~es no
--- -----
~
..
9. CZ: FLD2005-03030 - 2155 Montclair Road
yes no
10.Case: FLD2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street
~es no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1. Case: LUZ2005-03004 - 137 Femwood Avenue
-4es no
2. Case: ANX2005-03007 - 2346 Ella Place
yes X no
3. Case: ANX2005-03008 - 2300 Drew Street
yes -!.- no
4. Case: ANX2005-03009 - 2077 Palmetto Street
yes K no
Signature:
S:\Planning Department\C
Date:
operty investigation check list.doc
2
..
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 21, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-01012 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point
~ yes no
*Level Two Applications (Items 1-10)
1. Ca~: FLD2003-02007A/PLT2005-00013 - 130 Brightwater Drive
J yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-03025 - 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
yes / no
3. Case: FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes ~ no
4. Case: FLD2005-01006/TDR2005-01016 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
V;es no
5. Cj FLD2005-0303l - 706 Bayway Boulevard
yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfvil
Boulevard.
/ yes no
7. Case: FLD2005-03026 and PLT2005-00009-1871 Kings Highway
yes / no
8. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-030 19 - 657 Bay Esplanade
vi yes no
.
.
.
9. Case: FLD2005-03030 - 2155 Montclair Road
0es no
10.Case: FLD2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street
yes ~ no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1. Case: LUZ2005-03004 - 137 Femwood Avenue
yes /' no
2. Case: ANX200S-/ - 2346 Ella Place
yes no
3. Case: ANX2005-03008 - 2300 Drew Street
~es no
4. Case: ANX2005-0/3009 - 2077 Palmetto Street
yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning Department
\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
lor ~(lOcb
Date:
t
./
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 21, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-0 1 0 12 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point
/ yes
no
*Level Two Applications (Items 1-10)
1. Case: FLD2003-02007 A/PL T2005-000 13 - 130 Brightwater Drive
,/ yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-03025 - 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
~' yes no
3. Case: FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes .~ no
4. Case: FLD2005-01006/TDR2005-01016 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
~. yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-03031 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
v yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfvie
Boulevard.
t/ yes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-03026 and PLT2005-00009- 1871 Kings Highway
/ no
yes
8. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-030 19 - 657 Bay Esplanade
/ yes no
..
9. Case: FLD2005-03030 - 2155 Montclair Road
yes / no
10.Case: FLD2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street
../ no
yes
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1. Case: LUZ2005-03004 - 137 Femwood Avenue
yes vi no
2. Case: ANX2005-03007 - 2346 Ella Place
yes \/ no
3. Case: ANX2005-03008 - 2300 Drew Street
yes ~ no
4. Case: ANX2005-03009 - 2077 Palmetto Street
vi no
yes
<)/ ~
Signature:
S:\P1anning Department\
/V "'. &(;).\ lo( Date:
\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
."",
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 21, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item: (Item 1)
1. Ca~LD2005-0 1 0 12 - 200 and 201 Skiff Point
~yes no
*Level Two Applications (Items 1-10)
1. Case. LD2003-02007A!PLT2005-00013 - 130 Brightwater Drive
2. Case. LD2005-03025 - 1860 North Ft. Harrison Avenue
no
no
3.
D2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
no
4.
D2005-01006/TDR2005-01016 - 19 - 21 Somerset Street
yes no
5. Case~D2005-03031 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
~yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfvi~
B/::d.
es no
D2005-03026 and PL T2005-00009- 1871 Kings Highway
yes no
8. ~LD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
yes no
..
9.
2005-03030 - 2155 Montclair Road
.
no
2005-03028 - 2077 East Palmetto Street
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1. Z2005-03004 - 137 Femwood Avenue
2.
no
yes no
3. ~ ANX2005-0300S - 2300 Drew Street
4. ~~005-03009 ::077 Palmetto Street
7~:' no
Signature:
S: \Planning Dep
Date:
t\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2