07/19/2005
.
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 19, 2005
Present: David Gildersleeve
Alex Plisko
Thomas Coates
J. B. Johnson
Dana K. Tallman
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Daniel Dennehy
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Absent: Kathy Milam
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Michael L. Delk
Gina Clayton
Neil Thompson
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
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: June 21, 2005
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 21,
2005, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
D. - REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL (Item 1):
1.
Case: ANX2005-04011 - 1824 Diane Drive (To be withdrawn at the owner's request)
Owner: Patrice Dukes
Location: 0.18-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Diane
Drive, approximately 310 feet south of Morningside Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.18 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: New Single-Family Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
Community Development 2005-07-19
1
.
.
.
This item was withdrawn, per the owner's request.
E.
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to August 16, 2005, COB meeting) (Item 1):
1.
Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Home Energy, 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: 0.676 acre located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 150 feet
south of Skiff Point.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential District with Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (MHDRlIENCOD) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 20 attached dwellings with a
reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 144.63 feet, reductions to the front
(west) setback from 25 feet to 12 feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to
trash staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
patios) and from 10 feet to eight feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to five feet (to patios) and from 10 feet to 7.6 feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase
to building height from 30 feet to 43.17 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 5.5
feet (from roof deck) and an additional 13.67 feet for an open rooftop pavilion (from roof
deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, with
reductions to the landscape buffer along Island Way from 15 feet to 12 feet (to
pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the
landscape buffer along the north side from 10 feet to five feet (to patios) and from 10 feet
to eight feet (to pavement) and reductions to the landscape buffer along the south side
from 10 feet to five feet (to patios) and from 10 feet to 7.6 feet (to pavement), as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (four town homes and 16 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island
Way #239, Clearwater, FL 33767); 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.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells said the applicant requests this item be continued.
Member Plisko moved to continue Item #E1, Case FLD2005-04035 for 415 Island Way to
August 16, 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 1-10):
Community Development 2005-07-19
2
.
.
.
1.
Item Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-04034 - 400 Jones Street Level Two Application
Owners: Islandview Properties, LLC and Harrison Village Properties, LLC.
Applicant: Triangle Property Development, LLC (Ben Kugler).
Representative: Thomas Coates, Triangle Property Development, LLC phone: 727-446-
0020; fax: 727-446-7531; email: coatesthomas@earthlink.net).
Location: 5.14 acres generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue
bound by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor
to the west.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 324 attached dwelling units, a
reduction in required non-residential parking from 76 parking spaces (four spaces per
1,000 square-feet GFA) to 17 spaces (0.90 spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA), an
increase in the permitted height from 30 feet to 150 feet to the roof and up to 174 feet for
architectural embellishments for the portion of the site on the west side of North Osceola
Avenue, an increase in height from 30 feet to 40 feet (to roof deck), an additional 16 feet
for elevator and mechanical equipment overrun (from roof deck) and an additional nine
feet (from roof deck) for architectural embellishments for the portion of the site on the
east side of North Osceola Avenue and an increase of the permitted density from 205
dwelling units to 324 dwelling units by using 119 dwelling units from the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive Pool, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C.
Proposed Use: Mixed-use development including 324 attached dwellings and 18,893
square-feet of non-residential floor area.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Djw@gte.net); North Myrtle Avenue Association 1010 Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail
Clearwater, FI 33755; phone: 727-443-3699.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates reported a conflict of interest and recused himself.
Senior Planner Robert Tefft said this application for Flexible Development approval is an
amendment to a Flexible Development application that was approved by the CDB (Community
Development Board) on January 18, 2005. That approved application included a request to
permit 191 attached dwelling units, a reduction in required parking from 371 parking spaces (1.5
spaces per dwelling unit and four spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA for non-residential uses as
required by Code) to 343 spaces (1.5 spaces per dwelling unit or 290 spaces, 2.55 spaces per
1,000 square-feet GFA for office uses or 53 spaces and zero spaces for the retail uses), an
increase in the permitted height from 30 feet to 150 feet to the roof and up to 174 feet for
architectural embellishments for the portion of the site on the west side of North Osceola
Avenue, an increase in height from 30 feet to 50 feet to the roof and up to 58 feet for
architectural embellishments for the portion of the site on the east side of North Osceola Avenue
and an increase of the permitted density from 145 dwelling units to 191 dwelling units by using
45 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities
Incentive Pool, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-903.C.
Community Development 2005-07-19
3
.
.
.
The applicant requests changes to the approved plan because the size of the site has
been increased by 56,426 square-feet due to the acquisition of property adjacent to the north on
the west side of North Osceola Avenue.
The proposed amendments/changes to the request are as follows: 1) The property has
increased from 167,509 square-feet to 223,935 square-feet (net increase of 56,426 square-
feet); 2) The number of dwelling units has increased from 191 units to 324 units; 3) The amount
of non-residential floor area has decreased from 20,194 square-feet to 18,893; 4) The number
of required parking spaces has increased from between 231 and 368 spaces to between 362
and 562 spaces (net increase of between 131 and 194 spaces); 5) The number of proposed
parking spaces has increased from 343 spaces to 503 spaces; 6) The number of dwellings
needed from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool has increased from 45 units to 119 units; 7)
The development proposed on Parcel A (Island View) has increased from 50 dwelling units to
279 units; 8) The development proposed on Parcel A (Island View) now consists of two towers
where the previous site plan proposed one tower however, the proposed setbacks are greater
with the current proposal; 9) The development proposed on Parcel B (Harrison Village) has
decreased from 141 dwelling units to 45 units; and 10) The North Osceola Avenue right-of-way
will be vacated and realigned approximately 95 feet to east. The realigned right-of-way will be
increased by 10 feet over the existing width to a width of approximately 50 feet.
The basic concept and style of the original request has not changed and includes: 1) A
mixed used development with residential and non-residential uses within two buildings utilizing a
Mediterranean-influenced style of architecture, and 2) An increase of the permitted density
through the use of dwelling units allocated from the from the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan area Public Amenities Incentive Pool.
The site is 5.17 acres generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue
bound by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north, and Clearwater Harbor to the
west. The subject site, consisting of two parcels to be joined together through a unity of title
prior to the issuance any building permits, is currently bifurcated by North Osceola Avenue .
creating two parcels, Parcel A (Island View) and Parcel B (Harrison Village). A portion of the
site, 8,693 square-feet or 0.1995 acre, is within the Preservation future land use classification
and does not yield any density. This portion of the site has not been included as part of any
density calculations.
Parcel A is located on the west side of North Osceola Avenue approximately 150 feet
north of Jones Street and includes 3.75 acres. Parcel A had been developed with eight
buildings between two and three stories in height in the period from 1900 to 1955. All of these
buildings are in varying states of disrepair, or were prior to their demolition. It is noted that the
City had condemned one of the buildings on the southern portion of the site, and that all four of
the buildings on the southern portion of the site have been demolished.
Parcel B is 1.21 acres and is bound by North Fort Harrison and North Osceola avenues
to the east and west, respectively and Jones and Georgia streets to the south and north,
respectively. Properties at 301 North Osceola Avenue (located on the east side of North
Osceola Avenue, approximately 80 feet north of Jones Street) and 401 Jones Street (located at
the northeast corner of Jones Street and North Osceola Avenue) are not part of the
development. The southwest side of Parcel B has been developed with four, two-story buildings
totaling 11,139 square-feet, constructed between 1925 and 1939. The Salvation Army has
developed the remainder of Parcel B with eight buildings constructed between 1924 and 1992.
Two of the buildings are used for transient residential purposes with the remainder of the
Community Development 2005-07-19
4
.
buildings used for social services, offices, etc. The buildings are generally in good condition. A
total of four driveways, with two driveways along Osceola Avenue (north), one driveway along
Osceola Avenue (west), and one driveway along Jones Street (south), currently provide access
to the site. The existing buildings, driveways and parking spaces will be demolished with this
proposal.
Parcel A - Island View:
The proposal includes 279 attached dwellings within a single building. The building
consists of two residential towers 150 feet in height joined by a six-story center 62 feet in height,
which consists of a five level (including one sub-level) robotic parking garage, and two levels of
residential dwelling units. The building will be located approximately 20 feet from the front
(east) property line along North Osceola Avenue, 20 feet from the side (north) property line, 30
feet from the side (south) property line and 60 feet from the rear (west) property line (where 20
feet, five feet, 10 feet and 60 feet, respectively, had previously been approved).
.
A total of 503 robotic, handicap-compliant structured parking spaces will be provided on
Parcel A with one story below and four stories above ground. This parking will serve all 324
attached dwelling units within Island View and Harrison Village. Robotic parking is a new .
concept in the United States. The system proposed works, in brief, by the user driving onto a
platform from which the vehicle will not leave until the driver retrieves the vehicle. After the
driver exits the vehicle, it is moved automatically into the most convenient space in the garage.
The Code requires between one (324 spaces) and 1.5 (486 spaces) parking spaces per
dwelling unit be provided. The proposal includes a total of 503 spaces meeting all the
requirements for parking for the residential component of the proposal. An additional 17 parking
spaces will be provided for users of the non-residential component included with Parcel B
(Harrison Village). The four existing driveways will be removed from Osceola Avenue.
Vehicular access to the parking garage will be via an ingress-only and an egress-only set of
driveways along North Osceola Avenue. In addition, two separate, looped, drop-off driveways
will be at the northeast corner of the site and another, more centrally located along North
Osceola Avenue.
The proposal includes the installation of landscaping around the perimeter of the site
consistent with the intent of the Code and Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan including
India hawthorn, variegated pittosporum, viburnum, live oak and date and sabal palms.
.
Each tower will include a main entrance providing access to an elevatorlstairwelllobby.
The center portion also includes a main entrance providing access to the dwelling units located
on the fifth and sixth floors above the robotic parking garage. The three main entrances will
face North Osceola Avenue. Proposed materials will be painted stucco with natural colors and
a terra cotta tile roof. The increase in height above 30 feet is consistent with the criteria for a
Flexible Development proposal as well as the Vision, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan as outlined below. Further, the height is consistent
with the maximum allowable height within the Old Bay Character District. The Design
Guidelines contained in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan require high-rise
structures to use the following techniques: 1) Building stories orlstepbacks differentiated by
architectural features including but not limited to coping, balustrades, cornice lines, change in
materials, etc. and 2) A proportional relationship between the height of a building and the
number and dimensions of stepbacks used to mitigate the height of the building.
Community Development 2005-07-19
5
.
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 step backs are provided at the upper floors. While the main roof extends to 150 feet
in height, architectural embellishments, including a cupola and parapet walls extend up an
additional 24 feet providing additional visual interest. The area is characterized by several taller
buildings, including the Sandcastle (approximately 70 feet) and the Osceola Inn (approximately
60 feet) to the south, and Belvedere Apartments (approximately 70 feet) to the west and south.
The remainder of area buildings range in height from 15 to 35 feet. Consistent with the Design
Guidelines, the building incorporates articulation of the fenestration along the front (north, south
and west) and side (east) fa9ades. In addition, several stepbacks are provided including a
stepback of 64 feet at the fifth floor along the east fa9ade, and stepbacks of eight feet, four feet
and eight feet at the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth floors along the west fa9ade. In addition,
140 feet separate the two towers. This results in extensive negative and positive space on all
sides of the building adding to the visual aesthetics. In addition, the water-facing side of the
building utilizes the same level of detail and architectural embellishments as the front of the
building facing North Osceola Avenue. A private clubhouse for use by residents and their
guests is on the ground floor of the south tower. The ground floor also includes amenities such
as a spa, pool, patio I decking, and snack bar.
Solid waste services will be provided via two dumpsters and two compactors at the
southeast corner of the site. These dumpsters also will serve Harrison Village (Parcel B) to the
east. All stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal with the site as the Island
View portion of the site will accommodate all stormwater runoff generated by both Island View
and Harrison Village.
. Parcel B - Harrison Villaqe:
The proposal includes 45 attached dwellings and 18,893 square-feet of non-residential
(retail, restaurant and office) uses within a building 40 feet in height. The building will occupy
almost the entire site and will be located between four and eight feet from the front (east)
property line along North Fort Harrison Avenue, 17 feet along Georgia Street, 19 feet along
Jones Street, and four and eight feet along realigned North Osceola Avenue, similar to the
previously approved site plan. A covered arcade along North Fort Harrison Avenue will be
between four and eight feet from the east property line.
.
Non-residential uses will be located along North Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones and
Georgia streets and at the southwest and southeast corners of the site along North Osceola
Avenue. The remainder of the building fa9ade, facing North Osceola Avenue, will consist of
attached dwellings. All non-residential space will be located on the ground floor. While the type
of ownership for the all the units will be condominium, the fa9ade of the building along North
Osceola Avenue containing dwelling units will resemble townhomes. Entrances to these units
will be directly from North Osceola Avenue. The remainder of the dwelling units, accessible
from three, centrally located lobbies (one at each end and one in the center of the building), will
be located on the upper two to three floors. The proposed amenities for this portion of the
development include a rooftop pool and patio, complete with gazebo and grilling area.
As outlined in the section detailing Island View (Parcel A), robotic structured parking on
the Island View site will provide all 503 spaces serving the site. A total of 41 on-street parking
spaces will serve the retail component of the development with 23 on-street parking spaces
along North Osceola Avenue, and 18 spaces along the west side of North Fort Harrison
Avenue. An additional 17 spaces will be made available within the parking garage on Parcel A
Community Development 2005-07-19
6
.
.
.
(Island View) for use by employees of the non-residential component of the development and/or
guests of residents. These spaces will adequately serve the non-residential component of the
application as proposed retail uses are not intended to act as a destination point for shoppers
from outside the neighborhood. It is expected that most users of the retail space will walk in
from the surrounding neighborhood and from this development itself.
A drop-off area for deliveries for the retail spaces will be designated along North Fort
Harrison Avenue. A bus stop also will be provided along North Fort Harrison Avenue. The
drop-off area along North Fort Harrison Avenue will be suitable for moving vans/trucks as well.
In addition, looped drop-off driveways will be provided at the northeast and southeast corner of
the Island View site.
The proposal includes the addition of landscaping around the perimeter of the site
consistent with the intent of the Code and with the Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan
included in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan including Medjool Palms, Indian
Hawthorn, variegated Pittosporum, Viburnum and Sabal palms. The details of the final
landscape and streetscaping plan (plant material, paving materials and patterns, types and
location of street furniture such as benches, trash receptacles, street lights, etc.) will be closely
coordinated with City staff to ensure a seamless transition between the developer-installed
portions of the streetscape and adjacent City improvements.
The fa<;ades of this building will complement and visually support the building located on
Parcel A (Island View) incorporating similar arched elements, canopies, balconies and an
extensive use of windows as part of a Mediterranean-revival style of architecture. The proposed
materials will be painted stucco with bright natural colors, metal railings, and terra cotta tile
roofs. The increase in height above 30 feet is consistent with the criteria for a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project. The overall height of the building (37 feet) is similar to several
other buildings in the vicinity including the Sandcastle (approximately 70 feet), the Osceola Inn
(approximately 60 feet) to the south, and Belvedere Apartments (approximately 70 feet) to the
west and south. The remainder of area buildings range in height from 15 to 35 feet. While the
main roof extends to 37 feet in height, architectural embellishments including clock towers and
parapet walls extend up an additional nine feet, providing additional visual interest and further
reinforcing the Mediterranean-influenced style of the building. It is noted that the height
proposed is consistent with the height limitations identified in the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan (Old Bay Character District).
The design of the building is consistent with the intent and direction of the Design
Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The fa<;ade of the building along
all street frontages is highly articulated and accented by various architectural details including
fenestration, awnings, and balconies. An arcade along North Fort Harrison Avenue is between
four and eight feet from the property line along that street. Portions of this fa<;ade include a
step back of four feet at approximately 30 feet (third floor), while other portions of the fa<;ade are
entirely setback from the property line, approximately 10 feet. That same level of articulation of
the fenestration occurs on all street frontages.
Solid waste services will be provided via two dumpsters and two compactors at the
southeast corner of the site Island View (Parcel A) portion of the development. All stormwater
requirements have been met with this proposal with the site.
Community Development 2005-07-19
7
.
.
.
Vacation/Realignment of North Osceola Avenue:
The proposal includes the vacation and relocation of the existing abutting portion of the
North Osceola Avenue right-of-way and the subsequent widening and realignment of the street.
North Osceola Avenue is currently a substandard 40-foot right-of-way with a pavement width of
approximately 20 feet. It also makes three, roughly 90-degree bends within close proximity of
each other between Jones and Georgia Streets. The realignment of North Osceola Avenue will
eliminate the northernmost bend and increase the distance between the two remaining bends.
In addition, the applicant proposes to increase the width of the realigned North Osceola Avenue
right-of-way by approximately 10 feet, resulting in a standard 50-foot right-of-way and thus
permitting two-way traffic to traverse this section of the road. The newly widened North Osceola
Avenue right-of-way will provide for 24 feet of pavement and 26 feet of sidewalk, landscaping,
and on-street parking.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
The site is located within the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan recommends that this
area be redeveloped with a mix of residential and limited neighborhood commercial and office
uses. Specifically, it recommends the redevelopment of the Old Bay with a variety of densities
and housing styles. This District provides an opportunity for higher-density residential uses
along Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola Avenue, provided such development is sensitive to
the established low-rise historic character of the District. North Fort Harrison Avenue is
envisioned as the main commercial area, providing neighborhood commercial uses on
properties on both sides of the street. This strategy has been identified as a way to stimulate
the redevelopment of property in the area and to reposition the Downtown as a viable economic
entity in the region.
To assist in the transformation of Downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to
live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public
Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-
residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 119 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the
Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of streetscaping along North Fort Harrison
and Osceola avenues and Jones and Georgia streets. The streetscaping will include 41 on-
street parking spaces along North Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues, all sidewalks improved
with interlocking pavers, solid waste containers, benches and gas streetlights and extensive
landscaping including Medjool Date and Sabal palms, Indian Hawthorn, Viburnum, and Crepe
Myrtle. These improvements will match those as outlined in the City's Master Streetscape and
Wayfinding Plan. The development proposal also includes the widening and realignment of the
North Osceola Avenue right-of-way as discussed previously, the extension of paved
improvements westward within the Georgia Street right-of-way, and the provision of emergency
access roadway with stabilized sod subgrade cul-de-sac. These improvements, valued at
$1,980,076, will both support the development of this vibrant mixed-use project and other
developments within the Downtown Plan area. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
establishes criteria against which proposals to be located within the Plan boundaries are
measured and are discussed further in this report. This proposal is consistent with the Plan.
Parcel A (Island View), on its own, is entitled to a density of up to 50 dwelling units per
acre because it is over two acres in area. Parcel B (Harrison Village), on its own, is entitled to a
density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre because it is less than two acres in area. Separately
Community Development 2005-07-19
8
.
.
.
the two sites would be able to be developed with up to a total of 217 dwelling units. The
applicant is proposing to join the two sites together through a unity of title subsequent to City
approval of this application and prior to the issuance of any building permits. The combined
developable area of the two sites is 4.97 acres (this figure does not include 8,693 square-feet or
0.1995 acres within the Preservation future land use classification which does not yield any
density) and has a maximum permitted density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre, or 248
dwelling units. The applicant also is proposing 18,893 square-feet of non-residential floor area
within the development. The Old Bay character district has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50. The
proposed floor area of non-residential area requires 37,786 square-feet (0.867 acres) of land
area, which is subtracted from the total (developable) land area of 216,543 square-feet (4.97
acres). This leaves 178,757 square-feet (4.10 acres) of land with development potential of 205
dwelling units. A total of 324 dwelling units are proposed for the development, requiring 119
dwelling units to be used from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool.
The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan specifies that the CDB will review
projects, which seek to make use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The proposal is
consistent with the Vision, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and with Old Bay character district policies.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 2, 2005. The applicant has worked with staff over the past several months to provide
an attractive, well-designed development that will enhance the local area and City as a whole.
In addition, the basic concept and form is consistent with the site plan and elevations approved
previously by the CDB. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character
of the area and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown.
The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development
approval for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use, with all applicable standards of
the Community Development Code and is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit 324 attached dwelling units, a reduction in required non-residential parking
from 76 parking spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA) to 17 spaces (0.90 spaces per
1,000 square-feet GFA), an increase in the permitted height from 30 feet to 150 feet to the roof
and up to 174 feet for architectural embellishments for the portion of the site on the west side of
North Osceola Avenue, an increase in height from 30 feet to 40 feet (to roof deck), an
additional 16 feet for elevator and mechanical equipment overrun (from roof deck) and an
additional nine feet (from roof deck) for architectural embellishments for the portion of the site
on the east side of North Osceola Avenue and an increase of the permitted density from 205
dwelling units to 324 dwelling units by using 119 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive Pool, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. with the following
recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and conditions of approval:
Recommended Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject property totals 225,236 square-feet (5.17 acres)
and is approximately 500 feet wide; 2) Approximately 8,693 square-feet (0.1995 acres) of the
site is within the Preservation future land use plan classification and does not generate density
or FAR; 3) The portion of the site which generates density/FAR is 4.97 acres; 4) The request for
relief from maximum height limits and establishment of a mixed-use development within the
Downtown (D) district is permissible as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project under the
Code provisions of Section 2-903.C; 5) This application for Flexible Development approval is an
Community Development 2005-07-19
9
.
.
.
amendment to a Flexible Development application that was approved by the CDB on January
18, 2005; 6) The concept and style of the original request has not changed and includes: a)
mixed used development with residential and non-residential uses within two buildings utilizing a
Mediterranean-influenced style of architecture and b) An increase of the permitted density
through the use of dwelling units allocated from the from the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan area Public Amenities Incentive Pool; 7) The proposal seeks to use 119
dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan area Public Amenities
Incentive Pool; and 8) The proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein.
Recommended Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-903.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 Vision, Goals,
Objects and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay
Character District; 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will
enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) The proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Design Guidelines.
Conditions of Approval (*conditions consistent with those associated with the previously
approved application): 1) That the nonresidential uses proposed to be located on the site be
consistent with the permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and the
. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan*; 2) 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*; 3) That a Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy*; 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 all Fire
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits*; 6) That all Traffic
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits*; 7) That all signage meet
the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly
to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to
proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved
by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes*; a)AII signs fully dimensioned and
coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size* and b) All signs be
constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and .
architectural style of the building*; 8) That evidence of filing of a Unity of Title with Pinellas
County is submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits*; 9) That a
right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way*; 10) That
the first building permit be applied for within one year (July 19, 2005) of CDB approval*; 11)
That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first
building permit*; 12) That the North Osceola Avenue right-of-way will be improved per City
standards*; 13) 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*; 14) That all streetscaping adjacent to Harrison Village (Parcel B) is installed to the
satisfaction of Staff prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Harrison
Community Development 2005-07-19
10
.
.
.
Village*; 15) That all streetscaping along Island View (Parcel A) is installed to the satisfaction of
Staff prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Island View*, and 16): That if
the proposed parking configuration is not successful, the developer must provide an equivalent
number of parking spaces in a different manner.
In response to concern regarding the proposed robotic parking, Representative Ed
Armstrong said the applicant understands the agreement's commitment for parking and knows he
must come before the CDB again if the parking configuration is unsuccessful. He said the
property owners are responsible for property maintenance.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2005-04034 for 400 Jones Street,
based on findings of fact and conclusions of law as listed in the staff report, subject to conditions
of approval, as listed in the staff report, plus Condition 16. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued with comments that the project is wonderful and concerns expressed
that the number of residential and retail parking spaces proposed is insufficient, the robotic
parking system is untested locally, the proposal increases the property's density, the project
reduces the number of retail parking spaces from 56 to 17, the CDB previously agreed 1.5
parking spaces per unit is inadequate for upscale projects, and suggestions that that the
applicant provide two spaces per density pool unit, and that one elevator will become an issue
for condominium owners.
Jim Graham, applicant's architect, said retail staff will park in the garage. Additional
spaces surrounding the property on the street will be available for visitors. He said the applicant
is working with a parking garage consultant. He said robotic parking takes take three minutes to
deliver a vehicle and will eliminate traffic snarls. Mr. Armstrong said the developer has
proposed nearly $2 million in landscaping improvements, and is increasing the width of the
rights-of-way in consideration of additional density and the relocation of Osceola Avenue. He
said the project is consistent with Code and meets Code parking requirements. He anticip~ted
that pedestrian traffic among retailers will outnumber vehicular traffic.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Plisko, Johnson, Tallman, Fritsch, and
Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Coates abstained. Motion carried.
2.
Level Two Application
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
Harnden 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 Harnden 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
11
.
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)
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: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interested and recused himself.
.
The application was reviewed on June 21, 2005, when only five CDB members were
present. Member Plisko recused himself due to a conflict of interest, leaving four voting
members where a quorum requires a minimum of five. The applicant did not resubmit any new
data for this meeting and application. The supporting materials, staff report, and staff
recommendation have not changed.
The site is 2.37 acres, generally bound by Hamden 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 Hamden drives), and Parcel C located between Clearwater Harbor and
Hamden 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 has 1.41 acres. Parcel A has been
developed with three buildings between one- and five- stories in height. A total of 69 overnight
accommodation units are on Parcel A.
The site currently is accessed via two driveways along Coronado Drive 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
Hamden drives to the west and east, and Fifth Street to the south. Property at 341 and 343
Coronado Drive and 342 Hamden 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.
Community Development 2005-07-19
12
.
Access to Parcel B is characterized by several undefined driveways along Coronado and
Hamden drives, which provide direct access to parking spaces which back out directly into
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 Hamden Drive (currently the Albatross Motel) and the other half
is joined with 350 Hamden 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 Hamden 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.
.
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 maximum 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 maxim otherwise permitted
by the FLUP.
In determining maximum permitted density, the City rounds down to the nearest whole
dwelling unit. The total permitted density of Parcels A, Band 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, Band C to
remain on the site is part of this proposal.
The proposal includes a TDR (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).
.
This proposal includes the 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
13
.
.
.
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 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 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, Band 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 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 base flood elevation) 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 provides an additional 1 02 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 on 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 fayade 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,
Community Development 2005-07-19
14
.
.
.
taller buildings, including the existing Adam's Mark Hotel (155 feet) and the proposed Hyatt
Hotel (150 feet). The remainder of are buildings constitutes a 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 fac;ades 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 step back 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 fac;ades of the building utilize the same high level of detail
and architectural embellishments as the formal 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. 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
15
.
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
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 otherwise is 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 westO facades 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 take 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
16
.
.
.
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
325 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on the following recommended findings of fact,
recommended conclusions of law and with conditions: Recommended FindinQs 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 COB approval and that all certificates of
occupancy are applied for within two years to receipt of the first building permit; 3) That a
sidewalk, 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 COB, 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 fac;:ade; c) All attached signs are installed so the method of 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
17
.
.
.
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; 9) 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)
Thatthe 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 90-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.
See Page 30 for motion of approval.
3.
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-02017 -18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
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.coiTI).
Location: 0.803 acre located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 N approximately 400
feet south of Nursery Road.
Atlas Page: 318A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) 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 15 feet .(to
pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building)
and from 10 feet to nine feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from
10 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to
zero feet (to pavement), an increase to building height of an additional six feet for
perimeter parapets (from roof deck - roof deck at 18.67 -foot height), a reduction to
required parking from 36 to 33 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to a major
Community Development 2005-07-19
18
.
arterial street (US 19N), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the interior landscaping requirement
from 10 percent to 6.8 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and services (7,217 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:
patbarla>.aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544
Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diwla>.Qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
This property of 0.803 acre is on the east side of US 19N, approximately 400 feet north
of Nursery Road. The lot has 200 feet of frontage along US 19N and 175 feet of depth. The
site has long been developed with an automobile service station, but it has been closed for
many years and fallen into disrepair. Only a few palm trees are present on the site. The site is
an outparcel to the abutting shopping center to the east. The site has two driveways on US
19N, has cross access to the main shopping center driveway to the north, and has (and takes
advantage of) a cross access easement across the east side of the property providing access
from the main shopping center driveway to the restaurant to the south. The site is surrounded
by commercial uses, with restaurants to the north (Starbucks) and south (Sam Seltzer's).
.
The proposal includes the complete demolition of all existing site improvements and the
construction of a one-story, 7,217 square-foot commercial building for retail sales
establishments. The building will include a number of individual tenants, including a Subway
restaurant, and be oriented toward US 19N. The proposed building is situated toward the north
and east property lines to allow parking on the south and west portions of the site. The .
proposed building height complies with the Code requirements, but is requested to have the
perimeter parapets six feet in height above the roof deck (Code only permits parapets to extend
30 inches above the roof deck). This additional height is only along the front of the building and
provides a more visually appealing building. The overall building height, including the taller
parapets, is still less than the permitted 25 feet in the Commercial District.
.
The site design closes the existing northern driveway on US 19N and will retain the
southern driveway. Access to the shopping center's main driveway to the north also will be
retained, providing vehicular access to the parking area on the west side of the site. The site
design also retains the cross access easement along the eastern portion of the site, which will
continue to provide access between the shopping center's main driveway and the Sam Seltzer's
Steakhouse restaurant parcel to the south. Parking proposed along the southern portion of the
site ties into this north/south cross access easement. A loading area has been designated on
the east side of this site within the cross access area. Access to the dumpster on the east side
of the site will utilize this cross access and the shopping center for truck maneuvering. The
request includes a deviation to allow direct access to a major arterial street (US 19N). This site
historically has had direct access to US 19N, which appears necessary for proper movement of
vehicles and Fire Department trucks. Since this site predated the development of the shopping
center and the other outparcels to the north and south of this site, this site has not been
provided certain access rights. Access to the shopping center parcel could be restricted or
eliminated in the future, where retaining access to US 19N still will provide site access for
tenants in the event this future restriction or elimination is invoked to the shopping center
property. To ensure proper Fire Department access, the site plan will need to show a minimum
28-foot turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress prior to permit issuance.
Community Development 2005-07-19
19
.
.
.
The applicant proposes a reduction in parking from 36 spaces to 33 spaces. A letter has
been submitted by the applicant indicating certain proposed uses, but does not provide a full
justification for the requested reduction. The letter indicates certain retail sales uses with limited
information regarding their operational characteristics. The letter indicates at least 1,250
square-feet of tenant space is not pre-leased at this time. Staff recommends that this square
footage presently not pre-leased be restricted to an office use or a use with similar parking .
requirements of an office use. This restriction in use for this tenant space would reduce the
amount of required parking. While not submitted by the applicant, staff research of another site
where a Subway restaurant was approved by the CDB on March 19,2002 (FL 01-12-36,2004-
2010 Drew Street) provides usable parking data for a similarly sized tenant space. The staff
report for that 2002 case indicated, "Subway will be open Sunday through Thursday 10:00 a.m.
to 11 :00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Subway restaurants of this
size typically provide approximately 38 in-store seats. This proposal includes a maximum of 16
seats outdoors. The average customer visit time for dine-in is 20 minutes versus carryout of
seven minutes. The average number of customers visiting during lunch (10:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m.) is 20 per hour. This represents the daily peak demand and represents 45% of the
business sales. There will be four employees on site at anyone time." That staff report also
indicated "Based on a survey of other Subways, the hours of operation, the average number of
customers at certain times of day, and the percentage of customers riding together, parking
needed for the restaurant is between 2.86 to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor
area." Therefore, based on the restriction of 1,250 square-feet of tenant space to office uses or
those with a similar parking requirement, coupled with the parking information provided in this
similar case, the proposed parking reduction by three spaces appears justifiable to avoid off-site
parking. It is noted that while the applicant indicates parking is available on the adjacent
shopping center property and has indicated a cross easement with the shopping center,
submitted documentation does not verify cross parking with the shopping center, only cross
access. Future tenants will need to verify similar business operations and parking demand
ratios to ensure adequate parking will be available on-site.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west along US 19N) setback from 25 feet
to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
building) and from 10 feet to nine feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback
from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to
zero feet (to pavement). The site is constrained due to the existing 23-foot wide cross access
easement that exists across the entire eastern portion of the site. This has tended to push the
improvements toward the west. The proposal matches the redeveloped restaurant site to the
north (Starbucks) by providing a front setback to pavement along the US 19N frontage of 15 feet
(which complies with the required landscape buffer width). This 15-foot front setback is a
significant improvement over existing conditions and more than the shopping center and
restaurant to the south currently provides. The rear setback reduction to zero feet to pavement
is a function of the required cross access easement the applicant cannot modify or eliminate.
The side setback reductions (north and south) are a function of complying with the Code
dimensional standards for parking lots, required pedestrian access from the parking to the
tenant spaces in a safe and efficient manner, and the ability to provide marketable tenant
spaces. The proposed impervious surface ratio is 81 %, providing considerably greater pervious
areas than Code provisions allow. The proposed reductions to setbacks and the flexibility
requested significantly improve these existing conditions and will upgrade and enhance the
community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity along this portion of US
19N. The proposal is in harmony with, and compatible with, the scale, bulk, coverage and.
character of adjacent properties of this highly commercialized corridor of US 19N. Many of the
Community Development 2005-07-19
20
.
businesses along this corridor of US 19N are one-story commercial buildings, however, some
multi-story office buildings are within the vicinity.
The proposed building is attractive, including the use of decorative, diamond-shaped
stucco on the upper portion of the building painted "June Day." Other portions of the stucco
portions of the fac;ade will be "friendly yellow" and "softened green," accented by "trinket" trim at
the top of the parapet.
The site will be extensively landscaped, including dahoon holly for shade and
Washington palms for accent. Shrubs along the edges of pavement will be dwarf Indian
hawthorn. Planting beds will be enhanced by liriope, fountain grass, and parsons juniper. The
proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape area from 10 to 6.8%. The cross access
easement pavement across the eastern portion of the site has to be included in the amount of
paved vehicular use area used to calculate the amount of interior landscaping required.
Adequate areas have been proposed for landscaping the site. Landscaping includes tiering
landscape materials for visual interest and improved site appearance. Landscaping proposed
may be viewed as being more attractive than minimum landscape standards.
Code requires on-site utilities (electric, cable, telephone, etc.) to be located
underground. A utility easement for a City of St. Petersburg water line runs along the front of
the site. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the City of St. Petersburg will need to approve the
reconstructed parking lot, landscaping, and freestanding sign within its easement. The
restaurant site to the north had a similar requirement and the applicant was able to obtain
similar approval.
.
A retention pond is proposed in the rear of the building. Based on stormwater
calculations submitted, there is a deficiency in the volume capacity being provided. Prior to the
issuance of any permits, the applicant will be required to provide a "payment in-lieu" for the
deficiency.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31,2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (west
along US 19N) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north)
setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building) and from 10 feet to nine feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement), an increase to building height of an
additional six feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck - roof deck at 18.67 -foot height), a.
reduction to required parking from 36 to 33 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to a
major arterial street (US 19N), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the interior landscaping requirement from 10
percent to 6.8 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G, for the property at 18419 US 19North, with the following bases and
conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with Flexible Development criteria as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance
redevelopment efforts; and Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the
building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified .by, the CDB;
2) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a letter of approval from the City of St. Petersburg
be submitted providing for the reconstruction of the parking lot, landscaping and freestanding
Community Development 2005-07-19
21
.
.
.
sign within their easement; 3) That 1,250 square-feet of tenant space be restricted to an office
use or a use with similar parking requirements of an office use. Any change in tenant mix from
that indicated in the applicant's letter dated June 16, 2005, shall be evaluated for
complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by
the CDB; 4) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, plans indicate the exterior of the
dumpster enclosure to be finished in the same material and color as the primary building; 5)
That the tree survey be shown on all civil plans prior to issuance of any permits; 6) That all
proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground,
including outdoor lighting lines; 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the
issuance of any permits, including the provision on revised plans a minimum 28-foot turning
radii for emergency vehicle ingress and egress; 8) That, prior to the issuance of any permits,
"payment in-lieu" be paid for the retention pond deficiency of 531 cubic-feet, based on 7,271
square-feet of redeveloped area and pond volume of 489 cubic-feet provided; and 9) That all
Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
4.
Case: FLD2005-03027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade.com LLC (Bill Blackwood).
Representative: Bill WoodslTerri Skapik, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm
Harbor, FL 34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoods@woodsconsultina.ora).
Location: 0.229 acre located on the north side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 400 feet
east of Poinsettia Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development to permit a 2,183 square-foot, five-slip commercial dock
in conjunction with an existing six-unit motel, under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Commercial dock.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com);
Coral Resort Condominium (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@ate.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.229-acre site is on the north side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 400 feet east
of Poinsettia Avenue. The site is within the "Old Florida District" of Beach By Design, which has
been designated for multi-family town homes and condominiums of low to mid-rise building
heights. The immediate vicinity is almost entirely composed of small motels of one- to two-
stories. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the 1950s and appear to have
been expanded. Properties to the west and south of the subject parcel have been requested for
Flexible Development approval to redevelop those parcels with attached dwellings. .
The application proposes removing the existing dock. Section 3-601.C.3 requires
commercial docks in association with a hotel, motel, or restaurant, where the slips are not
rented, leased, or sold be approved as part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. ,The
proposal includes removal of the existing dock and construction of two docks, totaling 2,183
square-feet for five slips for use by the owner and guests of the motel.
Community Development 2005-07-19
22
.
.
.
The proposal is to construct the five slips in two docks along the seawall of the subject
property. The submitted benthic survey did not note any natural resources that will be impacted
by these proposed slips. The waterway width adjacent to the property varies along the lot width
along the seawall. The westernmost slip places the northern tie pole approximately 47 feet from
the seawall, at the maximum 25% of the waterway width at that location. The western dock is
proposed 50 feet from the seawall, also conforming to the maximum 25% of the waterway width at
this location. Slips 2 and 3 will permit a boat 50 feet in length. The docks for the easternmost two
slips (Slips 4 and 5) extend 95.1 feet from the seawall, allowing for boats 90 feet in length, less
than the maximum 25% of the waterway width at this location (proposed is 10% of the waterway
width). The western dock is proposed 22.1 feet from the western property line, while the eastern
dock is proposed 13 feet from the southeast property line. A minimum side setback of 12.8 feet is
required for the docks. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75% of the
lot width (128 feet), or 96 feet in this case. The proposed combined dock width is 71 % of the lot
width (91.5 feet). Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot width (96
feet). The dock length of 95.1 feet for the easternmost dock is proposed to be a maximum of 74.3
percent of the waterfront width. 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 any natural resources.
SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) requires a minimum three feet
water depth at mean low water for boats in the slips. Slips have at least 4.5 feet of water depth,
ranging to a maximum of 8.5 feet of water depth. The width of the waterway varies for this site,
from the tightest on the west side of 203 feet to 965 feet on the east side. The City's Harbor
Master has indicated the proposed dock will not pose any navigation issues for this area. All other
criteria for docks have been met.
This request is opposite what normally is processed for docks, in that docks are proposed
at an existing development rather than in conjunction with or following the approval of the
redevelopment of the upland. Fire risers for fire protection are required to be constructed for
these docks, which are shown as part of the application material and must be finalized prior to the
completion of the docks.
The applicant has submitted a business plan accompanying the application. It is the
intention of the owner/applicant that rental of the motel units will include a boat slip. The owner of
the property, who lives in one of the units, intends to use Slips 1 and 2 for his exclusive use.
These owner slips cannot be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the owner. The owner
intends Slips 3, 4, and 5 to be for the exclusive use by guests of the motel. These slips also
cannot be rented or sub-leased separately from the rental of motel units (one room = one slip).
Any approval of this request should contain some Code enforcement mechanisms to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the request. The applicant in his business plan indicates there
will be no commercial rental of slips to enterprises (fishing boat operators, cruise operators, etc.).
This commercial dock, in conjunction with the motel, is not intended to operate as a marina.
Parking is limited and does not provide adequate parking for such enterprises, nor are such
operations appropriate at this location. Future changes to the upland development (such as to
attached dwellings) will require a re-review of these slips, as the character of the operations may
invoke alternative Code usage provisions and restrictions.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.229 acre is zoned Tourist District and is located in the
"Old Florida District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the upland is a motel with six
overnight accommodation units, of which one unit is the owner's unit, which conforms to current
density limitations in the Tourist District; 3) The proposal is to construct a 2,183 square-foot,
Community Development 2005-07-19
23
.
.
.
five-slip commercial dock to be used in conjunction with and accessory to the existing motel; 4)
The proposed dock complies with the minimum side setback, maximum dock width, and
maximum dock length requirements of the Code; 5) Rental of a boat slip is to occur in
conjunction with a guest renting a motel room; 6) Two of the proposed slips are for use by the
owner of the property; 7) Parking at this motel is only adequate for the upland use of the motel;
8) Fire protection is required for these docks, which must be permitted prior to or in conjunction
with the dock construction; 9) 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 any natural resources; and 10)
There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria of Section 3-601; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in
compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) Based on the above
findings and the 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 2,183 square-foot, five-slip commercial dock in conjunction with an existing
six-unit motel, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 625-627 Bay Esplanade, 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 in Slips 1 and 2 be for the exclusive use by the owner of the
property and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the motel. Boats moored in Slips
3, 4 and 5 shall be for the exclusive use by guests of the motel and slips shall not be rented or.
sub-leased separately from the rental of motel units (one room = one slip). At the request of the
City Manager or designee, the records of the motel business shall be made available for
examination to determine whether the boats moored in the slips complies with these provisions.
Failure to provide such records upon request shall be grounds for imposition of appropriate fines,
revocation of the occupational license and/or any other enforcement afforded by law or by City
regulations. A license must be maintained from the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. All motel rentals shall be in
conformance with the Community Development Code and the Countywide Rules. This Flexible .
Development approval shall not be deemed to permit a marina, where slips are rented separately
from motel rooms/units, nor shall rooms/units or individual slips/boats qualify for homestead
exemption or home or business occupational licenses, except the owner's unit. There shall be no
commercial rental of units/slips to enterprises (fishing boat operators, cruise operators, etc.).
There shall be no live aboards allowed in any of these slips; 2) That any change in use of the
upland development (such as to attached dwellings) requires a re-review of these docks and the
use of the slips. The owner shall notify the Planning Director in writing in the event of a proposed
change in the upland use; 3) That a building permit to install the fire risers for the docks be
submitted prior to Planning Department sign-off on the County dock permit application. Prior to .
completion of the docks, the fire riser permit shall be finalized; 4) That lighting be installed at the
ends of the docks to make the docks more visible to both recreational boaters and to slip owners
finding their slips at night; and 5) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida Department
of Environmental Protection) Permit, USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) Permit,
and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to commencement of construction.
Community Development 2005-07-19
24
.
.
.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
5.
Case: LUZ2005-03005 - 1834 North Belcher Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Dimitrios and Anna Loukataris & Pappas and Sons, LLC
Representative: George G. Pappas, Attorney, 901 North Hercules Avenue, Suite C,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-447-4999; fax: 727-447-4989.
Location: 1.58 acres consisting of one parcel located on the west side of North Belcher
Road approximately 100 feet north of Sunnydale Boulevard and 600 feet south of
Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 262B.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the
Commercial General (CG) Classification; and
b) Rezoning from the Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District to the
Commercial (C) District.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one
parcel of land, approximately 1.58 acres in area located on the west side of North Belcher Road,
approximately 100 feet north of Sunnydale Boulevard and 600 feet south of Sunset Point Road.
The site currently is occupied by a one-story, vacant, 6,217 square-foot building, previously
used as a restaurant. The site has a FLUP designation of Industrial Limited (IL) and is within
the Industrial, Research, Technology (IRT) District. Restaurants are not a permitted use within
the IRT District. The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the
Commercial General (CG) classification and to rezone it to the Commercial (C) District in which
restaurants are a permitted use.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the Commercial General (CG)
Classification, and 2) Approval of the rezoning from the Industrial, Research, Technology (IRT)
District to the Commercial (C) District.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
6.
Case: LUZ2005-04006 - 1822 North Belcher Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Pappas and Sons, LLC.
Representative: George G. Pappas, Attorney, 901 North Hercules Avenue, Suite C,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-447-4999; fax: 727-447-4989
Location: 0.499 acre consisting of one parcel located on the northwest corner of
Sunnydale Boulevard and North Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 262B.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the
Commercial General (CG) Classification and
Community Development 2005-07-19
25
.
.
.
b) Rezoning from the Industrial, Research, Technology (IRT) District to the Commercial
(C) District.
Proposed Use: Office.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@ote.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one
parcel of land, approximately 0.499 acre in area, located at the northwest corner of Sunnydale
Boulevard and North Belcher Road. The site is currently vacant. The site has a FLUP
designation of Industrial Limited (IL) and is within the Industrial, Research, Technology (IRT)
District. The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the
Commercial General (CG) classification and to rezone it to the Commercial (C) District.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority.
Based on the recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law, the
Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from
the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the Commercial General (CG) Classification, and 2)
approval of the rezoning from the Industrial, Research, Technology (IRT) District to the
Commercial (C) District.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
7.
Case: ANX2005-04010 - 1355 Union Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Dell Pearce
Location: 0.64-acre property consisting of two parcels, located on the southwest corner
of Union Street and Evergreen Avenue.
Atlas Page: 251 B.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0.64 acre of property and abutting Union Street right-of-way to the City
of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to
Residential Urban (RU) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-4, One, Two, and Three Family Residential District (County) to Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@ote.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves a 0.64-acre property consisting of two parcels located on the
southwest corner of Union Street and Evergreen Avenue. The property is contiguous to existing
City boundaries to the east and south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Pine lias County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the
abutting 0.07-acre of Union Street right-of-way not currently within the City limits also be
annexed. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and
Community Development 2005-07-19
26
.
.
.
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land
Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding municipal annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on
the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of 0.64 acre of property and 0.07 acre of abutting
Union Street right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Urban (RU)
Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
8.
Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Sibylle Clark.
Applicant: Kelly K. Murphy.
Location: 0.19-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of
Shaddock Drive, approximately 400 feet west of Calamondin Lane.
Atlas Page: 273A.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0.19 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 Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves a 0.19-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Shaddock Drive, approximately 400 feet west of Calamondin Lane. 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 is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 0.19 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 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2005-07-19
27
.
.
.
9.
Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Blake Travis.
Location: 0.27-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of Lake
Vista Drive, approximately 250 feet west of Moss Avenue.
Atlas Page: 283A.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0.27-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 Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves a 0.27 -acre property consisting of one parcel located on the
north side of Lake Vista Drive, approximately 250 feet west of Moss Avenue. The property is
contiguous to existing City boundaries to the west; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed
that the abutting 0.12 acre of the abutting Lake Vista Drive right-of-way, not currently within the
City limits, also be annexed. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive
sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. 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 is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 0.27 acre of property and 0.12 acre of abutting Lake Vista Drive right-of-way to
the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
10.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Level Three Application
Owner: Rottlund Homes.
Representative: Robert Pergolizzi,13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater, FL
33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090.
Location: 4.86-acre property consisting of four parcels, located on the east side of
Chautauqua Avenue, between 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S.
Atlas Page: 244A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 4.86-acre of property and abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S.
rights-of-way to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation
(P) Category (County) to Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Category
(City of Clearwater); and
Community Development 2005-07-19
28
.
.
.
c) Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District (County) to Low Density Residential
(LDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: New Single-Family Dwellings.
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 4.86-acre property consisting of four parcels located on the
east side of Chautauqua Avenue, between 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. The property is
contiguous to existing City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed
annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation.
It is proposed that the abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. rights-of-way not currently
within the City limits also be annexed.
The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive water, sanitary sewer and
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use
Plan designations of Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P), and a zoning category of
Low Density Residential (LDR).
The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 4.86 acres and 0.64 acre of abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. right-of-way
to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P)
Future Land Use Plan classifications; and 3) Approval of the Low Density Residential (LDR) and
Preservation (P) zoning classifications pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #F3, Case FLD2005-02017 for
18419 US Highway 19 North, based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report,
with bases for approval and conditions of approval as listed, Item #F4, Case FLD2005-03027 for
625-627 Bay Esplanade, based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report, with
bases for approval and conditions of approval as listed; and recommended approval of Item #F5,
Case LUZ2005-03005 for 1834 North Belcher Road based on findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the staff report; Item #F6, Case LUZ2005-04006 for 1822 North Belcher Road based on
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report, Item #F7, Case ANX2005-04010 for 1355
Union Street based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report, Item #F8, Case
ANX2005-04012 for 2748 Shaddock Drive based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
staff report, Item #F9, Case ANX2005-04013 for 3000 Lake Vista Drive based on findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the staff report, and Item #F1 0, Case ANX2005-04015 for 2695 2nd
Avenue South based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-07-19
29
.
.
.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #F2, Case FLD2005-02021,
TDR2005-03020 and PL T2005-0001 0 for 325 Gulfview Boulevard based on findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the staff report, with bases for approval and conditions of approval as
listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Coates, Johnson, Tallman,
Fritsch, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye." Member Plisko abstained. Motion
carried.
G. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Level Two Application
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 Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The application was reviewed at the June 21, 2005, CDB meeting where a motion of
approval was made and seconded. The final vote on that motion was three in support of the
approval and two against the approval resulting in an automatic continuance to July 19, 2005.
The applicant did not resubmit any new data for this meeting and the application, supporting
materials, staff report, and recommendations have not changed.
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
Community Development 2005-07-19
30
.
.
.
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-
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 [base flood elevation]
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 fayade 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
and at the southeast corner of the site the. Parking and a solid waste staging area will be 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 existing 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 town homes. The Planning Department interprets mid-rise as maximum of 50
feet based on the height standards in the MDR (Medium Density Residential), T (Tourist) and
HDR (High Density Residential) districts. The immediate vicinity is composed of attached
dwellings, small motels, and condominiums. Building styles generally resemble architecture from
the 1950's 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 COB, with staff support, have and are dramatically changing the
character of the area. These changes generally have not been consistent with the vision and
requirements of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. Due to these conditions, staff has
Community Development 2005-07-19
31
.
.
.
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 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 intill 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.
Transfer of Development Riqhts:
This proposal includes the 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.
Community Development 2005-07-19
32
.
.
.
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 acres 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. 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. 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; 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:
Recommended FindinQs 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
Community Development 2005-07-19
33
.
.
.
generally between one and three stories in height, surrounding area a mixture of attached
dwellings and 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
town homes, 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 Base Flood, Elevation (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 ofthe 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 intill 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 Beach 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; 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 intill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate
Community Development 2005-07-19
34
.
.
.
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 intill 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 Public Works Administration does not allowed underground vaults as water quality facilities
per page seven of the Storm Drainage Design Criteria for the City of Clearwater except when
specifically approved by the City Engineer based on adequate justification. This justification has
not been submitted; 16) 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 17) 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.
Recommended 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 lnfill 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.
Nathan Hightower, representative, recommended the staff report be corrected to indicate
the property currently has 11 apartment units. He referenced aerial overviews and artists'
renderings of the project, and reported that the developer has a reputation for quality
development. He stated two parcels will be combined for this project. He said while the
architect's rendering of the rooftop is not to scale, the project will feature rooftop amenities. An
enclosure will provide access between the elevator and rooftop. He said this project is
consistent with the preferred use for this area as voiced by the public at recent public meetings.
He said this project is compatible to nearby developments and adjacent properties. He said the
applicant could have increased the height of the project but chose not to. He said while staff is
comfortable with a 10-foot setback from the seawall, the applicant plans a 12-foot setback. He
said the five-foot front setback requested will allow the project to meet parking requirements and
provide 1.9 parking spaces per unit, or 25 spaces for 13 units. He said no opposition to the
project was voiced at the June 14,2005, neighborhood meeting. He said staff's
recommendation for denial is based on the height of this project and the use. He offered
findings of fact and conclusions of law for staff review. In response to a question, Mr. Hightower
Community Development 2005-07-19
35
.
.
.
said the applicant agrees to conditions listed in the staff report, including a 12-foot setback from
the seawall, and to eliminate roof amenities.
Four persons spoke in support of the project.
Mr. Hightower said the subject property currently does not meet Code, but will after
construction. He said the project is consistent with adjacent properties in height and use and
meets flexible Code standards. He said the applicant is a quality builder, and requested
approval.
Discussion ensued with remarks that this project is 30% more dense than allowed,
Beach by Design originally had a 600 unit pool to limit density, the Council has changed the
conversion rates for future projects, the project would be acceptable if it were reduced to 10
units, and the project does not meet the harmony, scale, bulk, density, etc. requirements.
Member Fritsch moved to approve the application, subject to a reduction in density to 10
units. There was no second.
Mr. Hightower stated the applicant wishes the project be considered as proposed.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to continue Item #G1, Case FLD2005-03032
and TDR2005-03019 for 657 Bay Esplanade to allow the applicant and staff to consider an
amended site plan, conditions of approval, and the rooftop. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Johnson, Coates, Fritsch, Tallman, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted.
"Aye"; Members Gildersleeve and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried.
H. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (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 Larboard 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 Residentiallnfill Project, in the Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD)/Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-1602. C and H.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (15 dwelling units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Community Development 2005-07-19
36
.
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, FI 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail:
dlphincove1 @netzero.com).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
This Flexible Development case was reviewed at the April 19, 2005, CDS meeting and
then continued 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 on May 17, 2005 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 did not change.
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 existing
driveway along most of the front property line (Skiff point), where parking spaces "back out" into
the right-of-way. The site also contains two existing docks, approximately 35 feet in length, to
be retained for resident and guest usage only and will not be sub-leased. All existing
improvements (buildings, pavement, walkways and decks) will be removed as part of the site's
redevelopment. Properties along Skiff Point have been developed with attached dwellings
(condominiums both owner occupied and rented).
The proposal includes constructing a 15-unit, five-story (four stories over ground level
parking) residential condominium building. A total of 15 dwelling units are permitted for the
subject property, based on a maximum of 30 units per acre. The first level will be utilized for
parking. The next three levels will contain four units on each floor, while the top floor (fifth level)
will have three units. The proposal includes 24 parking spaces under the building where 23
parking spaces are required (1.5 spaces per unit).
The request is being processed as a Residentiallnfill Project to permit attached
dwellings within the Medium High Density Residential District due to setback reductions on each
side of the site due to the irregular shape of the property. The proposed setbacks are
comparable to other developments in the area. The building will be located 6.5 feet from the
side property lines, 15 feet from the front property line and 18 feet from the rear property line.
.
The proposal includes increases to building height from 30 feet to 49 feet (to roof deck)
with an additional four feet (from roof deck for perimeter parapets) and an additiona/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
Community Development 2005-07-19
37
.
.
.
the parapet to a total of four feet from the roof deck. This four-foot high parapet is located on all
fac;ades 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 fayade). The waterside side
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 feetto 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:
Recommended Findinas 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.
Community Development 2005-07-19
38
.
Recommended 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 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-
01012 based on the above-recommended findings offact 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 Engineering Department prior to the
commencement of work; 7) That a right-of-way permit be obtained from the City prior to open
cutting the roadway within the Skiff Point right-of-way for a water connection prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 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.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said since the June 21, 2005, 4:2 CDB vote
to approve this application, a Island Estate Civic Association member/Party Status Holder, and
an individual without Party Status who addressed that meeting have requested that the CDB
reconsider the case. She reported only Members Johnson, Tallman, Dennehy, and
Gildersleeve could vote to approve the rehearing, as they were the members who approved the
item.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said Party Status Holder Neil Spillane
believes that denial of his request to cross examine Troy Perdue was a mistake and also
complained that he did not receive a packet of information submitted at the meeting to the CDB
and staff by the applicant's expert witness, Ethyl Hammer. .
In response to a question from Party Status Holder Lawrence Bagan, Ms. Dougall-Sides
reported that Mr. Bagan was not a party to the request for reconsideration of the case and
therefore would not have been notified. She reiterated this is not a public hearing, just a request
to rehear the case.
.
Party Status Holder Frank Dame said many issues were discussed at the three public
hearings. He said applicable Code sections are somewhat confusing. He said an inadvertent
Community Development 2005-07-19
39
.
.
.
breach of due process had occurred on June 21, 2005. He said the June meeting was not a de
novo hearing and he should have had an opportunity to cross-examine former witnesses to
demonstrate inconsistencies that may have influenced the COB. In response to a question, Mr.
Dame said after being denied the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Ghovaee and Ms. Williams,
he did not bother to ask if he could cross examine Ms. Hammer. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Mr.
Dame could have cross-examined the witnesses at the time they testified. In response to a
question, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported that COB members who were absent from the June
meeting also could vote on this request.
Mr. Spillane claimed refusal of his request to cross-examine Mr. Perdue and Mr.
Ghovaee had denied him due process. He said documents distributed by Ms. Hammer on
June 21, 2005 had a significant impact to this case. He stated as not all of required criteria for
approval were met, the COB did not act lawfully.
In response to a question, Mr. Spillane stated he received the subject documents ten
days after the meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides said there is no requirement to provide copies of
submitted materials to other parties. A copy of materials introduced into the record as exhibits
is provided to the Clerk for filing. Ms. Hammer's materials were provided to the Clerk during the
applicant's presentation on June 21, 2005.
Troy Perdue, applicant's representative, said these are quasi-judicial, not court
proceedings. He said the COB does not have the same authority as judicial hearings related to
prior hearings, etc. He said a rehearing is permitted only if the COB's decision was based upon
a mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation. Related criteria does not reflect cross-examinations or
procedural mistakes.
In response to questions, Ms. Dougall-Sides said a "mistake" must relate to a serious,
fundamental issue that might have caused the COB to vote differently. She reported an appeal
of this case had been filed and forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. An
Administrative Law Judge has been assigned and oral arguments are scheduled to be heard on
or before September 9, 2005.
Discussion ensued with comments that a mistake did not occur, that cross examining
persons from previous meetings would not have swayed the vote, some people feel a
procedural mistake had occurred, and the COB made their decision based on the staff report
and testimony at the meetings.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to deny the request for reconsideration and to
rehear Case FLD2005-01 012 for 200 and 201 Skiff Point. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 2:46 to 2:53 p.m.
I. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1):
1.
Case: FLD2005-01 004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue
Owner: Mexico Grande, Inc.
Applicant: Amscot Financial.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 North, Clearwater, FL 33761;
tel: 727-726-8683; fax: 727-669-8114; email: pressinc@aol.com).
Community Development 2005-07-19
40
.
Location: 0.39 acre on the west side of North Highland Avenue approximately 250 feet
south of Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 261 A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use within 500 feet of
another problematic use and abutting single-family residential uses to the west as
otherwise required by Section 2-704.L; a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25
feet to eight feet to parking; a reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three
feet to pavement; a reduction in the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet to
parking; a reduction in the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to four feet to parking as part
of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the Commercial District under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C, a Comprehensive Sign Program under the provisions of
3-1807 and a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-
1201.G.
Proposed Use: Problematic Use (Amscot).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net); Fountain Square Condo Association (1799 Highland Ave, # 147 Q,
Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 442-7335).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
.
The 0.39-acre site is on the west side of North Highland Avenue, approximately 250 feet
south of Sunset Point Road. The existing one-story, 1,976 square-foot building was built in
1977 and was used until approximately February 7, 2005 as a restaurant. The site has two
driveways providing access to North Highland Avenue. An ingress-only driveway is located at
the north side of the site and an egress-only driveway is located at the south side of the site.
Existing parking does not meet the dimensional (with regard to length, width, and drive aisle) or
setback requirements of the Code. .
Amscot Financial is a privately held company with an estimated 65-retaillocations
currently open or in the process of opening in the Tampa Bay area. The major components and
percentages of the retail operations performed, according to the applicant, are 35% in the sale
of money orders, 46% check cashing, 4% tax preparation and IRS electronic filing, 14% cashing
of deferred presentment checks, and 1 % money transmittal. In addition, Amscot Financial's
website lists check cashing and payday advance as their first two services offered. The
proposed hours of operation for the Amscot are: Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. - 10:00
p.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. The number of employees ranges from two to
three. Because Amscot performs the service of check cashing, the City of Clearwater
recognizes the use as "problematic" as defined in Section 8 of the Community Development
Code. The Code permits the use of any structure regardless of its conformity with the Code for
any use permitted within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located under the
provisions of Section 6-102.
.
Problematic uses are permitted within the Commercial District as part of a Level Two
Flexible Development application under the provisions of Section 2-704.L.1 through 6 with the
following criteria: 1) Location: a) The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a
parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas and b) The use is not
located within 500 feet of another problematic use; 2) Design: a) The building in which the use is
located is painted or otherwise finished in materials and colors which are muted and b) There
are no security bars on the outside of doors or windows which are visible from a public right-of-
way; 3) Signs - signage which has a height of greater than six feet is a part of a comprehensive
Community Development 2005-07-19
41
.
.
.
sign program; 4) The building in which the use is located is a building which is conforming to all
current land development and building regulations; 5) Front setback - The reduction in front
setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance; and 6) Rear
setback: a) The reduction in rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by
emergency vehicles and b) The reduction in rear setback results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking, or improved design and appearance and landscaped areas are in excess of
the minimum required.
The subject site is located adjacent to property designated as Low Medium Density.
Residential (LMDR) in the zoning atlas and is within 500 feet of another problematic use
(pawnshop) contrary to the requirements of Section 2-704L.1.a and b. The building is proposed
to have large awnings on all facades painted bright blue and yellow and is not consistent with
Section 2-704.2.a. The existing signage is proposed to remain but will be changed to reflect the
proposed Amscot business. A Comprehensive Sign Program has been submitted which does
not meet the requirements of the Code. The existing nonconforming front, rear, and side
setbacks are proposed to remain as they are with little site improvement. Therefore, the
proposal does not meet criteria 1.a and b, 2.a, 3, 4 and 5.a as outlined above.
Because this proposal does not meet the requirements for a Problematic Use it is not
permitted within the Commercial District. Because the use is not permitted in the Commercial
District, Section 6-102 requires that all structures on the site meet the requirements of the Code.
The existing parking lot is located within the front (east), side (north and south) and rear (west)
setbacks. Based upon those two facts, the use (problematic use) and the existing parking lot
must be collectively reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. It is the intent
of the Code, based upon the criteria for problematic uses, that such uses be located in purely
commercial areas and are developed and operated in such a manner so as to not detrimentally
affect adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood as a whole. The subject site is a
transitional property acting as a buffer between a moderately developed commercial corridor
(North Highland Avenue) to the east and a single-family residential neighborhood to the west.
Proposed changes to the site include the elimination of sub-standard parking along the
rear (west) side of the building and additional landscaping (primarily on the east side of the site).
The building exterior will include new windows and doors, bright blue and yellow awnings on all
fa9ades and the removal of an architectural detail on the front (east) fa9ade of the building.
The proposal also includes the addition of an attached sign 30 square-feet in area where one
attached sign 20 square-feet in area is permitted. An existing free-standing sign located
between the two driveways will be removed with this proposal and is to be replaced with a 48
square foot sign that is 11 feet in height set back six feet from the front (east) property line
where one freestanding sign six feet in height and 20 square-feet in area is permitted (as part of
a Problematic Use). Both of these signs will require approval by Community Development
Board (COB) as a Comprehensive Sign Program as part of this overall Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project application.
In December of 2000, Amscot Financial was approved to operate at 1825 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard (Case FL 00-10-47). This provides some information about how the applicant has
performed elsewhere in the City of Clearwater. Prior to opening, Amscot Financial made fac;:ade
renovations to the existing building along with basic maintenance such as painting, landscaping,
and having the parking lot resurfaced and striped. Amscot Financial has been operational at
this location since October 11, 2001, and over this three and a half-year span of business,
Amscot has had two code violations, both of which were for signage (extra window signage
Community Development 2005-07-19
42
.
.
.
including advertising "check cashing" which was specifically restricted by the CDB). Both
citations were rectified in a timely manner.
The Planning Department requested a Call Activity Report from the Police Department
for the Amscot business located at 1825 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The report was from January
1, 1999 to June 3, 2003. Since the opening date to June 3, 2003, (day the report was printed),
a total of 41 calls for service were placed to the Police Department. This averages to be once
every two weeks that an officer was called to respond to the business. In order to determine if
the calls of service were excessive in relation to the nature of the business, a Call Activity
Report for two separate banks at 1680 and 1640 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The results revealed a
similar number of police response calls within the same time frame.
The site is within the Commercial district, which permits a myriad of uses including retail
sales and service, office and restaurant. The applicant has not articulated how the development
or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without
deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. The applicant has asserted that
the previous restaurant use has had a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
According to City records, there have been three Code violations since 1992 including the
requirement for a replacement tree, a fence in disrepair and a boat trailer for sale. ' The Planning
Department requested a Call Activity Report from the Police Department for the subject site for
the timeframe of January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005. In that time period there was a total of
one call for service placed to the Police Department. This was compared to a problematic use
(pawn shop) located to the east across North Highland Avenue at 1869 North Highland Avenue.
During the same time period there were six calls for service placed to the Police Department.
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. The property is located within the Commercial District in which a wide variety of
uses are permitted including office, restaurant, retail sales and service, indoor recreation,
overnight accommodations, etc. All of these uses are permitted as part of a Minimum
Development given the site's existing configurations including lot area and width. The site was
developed and operated as a restaurant complete with parking and a drive-through component.
The applicant has not clearly articulated why the site is not developable without the requested
deviations; 2) The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible
with adjacent lands uses. The parcel proposed for development, as a Problematic Use, is
contrary to two criteria required for the establishment of Problematic Uses within the
Commercial District; that the parcel not be adjacent to property located within a residential
district and not be within 500 feet of another Problematic Use. The parcel is adjacent to
property designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district and is within 500 feet
of a pawnshop (Problematic Use). The criteria outlined in the Code per Section 2-704.L are
meant to ensure that problematic uses, as defined by the Code, are located adjacent to other,
compatible uses. The request by the applicant to process the proposal as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project circumvents the intent and requirements of the
Code. The proposed problematic 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
applicant states in their application that the site will remain essentially unchanged. The only
proposed changes include the addition of an attached sign on the east fac;ade, the covering' and
reuse of the existing freestanding sign (which does not meet the requirements of Code with
regard to area and height) and minimal perimeter landscaping. The applicant has not clearly
Community Development 2005-07-19
43
.
.
.
articulated how the proposal will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel; 4) The design of
the proposed comprehensive intill 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 changes included with this proposal
include some cosmetic changes to the exterior of the building, the covering and reuse of an
existing freestanding sign and minimal landscape additions. The existing freestanding sign is
not in compliance with Code with regard to area and height; 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 proposal appears to circumvent the requirements of Code with
regard to the location of problematic uses through the use of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project. The applicant has not clearly articulated how locating a problematic
use within 500 feet of another problematic use and adjacent to residentially zoned property and
reducing all setbacks will benefit the community character and the immediate vicinity of the
parcel and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposal does not meet the following General Applicability (3-913. 5) criterion: 1)
Development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The parcel
proposed for development, as a Problematic Use, is contrary to two criteria required for the
establishment of Problematic Uses within the Commercial District; that the parcel not be
adjacent to property located within a residential district and not be within 500 feet of another
Problematic Use. The parcel is adjacent to property designated as Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) district and is within 500 feet of a pawnshop (Problematic Use). The
criteria outlined in the Code per Section 2-704.L are meant to ensure that problematic uses, as
defined by the Code, are located adjacent to other, compatible uses. The request by the
applicant to process the proposal as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
circumvents the intent and requirements of the Code. The proposed problematic use is not
compatible with adjacent land uses.
Additionally, the proposal does not meet the following Comprehensive Sign Program (3-
1807.4, and 7) criteria: 1) Height, area, number and location of signs. The height, area, number
and location of signs permitted through the Comprehensive Sign Program shall be determined
by the Community Development Coordinator based on the following criteria: overall size of site,
relationship between the building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the
site, intended traffic circulation pattern, hierarchy of sign age, scale and use of the project,
consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan or any other
applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the development
parcel/project. The proposed sign is eleven feet in height. The application lists the sign fac;ade
as being 48 square-feet in area. The bulk of the height is composed of the base, which is 71.5
square-feet in area (almost 1.5 times the stated area of the sign face) and is painted the same
color as the background of the sign face and the proposed awnings. The Code permits a sign
base to constitute up to 50% of the area of a sign face. Because this base visually functions as
an extension and part of the sign fac;ade Staff considers the entire structure to be a sign 119.5
square-feet in area where a maximum of 50 square-feet may be permitted (one half the lot width
of 100 feet) and 2) Elimination of unattractive signage. The signage proposed in a
comprehensive sign program will result in the elimination of existing unattractive signage or will
result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel proposed for development in
comparison to signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. The applicant has
not presented any evidence that the existing freestanding sign is less attractive than the
proposed sign. The existing sign, which resembles a cactus, is 56 square-feet in area and 20
Community Development 2005-07-19
44
Ie
feet in height and was brought into conformance with the previous Land Development Code as
required by the sign amortization program in 1992.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on March 31 and June 2, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible
Development application to permit a problematic use within 500 feet of another problematic use
and abutting single-family residential uses to the west as otherwise required by Section 2-704.L;
a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to eight feet to pavement; a reduction in the
side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet to pavement; a reduction in the side (north)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet to pavement; a reduction in the rear (west) setback from 20
feet to four feet to pavement as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the
Commercial District under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, a Comprehensive Sign Program
under the provisions of 3-1807 and a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions
of Section 3-1201.G, based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended
conclusions of law:
.
Recommended Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject property is 17,002 square-feet (0.39
acre), 100 feet wide, Commercial (C) District; 2) The applicant seeks relief from front, side and
rear setbacks as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project under the Code provisions of
Section 2-704.C; 3) The applicant seeks relief from sign area requirements as a Comprehensive
Sign Program under the Code provisions of Section 3-1807; 4) The development does not meet
the criteria required for Problematic Uses (Section 2-704.L 1 and 2); 5) Staff finds the proposal
does not meet the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913; 6) Staff finds the proposal
does not meet the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria per Section 2-704.C; and 7)
Staff finds the proposal does not meet the Comprehensive Sign Program criteria per Section 3-
1807.
Recommended Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal inconsistent with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-
704.C. 1 and 4 through 7; 2) The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code
including the General Applicability Criterion per Section 3-913. 5; 3) The proposal is not in
compliance with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Sign Program per
Section 3-1807.4 and 7; 4) The development is not compatible with the surrounding area and
will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) Staff recommends Board denial of
FLD2005-01004 based on the above Recommended Findings of Fact.
Mr. Tefft said a property owner to the west of this site has indicated his support of the
request, although he has expressed his concerns that the fence on the property be properly
maintained by the new owner.
In response to a question, Planning Director Michael Delk reviewed the Code definition
of a problematic use, which typically are characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering,
and other indices of neighborhood deterioration and urban blight.
.
Todd Pressman, representative, said commercial uses for this site, permitted by Code,
include 24-hour fast-food restaurants with a drive-through, a 24-hour hotel, club, or other retail
establishments. He said Amscot is not a problematic use, as only two minor Code Enforcement
instances, related to window signs, had occurred in the past five years. He submitted a petition
in support of the application signed by the three abutting rear property owners. He said the front
door of this business is 510 feet from the pawnshop's front door. He said nearby commercial
uses along Highland Avenue, include a shopping center, auto repair, fast food restaurant, etc.
Community Development 2005-07-19
45
ce
.
.
He said Amscot proposes to upgrade the current site, which is in disrepair, with a refurbished
building, a new sign, landscaping, and fencing along the rear of the property. He said the use is
compatible with the neighborhood, and cited the staff report indicating that the former restaurant
use was bothersome to neighbors. He said staff considers the entire awning as signage. He
said the awning will be designed with downward lighting. He said the applicant is willing to
comply with freestanding sign regulations. In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said if
Amscot removed the lettering from the awning, the site would comply with Code. He said the
business needs signage.
Two persons spoke in support of the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said staff and the applicant did not discuss
acceptable signage.
Discussion ensued with comments that this site is a half block from Sunset Point Road,
Amscot is a thriving business, the term "problematic" makes this case difficult, and the request
could be supported if the freestanding sign issue could be worked out. Concern was expressed
that approval would establish precedent. Support was expressed for the request due to the
specific location of the site.
Mr. Delk said regardless of the applicant's presentation, the Code defines this business
as a problematic use and the site is within 500 feet of another business defined as a
problematic use.
Mr. Pressman said the applicant will comply with freestanding sign regulations. He said
the signage on the awning is needed. He said a quirk in the Code related to signage recognizes
the entire awning as a sign.
In response to a question, Planning Manager Neil Thompson reported the Amscot on
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is in compliance with Code.
Mr. Pressman said the Amscot on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is larger than the subject site.
He said the applicant does not wish to continue this case.
In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said this use is within 500 feet of another
problematic use. Mr. Thompson said measurements are made from property to property, not
door to door.
Member Coates moved to approve Item 11, Case FLD2005-01004 for 18874 North
Highland Avenue. There was no second.
In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said signage on the front of the building would
be permitted, based on Code requirements. Ms. Dougall-Sides said staff has determined that
the proposed signage is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Sign criteria.
It was remarked that the awning fronts Highland Avenue and is not a big issue. Ms.
Dougall-Sides recommended the CDB consider the entire application, and not separate out the
signage issue. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said if this item is approved, standard
conditions would apply for permitting purposes.
Community Development 2005-07-19
46
(e
.
.
Member Coates moved to approve Item #11, Case FLD2005-01 004 for 18874 North
Highland Avenue, limited to this specific use and this specific site, and that this approval is not
transferable, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law and the staff report, with the
exception that the use is not problematic, and therefore meets criteria in Section 2-704.C,
General Applicability Criteria in Section 3-913, Comp Infill Redevelopment criteria per Section 2-
704.C, and Comprehensive Sign Program criteria per Section 3-1807. The motion was duly
seconded.
It was felt the awning complies with the Comprehensive Sign criteria, as the lettering is
signage, not the entire awning.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Coates, Plisko, Johnson, Tallman, and Acting
Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Members Fritsch and Gildersleeve voted "Nay". Motion
carried.
J. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1):
1.
Case: ANX2005-04014 -1555 Bonair Street
Owners: Geraldine Turner.
Representative: Thomas Kapper, 13125 72nd Avenue N., Seminole, FL 33776; phone:
727 -458-3308; fax: 727-393-1516
Location: 0.85-acre property consisting of two parcels, located on the west side of Wood
Drive, between Bonair Street and Palmetto Street.
Atlas Page: 270A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.85 acre of property and the abutting Palmetto Street and Wood Drive
rights-of-way 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 Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves a 0.85-acre property consisting of two parcels located on the
west side of Wood Drive, between Bonair Street and Palmetto Street. The property is within an
unincorporated enclave and is contiguous to City boundaries to the west, north, and south;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard
to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting 0.35-acresof Palmetto Street and Wood
Drive rights-of-way not currently within the City limits also be annexed.
The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive water, sanitary sewer and
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land
Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
municipal annexation.
Community Development 2005-07-19
47
.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 0.85-acre of property and 0.35 acre of abutting Wood Drive and Palmetto Street
right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; 2) of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant
to the City's Community Development Code.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said staff had received two letters of objection
to the request. She advised the objectors that the property owner plans to construct three
single-family homes, not rezone the property for apartments.
One person spoke in favor of the application, stating she had object until staff clarified
the application.
Member Fritsch moved to recommend approval of Item #J1, Case ANX2005-04014 for
1555 Bonair Street based on findings of fact and conclusions of law and the staff report. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
K DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: (Items 1-2)
1. Discussion of "Live - Work Product" Identified in Beach By Design
Mr. Delk said when "Beach by Design" was adopted, the plan included the Marina
Residential District, and only allowed construction of an extra story for live/work projects.
.
To further define this type of use and to provide a vision for it, the Planning Department
is soliciting input from the CDB regarding the characteristics of a live/work environment.
.
A list of options/concepts explored include: (Italicized items currently are being
considered) 1) Definition - Options: a) Live/work is a combination of a residential and
commercial use in the same unit, e.g., connected unit with commercial space located on the first
floor with residential above or single-story space that is clearly defined/divided into work and live
space and b) Live/work is a combination of a residential and commercial use on the same
parcel; 2) Character - Options: a) The character of the district is to be residential in nature,
rather than commercial and b) The character of the district is to be commercial in nature, but
compatible with residential; 3) Commercial Customer Activity - Options: a) The commercial use
does not encourage intensive customer interaction and b) The commercial use allows for
intensive customer interaction; 4) Class of Commercial Type - Options: a) Offices, such as
attorneys or architects; art studios; neighborhood retail; or similar establishments and b) High-
turnover retail uses, uses with multiple employees; 5) Parking - Options: a) Each unit in the
building should be provided with an extra 0.5 parking spaces above that required by City code
to allow for the "work" unit; b) Parking should be allocated according to the same formula used
for a mixed-use development; and c) The usual number of spaces in that zoning district should
regulate parking; 6) Deed Restrictions/Easements - Options: a) A deed restriction shall be
required that the building be dedicated to the live/work environment for the lifetime of the
development; b) A deed restriction or easement for buyers and tenants of live/work buildings
should record that there is a right of neighboring users to carry on legal work activities; c) The
owner of the property shall provide through an appropriate legal mechanism that the property
will be marketed as live/work real estate; d) No deed restrictions or easements will be required,
except for selected options; and e) No deed restrictions or easements will be required; and 7)
Community Development 2005-07-19
48
.
.
.
Occupancies - Options: a) Live/work envisions that each occupancy may contain a work
component and b) Live/work envisions that each occupancy shall contain a work component.
Mr. Delk said staff is responsible for interpreting the Code.
Discussion ensued with comments that technology now enables people to work at home,
a live/work environment requires adequate access and parking, invitation-only type businesses
should be considered as uses, such as attorney, beauty shop, etc., businesses would affect
residential traffic, entrances to businesses should be separated from living spaces, work uses
should not be permitted in living spaces, licensing may help identify structures as work facilities,
further incentives related to an extra floor would be redundant, and it was recommended that
Charlie Siemon be contacted for suggestions/opinions regarding live/work environment
regulations.
Mr. Delk said criteria now under consideration defines a live/work product as residential,
with a business or work component, not retail or mixed use. He said the increased construction
of condominiums is driving this issue. He said staff is considering how to meaningfully define a
live/work situation while being fair and reasonable. He requested CDB input.
2. COB Rules of Procedure
Mr. Delk reported that current CDB Rules of Procedure include time limits for cross
examination by those with Party Status. Staff recommends limiting the cross examination of
witnesses by persons with Party Status to three minutes, unless extended by the Board. Staff
discussed this issue with the Legal Department and Board Counsel, and believe this revision
generally is consistent with Board rules, recognizes the clear standing of the applicant and City
in the process, and ensures reasonable opportunity by those with Party Status to cross
examine, including affording an extension of time if determined necessary and appropriate by
the Board.
Discussion ensued with comments that three minutes for cross examination of witnesses
by persons with party status is sufficient, two minutes is a sufficient time for an extension of that,
the closing remarks by party status holders should be deleted unless it is a legal requirement, and
a suggestion that those wishing party status identify themselves at the beginning of every
meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides proposed no time limit be established regarding the granting of time
extensions, as each case is different.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve the amended CDB Rules of
Procedure, as presented by staff, which limits the cross examination of witnesses by persons with
Party Status to three minutes, unless extended by the Board. The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed Party Status holders may claim they are cut off from finishing
their cross examination.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to amend his motion to also limit the closing
remarks made by persons with Party Status to three minutes. The seconder agreed. Upon the
vote being taken, the amended motion carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-07-19
49
. Other
In response to a request, Ms. Clayton said staff would work to provide information on
meeting items to Board members sooner. She said agendas may be amended on the day of
meetings.
Discussion ensued regarding the September meeting. Consensus was to schedule the
September 20, 2005, meeting at 10:00 a.m.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
Attest:
~MZdimh<:J
.
.
Community Development 2005-07-19
50
,.
ill
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
I.Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard.
yes "f... no
2. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
)( yes no
3. Case: FLD2005-02017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
'7- yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD2005-01004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue
yes ~ no
2. Case: FLD2005-04034; 400 Jones Street
X. yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
yes
~
no
4.Case: FLD2005-03027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
yes
x
no
.
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
1.Case: LUZ2005-03005 -1834 North Belcher Road
yes
>(
no
2.Case: LUZ2005-04006 -1822 North Belcher Road
:>!
yes
no
3. Case: ANX2005-04010 - 1355 Union Street
yes
>(
no
4. Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive
yes X no
5. Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive
yes >< no
6. Case: ANX2005-04014 -1555 Bonair Street
yes
'i
no
7. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
yes
'::J.... no
,
2
.
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX200S-04011-1824 Diane Drive N/A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD200S-01012- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
yes
x
no
Signature: ~~
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, pr perty investigation check list.doc
Date:
3
..
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
1.Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard. /
yes V no
2. Case: FLD2005-0)032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
~yes no
3. Case: FLD2005;t}2017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
~ yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD2005-01004 -1874 North Highland Avenue
yes V no
2. Case: FLD2005-04034; 400 Jones Street
yes /' no
3. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
Vyes
no
4.Case: FLD2005-03027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
~yes no
.
..
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
1.Case: LUZ2005-03005 -1834 North Belcher Road
yes /' no
2.Case: LUZ2005-04006 -1822 North Belcher Road
yes V no
3. Case: ANX2005-04010 - 1355 Union Street
yes ~no
4. Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive
yes
V no
5. Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive
~
yes
no
6. Case: ANX2005-04014 -1555 Bonair Street
yes
v' no
7. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
yes ~ no
2
~
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX2005-04011-1824 Diane Drive N/A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-~012- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
/ yes no
Signature:
S:\Plannin
1- f I 't{ or-Date:
artment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
,.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
1.Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard.
\ / yes
no
2. Case: FLD2005t03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
~ yes no
3. Case: FLD20~2017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD200.>4)1004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue
/ yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-04034; 400 Jones Street
/
yes no
3. Case: FLD2005}4035 - 415 Island Way
~ yes no
4.Case: FLD207027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
yes no
.
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
1.Case: LUZ2005-03005 -1834 North Belcher Road
/
yes
no
2.Case: LUZ2005-04006 -1822 North Belcher Road
~yes no
3. Case: ANX2005-04010 - 1355 Union Street
yes / no
4. Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive
~o
yes
5. Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive
/no
yes
6. Case: ANX2005-04014 - 1555 Bonair Street
yes /' no
7. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
/
/ yes no
2
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX2005-04011 -1824 Diane Drive N/A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-01012- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
/yes no
Date:
B, property investigation check list.doc
~..
3
.
10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
1.Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard. \./
-()--yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
+es no
3. Case: FLD20r2017 -18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD2~-OI004 -1874 North Highland Avenne
yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-04034; 400 Jones Street
~es no
3. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
~es no
4.Case: FLD2005-03027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
~Yes no
.
.
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
1.Case: LUZ2005-03005 - 1834 North Belcher Road
~es
no
2.Case: LUZ2005-04006 -1822 North Belcher Road
~es
no
3. Case: ANX2005-04010 -1355 Union Street
yes
+no
4. Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive
yes
^
no
5. Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive
yes K no
6. Case: ANX2005-04014 -1555 Bonair Street
yes ~ no
\
7. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
yes -*no
2
.
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX200S-04011-1824 Diane Drive N/A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD200S-01012- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
-*:es
no
Signat~~
Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
.,
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
1.Cases: FLD2005-02021, TDR2005-03020 and PLT2005-00010 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard.
0es
no
2. Case: FLD2005:;03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
'-.-/ yes no
3. Case: FLD2005;Jl2017 - 18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
~ yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD2005-f)1004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue
~ yes no
l ~~\))
2. Case: FLD2005-04034; 400 Jones Street
~yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
'" / yes
no
4.Case: FLD2005-03027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
~yes no
..
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
1.Case: LUZ2005-03005 -1834 North Belcher Road
~ yes
no
2.Case: LUZ2005-04006 -1822 North Belcher Road
/
yes no
3. Case: ANX2005-04010 - 1355 Union Street
~ yes no
4. Case: ANX2005-04012 - 2748 Shaddock Drive
J
yes no
5. Case: ANX2005-04013 - 3000 Lake Vista Drive
Jyes
no
6. Case: ANX2005-04014 - 1555 Bonair Street
~ yes
no
7. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
~yes
no
2
..
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX2005-04011 - 1824 Diane Drive N/ A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-01012- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
~ no
Date:
DB, property investigation check list.doc
1. CO~~
3
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: July 19, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED Items: (1-3)
1.Cases: FLD27:021, TDR2005-03020 and PI. T2005-0001 0 - 325 Gulfview
Boulevard.
yes no
2. Case: FLD2~32 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade.
yes no
3. Case: FLD2~017 -18419 U.S. Highway 19 North
yes no
LEVEL TWO AAPLICATIONS II (Items 1- 4)
1. Case: FLD20~~4 - 1874 North Highland Avenue
yes no
2. Case: FLD2~34; 400 Jones Street
yes no
3. Case: FLD2~35 - 415 Island Way
ye no
4.Case: FLD2005- 027 - 625-627 Bay Esplanade
yes
no
.
'.
LEVEL THREE (Items 1-7)
I.Case: LUZ2005-03005 -1834 North Belcher Road
~es
no
2.Case: LUZ2005-~06 -1822 North Belcher Road
~ yes no
3. Case: ANX2005-0~355 Union Street
yes no
4. Case: ANX2005~7- 2748 Shaddock Drive
yes no
5. Case: ANX2005~:7 3000 Lake Vista Drive
yes no
7. Case: ANX2005 04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S.
-1555 Bonair Street
yes
no
yes
no
2
.
Withdrawn (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX2005-04011-1824 Diane Drive N/A
RECONSIDERATION (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2005-~12- 200 - 201 Skiff Point
V yes no
Signature:
S: \Planning e
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
Date:
1/ {l4S