08/16/2005
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 16,2005
\
Present: David Gildersleeve
Alex Plisko
Thomas Coates
- J. B. Johnson
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Daniel Dennehy
Kathy Milam
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Board Member
Absent: Dana K. Tallman
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: Julv 19. 2005
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 19, 2005,
as corrected: paragraph three on page 47 to reflect that Member Gildersleeve voted "Nay" for Item
# 11, Case FLD2005-01004 for 18874 North Highland Avenue. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
D . CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting (Items 1 - 10):
.
1. Case: FLD2005-05048 - 331 Cleveland Street Level Two Application
Owner: First Baptist Church d/b/a Calvary Baptist Church.
Applicant / Representative: John Franklin Wade, Opus South Corporation.
Location: 1.85 acres at the southwest corner of Cleveland Street and South Osceola Avenue.
Atlas Page: 286B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to allow a mixed-use development of 157 attached
dwelling units (which includes an increase in density of 31 dwelling units from the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive Pool) and 10,022
square-feet of non-residential use, with an increase to the permitted height from 30 feet to
271 feet (to roof deck) and an additional 22 feet for architectural embellishments and
mechanical equipment (from roof deck), to reduce the non-residential parking requirement
from 41 parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces, and to allow a building within the
required sight visibility triangle at the intersection of Cleveland Street and North Osceola
Community Development 2005-08-16
1
.
.
.
Avenue, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section
2-903.C., and to eliminate the required foundation landscaping along North Osceola
Avenue, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-
1202.G.
Proposed Use: Mixed-use (157 attached dwellings and 10,022 square-feet non-residential
floor area).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: diw@qte.net);
Pierce 100 Condo Association (Terry Sue, 100 Pierce Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-442-7512).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 1.87-acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Cleveland Street
and South Osceola Avenue. The subject property consists of a 177,277 square-foot, four-story
building that is currently occupied by Calvary Baptist Church. The Church is in the process of
constructing a new facility at the southwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and Drew Street to
which it will move upon completion. The development proposal includes the demolition of the
existing building as well as all other improvements on the subject property. It is noted that the
subject property slopes to the west and north with over 16 feet of grade change between the
southeast and northwest corners of the site.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal consists of a mixed-use building with 157 attached dwellings
and 10,022 square-feet of non-residential uses within a building 271 feet in height. The building
will be comprised of two distinct components: a four-story mixed-use component and a high-rise
residential only component.
Mixed-Use Component:
The mixed-use component of the building will be approximately 53 feet in height (to roof
deck) and will contain 10,022 square-feet of non-residential space on the ground floor and 19
dwelling units on the second, third, and fourth floors. These two uses wrap around the east and
south fayades of a five-story, 309 space parking garage. The entrance to the parking garage
will be centrally located along the south fayade of the building and accessed via a looped, two-
way drive aisle along the south perimeter of the property, which intersects with South Osceola
Avenue.
The majority of the mixed-use component of the building will be set back between two
and five feet from the front (east) property line adjacent to South Osceola Avenue; one foot from
the front (north) property line along Cleveland Street; and 38 feet from the side (south) property
line. Accordingly, the proposed building will encroach approximately five feet into the required
sight visibility triangle at the intersection of Cleveland Street and South Osceola Avenue.
However, the building will be situated approximately 26 feet from the edge of pavement of
Cleveland Street and 13 feet from the edge of pavement of South Osceola Avenue; thus
adequate sight distance will be provided for pedestrian and vehicular safety. In addition, the
encroachment into the sight visibility triangle is necessary to create and maintain the desired
build-to line along Cleveland Street and South Osceola Avenue. It is further noted that the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan ultimately calls for the abandonment of Cleveland
Street west of South Osceola Avenue, upon which the subject sight visibility triangle will cease
to exist.
Community Development 2005-08-16
2
. Hiqh-Rise I Residential Onlv Component:
The balance of the proposed building consists of a high-rise tower 271 feet in height (to
roof deck) with an additional 22 feet in height (as measured from roof deck) for architectural
embellishments and mechanical equipment. The tower will consist of 138 dwelling units on 25
floors. The main entrance to the tower is located beneath a portico along the south side of the
proposed building adjacent to the looped entrance drive. The tower has been designed with a
distinct base, middle and cap with the lower floors distinguished by heavier rustication and
denser reveal patterns than the upper portions of the building. The central portion of the tower
consists of a less dense reveal pattern and lighter colors graduating upwards. The upper floors
of the tower will be stepped back in order to distinguish the top of the building. The elevations
will also incorporate numerous windows and decorative balconies throughout. As discussed in
further detail in the Design Guidelines analysis, the tower will be set back approximately 210
feet from South Osceola Avenue and buffered by the 53-foot high mixed-use component, which
will act as the primary fac;ade of the development.
.
.
A solid waste staging and recycling area will be located on the ground floor of the tower
with access out to the looped two-way drive aisle abutting the south property line. In addition, a
trash compactor will be provided for the commercial uses within the mixed-use building. The
compactor will also be accessed via the aforementioned looped two-way drive aisle.
Off-Street Parkinq
Pursuant to Section 2-903, attached dwellings are required to provide off-street parking
at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, and retail sales and service is required to provide
parking at a rate of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. Accordingly, the
proposed 157 dwelling units (235.5 parking spaces) and 10,022 square-feet of non-residential
floor area (40.08 parking spaces) requires a total of 276 parking spaces. The development
proposal includes the provision of 310 parking spaces (309 parking spaces within the parking
garage and one additional surface parking space), which would be sufficient to meet the
requirements of code; however the applicant has also proposed that the parking garage will be
for the private use of the residents. Therefore, the development proposal has not provided any
of the required parking for the non-residential uses. The applicant has requested that the non-
residential parking requirement be reduced to zero, based upon the availability of public parking
within the adjacent City Hall surface parking lot as well as in the Garden Avenue parking
garage. The applicant has also provided data from the City's Parking Facilities Manager, which
states that only 30% - 35% of the City Hall surface parking lot (51 parking space capacity) is
utilized between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Based upon the above, it
would appear that sufficient public parking is available within close proximity to the development
proposal that will exceed the amount required to be provided for the proposed non-residential
uses.
In addition, the development proposal includes the provision of two on-site loading zones
for the use of the residential dwelling units and non-residential businesses. It is noted, however,
that the landscape plan does not depict the easternmost of these loading zones and will need to
be revised to be consistent with the site plan prior to the issuance of a development order.
Community Development 2005-08-16
3
.
.
.
Landscapinq
The development proposal includes the provision of landscaping around the perimeter of
the site consistent with the intent of the Code as well as the Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan included in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. These landscape
materials include: Medjool Date Palms surrounded by steel bar landscape fences, Montgomery
Palms (identified on the plan, but not listed in the plant material schedule), Lady Palms, Pygmy
Date Palms, Day Lily, and a relocated Live Oak tree that will be located at the southeast corner
of the building within a custom tree grate surrounded by a tile mosaic. The development
proposal also consists of details to match the Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan
including: a historic pillar, benches, solid waste containers, paving material/patterns. light
standards, etc. Based upon the above, compliance with the Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan has been achieved.
Comprehensive Landscape Proqram
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100% of a
building fayade with frontage along a street right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building
ingress/egress, within a five foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees or
three palms for every 40 linear feet of building fayade and one shrub for every 20 square-feet of
required landscaped area. The development proposal includes a request to eliminate the
required foundation landscaping along North Osceola Avenue as discussed above as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program. The justification provided by the applicant is that if they
were to provide the standard foundation plantings along South Osceola Avenue they would not
be able to provide an appropriate streetscape consistent with the Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan. The development proposal does include the provision of several landscape
materials along the streetscape that will provide an adequate buffer to the building and
accomplish the intent of the standard foundation plantings. There are no outstanding Code
Enforcement issues associated with this site.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
The site is located within the Downtown Core character district of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan recommends
that this area be developed/redeveloped with the highest density for residential and hotel uses
and the highest intensity for retail, commercial, and office uses of all the character districts
within the Downtown Plan. It is expected that the most intense development within the
Downtown Core will occur in the center of the District defined as from Osceola Avenue east to
Myrtle Avenue and from Drew Street south to Court Street. The Downtown Core shall be
redeveloped as a pedestrian-friendly place achieved through a diversity of land uses, urban
design and streetscape improvements. 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.
Public Amenities Incentive Pool
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 31 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the
Community Development 2005-08-16
4
.
request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of 126 residential units in
the Downtown Core and a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan (valued at roughly $250,000). Based upon the provision of these amenities,
which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 31
dwelling units from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported.
Desiqn Guidelines
.
As previously stated, the mixed-use component of the building will be approximately 53
feet in height (to roof deck), which is respectful to the historic building heights along Cleveland
Street. The elevations of this component of the building contain variations in the roof line
through the use of both pitched and flat roof elements, as well as variations in the building
fa9ade through the use of slight step backs, faux balconies, and awnings. The design of the
building is consistent with the intent and direction of the Design Guidelines contained within the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Non-residential ground floor uses and three floors
of dwelling units on the south and east fa9ades will camouflage the five-story parking garage.
The north fa9ade of the parking garage will be camouflaged through building design and hidden
from view by tiled murals and decorative grillwork. In addition to the above, there exists a
provision within the Design Guidelines stating that it is appropriate that buildings on corner lots
emphasize their prominent location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive
architectural treatments, and/or other distinguishing features. The proposed elevations do not
take advantage of this provision for that portion of the building situated at the corner of South
Osceola Avenue and Cleveland Street. However, the design of the project has consistently
taken into consideration the intent of the Plan that the portion of Cleveland Street abutting the
project (west of Osceola Avenue) be abandoned and assimilated into Coachman Park. Once
this segment of Cleveland Street is abandoned, the subject property will no longer be a corner
lot and therefore the above referenced provision would no longer be appropriate.
The increase in height above 30 feet is consistent with the criteria for a Flexible
Development proposal as well as consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan as height within the Downtown Core is
unlimited. The Design Guidelines contained in the Plan include the following techniques with
regard to appropriate high-rise buildings: 1) Building stories or step backs 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 step backs used to mitigate the height of the building.
The development proposal is consistent with the above techniques as the various levels
of the tower are differentiated by decorative stringcourses, variation in the color scheme, and a
step back of the upper levels from the central portion of the building. Also, the height of the
tower is mitigated as it is set back approximately 210 feet from South Osceola Avenue and
buffered by the 53-foot high mixed-use component. The mixed-use component will provide the
desired primary fa9ade for the development along South Osceola Avenue as required by the
Design Guidelines. Specifically, the fa9ade consists of projections and recesses, has storefront
display windows for retail uses, and the major architectural treatments are continued around the
sides of the building and will be visible from the public realm.
.
The surrounding area is characterized by several taller buildings ranging in height
between nine and eleven stories, and includes the Amsouth, Atrium (SunTrust) and Bank of
America buildings located at 400,601 and 600 Cleveland Street, respectively, and the MuniMae
building located at 33 North Garden Avenue. It is further noted that the CDB {Community
Community Development 2005-08-16
5
.
.
.
Development Board) has approved several other, but as yet un-built, projects within the
Downtown Plan area including the Beck Development at 628 Cleveland Street (158 feet), the
Island View / Harrison Village Development at 400 Jones Street (150 feet), and the Antigua Bay
Condominiums at 900 South Osceola Avenue (100 feet).
Visions. Goals. Obiectives and Policies
The development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan including:
Vision: 1) Downtown C/eafWater is a major center of activity, business and governments.
The development proposal will result in the provision of 157 additional dwelling units and 10,022
square-feet of non-residential floor area within the Downtown Core, thereby furthering this
Vision statement; 2) Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential,
office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to
attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The
development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban residential dwelling
units, a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan, as well
as buildings located along and oriented towards the abutting streets. As such, the development
proposal will further this Vision statement; 3) Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues should be
redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the
major retail core Downtown. The subject property abuts both South Osceola Avenue and
Cleveland Street, and through this development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail
uses along South Osceola Avenue and will install streetscaping consistent with the City's
Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. The development proposal also includes the
provision of 157 dwelling units, the residents of which will patronize these new retail uses as
well as others within the downtown. With regard to Cleveland Street, the development proposal
will provide some streetscape elements; however as the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan ultimately calls for the abandonment of Cleveland Street west of South Osceola Avenue,
the provision of substantial streetscape elements has not been provided. Based upon the
above, this Vision statement will be furthered by the development proposal; 4) Downtown's
unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization efforts and an orientation for
all of Downtown. Views of and access to the water must be preserved. The development
proposal takes advantage of its position overlooking Clearwater Harbor and will not prevent any
existing access to the water. Further, the bulk of the development will be contained within a
relatively small footprint (approximately 100 feet by 140 feet or 14,000 square-feet). Based
upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with this Vision statement; 5)
Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The development
proposal incorporates classical proportions of traditional architecture. The mixed-use
component, which represents the primary fac;ade of the development, consists of storefronts
designed at a human scale and residential dwellings with articulation to the fac;ade, visually
distinguishing each unit from one another with a similar rhythm of reveals as with the tower
component. The exposed north elevation of the parking garage has been designed with a
similar reveal pattern and cornice in keeping with the tower elements. The tower has been
designed with a distinct base, middle and cap in keeping with the Design Guidelines, and the
top floors have been stepped back to set the top apart from the balance of the building. The
roof design incorporates multiple flat roofs and other decorative features giving the cap a
sculpted appearance. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with
the Vision statement; 6) An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new
uses. The development proposal includes the provision of a 309-space parking garage for the
use of the residential component of the development. The proposal also includes a request to
Community Development 2005-08-16
6
.
.
.
reduce the non-residential parking requirement from 41 parking spaces to 0 parking spaces.
The applicant has included in their "Description of Request" the request that the parking for the
retail component be provided for in the adjacent City Hall surface parking lot and in the Garden
Avenue parking garage. Further analysis of this request has been provided under the
discussion of the Mixed-Use Component of this project; however the request can be supported
and thus compliance with this Vision statement has been achieved.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to
Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The development proposal
includes the provision of 10,022 square-feet of non-residential floor area as well as the provision
of an additional 157 dwelling units within the Downtown Core. Thus, the development proposal
is consistent with this Goal; 2) Obiective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the
goals, objectives and policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the
design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal will provide for
157 attached dwellings and 10,022 square-feet of non-residential floor area as part of an
attractive mixed-use development. As such, the development proposal is consistent with this
Objective; 3) Obiective 1 E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in
Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for
Downtown residents. The development proposal will provide 10,022 square-feet of new non-
residential floor area within the Downtown Core, thereby providing additional employment
opportunities identified by this Objective; 4) Obiective 1 H: The City shall use all existing
incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage
residential uses to locate Downtown. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides
for a Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which development proposals may acquire additional
dwelling units above their standard maximum density. This development proposal includes a
request to utilize 31 dwelling units from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool in order to achieve
the desired density for the site; thus increasing the viability and vibrancy of the project.
Accordingly, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective; 5) Obiective 2A: The
Downtown street grid should be maintained to provide multiple access points in and through
Downtown, to assist in dispersing traffic on various routes and contribute to improved traffic
operations. Vacation of streets shall be evaluated based on redevelopment potential provided
alternative access exists or can be provided. The existing street grid system will not be affected
by the development proposal and will take advantage of a relatively low traffic volume along
South Osceola Avenue by locating the access point to the project from South Osceola Avenue;
and 6) Obiective 21: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to
pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the
provision of streetscaping along South Osceola Avenue consistent with the City's Master
Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. With regard to Cleveland Street, the development proposal
will provide some streetscape elements; however as the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan ultimately calls for the abandonment of Cleveland Street west of South Osceola Avenue,
the provision of substantial streetscape elements has not been provided. Nonetheless, the
development proposal is consistent with this Objective.
Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors
that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and
history. The development proposal will effectively increase density within the Downtown Core
character district while providing for an attractive streetscape through non-residential use,
building architecture, paver brick sidewalks, and landscaping. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with this Goal; Obiective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged
to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that
Community Development 2005-08-16
7
.
.
.
respect Downtown's character and heritage. The mixed-use component of the development
proposal respects the historic building heights along Cleveland Street with its proposed three
residential floors above the non-residential ground floor and a building height of approximately
53 feet (to roof deck). Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this
Objective.
Policy 1: The design guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all projects must be
consistent. The development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it
incorporates a stucco finish over concrete with EFIS banding and cornices. The pitched roofs
will be standing seam metal, while the flat roofs will be accented with decorative parapets. The
building design incorporates both vertical and horizontal architectural elements to provide relief
throughout the elevations. Some of the architectural elements included in the building design
include: balconies with decorative railings, canvas awnings, and decorative stringcourses.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 2) Policy 2: The
character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process.
Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in
which it is located. The development proposal is consistent with the vision of the Downtown
Core character district as a mixed-use project that will support the Downtown employment base
with an additional 157 dwelling units as well as 10,022 square-feet of non-residential floor area
for limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. The tower located on the western portion
of the site is consistent with the intent of the character district vision, which provides for an
opportunity for higher-density residential uses. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with this Policy; 3) Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall
make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design.
The development proposal incorporates classical proportions of traditional architecture with the
mixed-use component of the development consisting of storefronts designed at a human scale.
Numerous other elements have been proposed that will further the pedestrian environment
adjacent to the site, such as: a historic pillar, benches, solid waste containers, paving
material/patters, light standards, etc. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with this Policy; 4) Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool
that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except .
as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a
provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints affecting
redevelopment, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor
area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an
opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the
public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development
proposal will utilize 31 dwelling units from the Pool. The amenities provided by this
development to justify the request include the provision of 126 residential units in the Downtown
Plan area and a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding
Plan. Based upon the above, compliance with this Policy has been achieved; 5) Policy 19:
Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities based on the
scale of the project. The development proposal will provide several amenities for the residents,
including: a swimming pool with spa, social rooms, fitness room, resident storage facilities,
billiards room, and a card room. Based upon the above, the development proposal has
provided sufficient amenities for the scale of the project.
The development proposal is also consistent with Downtown Core character district
Policies including: 1) Policy 2: Redevelopment on all property west of Osceola Avenue and
Community Development 2005-08-16
8
.
.
.
south of Cleveland Street should consider the natural Bluff features, the views of Clearwater
Harbor and be integrated with the Coachman Park Master Plan. The subject property is located
at the southwest corner of South Osceola Avenue and Cleveland Street. The redevelopment of
this parcel as a mixed-use development is specifically envisioned within the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Coachman Park Master Plan also designates the subject
property for redevelopment. The proposed high-rise tower will afford considerable views of
Clearwater Harbor and is consolidated within a 14,000 square foot footprint. Based upon the
above, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 2) Policy 8: Redevelopment and
new construction along Cleveland Street shall be compatible with and contribute to pedestrian
vitality, human scale and historic fabric. The mixed-use component of the development
proposal respects the historic building heights along Cleveland Street with its proposed three
residential floors above the non-residential ground floor and a building height of approximately
53 feet (to roof deck). It is noted that the development proposal does not include the provision
of non-residential floor area! storefronts along Cleveland Street as the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan envisions the abandonment of Cleveland Street west of South Osceola
Avenue; thus the provision of these storefronts would be inappropriate. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; and 3) Policy 9: Urban and architectural
design are equally important for the street side and waterside of buildings. The development
proposal incorporates classical proportions of traditional architecture. The mixed-use
component of the development along South Osceola Avenue is pedestrian oriented with regard
to building location, design and proposed uses. The storefronts and residential dwellings have
been designed at a human scale with articulation to the fa9ade, visually distinguishing each unit
from one another with a similar rhythm of reveals as with the tower component. The exposed
north elevation of the parking garage has been designed with a similar reveal pattern and
cornice in keeping with the tower elements. The tower has been designed with a distinct base,
middle and cap in keeping with the Design Guidelines and the top floors have been stepped
back to set the top apart from the balance of the building. Additionally, a highly finished!
articulated west elevation will face the water. The roof design incorporates multiple flat roofs
and other decorative features giving the cap a sculpted appearance. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with the Policy.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting
materials on June 30, 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. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character of the area
and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown. Further, the development
proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, General Applicability Standards, as well as the
Downtown Design Guidelines.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval
to allow a mixed-use development of 157 attached dwelling units (which includes an increase in
density of 31 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public
Amenities Incentive Pool) and 10,022 square-feet of non-residential use, with an increase to the
permitted height from 30 feet to 271 feet (to roof deck) and an additional 22 feet for architectural
embellishments and mechanical equipment (from roof deck), to reduce the non-residential
parking requirement from 41 parking spaces to 0 parking spaces, and to allow a building within
the required sight visibility triangle at the intersection of Cleveland Street and North Osceola
Avenue, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
903.C., and to eliminate the required foundation landscaping along North Osceola Avenue, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G. with the
Community Development 2005-08-16
9
.
following recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and conditions of
approval.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject property totals 81,065 square-feet (1.86 acres) and is
approximately 230 feet wide; 2) The subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District
and the Central Business District (CBD) future land use plan classification; 3) The development
proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and
the Design Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the Downtown Core character
district; 4) The relief from the maximum height limit sought by the development proposal is
permissible by and consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;5) The relief
from the non-residential parking requirement sought by the development proposal and the
establishment of the mixed-use project within the Downtown (D) District is permissible as a
Comprehensive Infill Development Project under the Code provisions of Section 2-903.C.; 6)
The relief from the landscape requirements sought by the development proposal is permissible
under the Code provisions of Section 3-1202.G. as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and
7) The proposed use of 31 dwelling units from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent
with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The development proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-903.C; 2)
The development proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development proposal is in compliance
with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan and the Downtown Core character district; 4) The development proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) The development
proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the non-residential uses proposed to be located on the
site are consistent with the permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the landscape plan is revised to depict
the easternmost loading zone prior to the issuance of a development order; 3) That the
landscape plan is revised so that the materials depicted in the plan are consistent with those
materials listed in the plant material schedule prior to the issuance of any permits; 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 a Transportation Impact Fee be
paid, prior to the issuance of a 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(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 all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance
of any permits; 8) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any
permits; 9) 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) All
signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and
size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with
the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 10) That a right-of-way permit be
Community Development 2005-08-16
10
.
.
.
secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 11) That the first building permit
be applied for within one year (by August 16, 2006) of COB approval; 12) That the final
Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit;
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; and
14) That all streetscaping along South Osceola Avenue be installed to the satisfaction of staff
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
See motion of approval on page 36.
2. Case: FLD2005-05037 - 1105 Druid Road Level Two Application
Owner: Clearwater Land Ltd.
Applicant: Druid Courtyard Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: Nicholas Ferraioli (1112 South Missouri Avenue, Suite 106, Clearwater, FL
33756; phone: 727-447-4481; fax: 727-446-9205; e-mail: ferraioIi1@aol.com).
Location: 1.613 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Martin Luther
King Jr. Avenue and Druid Road.
Atlas Page: 296A.
Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 47 attached dwellings with reductions to
the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to entry feature columns) and from 25 feet
to 18.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to four feet (to
entry feature columns) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement and pool deck), a reduction
to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to entry feature column), a reduction to
the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 1.9 feet (to entry feature column) and an increase to
building height from 30 feet to 55 feet (to roof deck) with an additional six feet for perimeter
parapets (from roof deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
504.F.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (47 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120
Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; e-mail: duketieman@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL
33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 1.613 acre site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Martin Luther
King Jr. Avenue and Druid Road. The site has 265.16 feet of frontage on both Druid Road and
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and is currently vacant.
The property to the north across Druid Road is developed with a 12-story residential
building. The property to the south and east is developed with an attached dwelling complex of
two-story buildings. The property further to the southeast has been redeveloped as the
Renaissance Square attached dwelling complex (formerly the Sunshine Mall) with buildings up
to four and five stories in height.
The proposal is to develop the site with 47 attached dwellings in a five-story building. The
building is designed around an internal atrium with the north and south portions of the building
mirror images of themselves. The units in the building are a stepped design, with the center units
farthest apart and the end units closer to each other. Units range between 1,300 to 1,425 square-
feet of living area each. There are 10 dwelling units per floor, except the ground floor, which will
Community Development 2005-08-16
11
.
.
.
have seven dwelling units. The ground floor has a mechanical room, as well as the office. The
ground floor also contains a deck (northwest corner of the building) overlooking the retention pond
and a pool (southwest corner of the building).
The request is being processed as a Residential I nfi II Project due to the height increase
and setback reductions being requested to the pavement and the entry feature columns. The
proposal includes reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to entry feature
columns) and from 25 feet to 18.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (west) setback from
25 feet to four feet (to entry feature columns) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement and pool
deck), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to entry feature column) and
a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 1.9 feet (to entry feature column).
The proposed building exceeds the required front setback of 25 feet, being located 32.2
feet from the Druid Road front property line and 45.36 feet from the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue
front property line. The proposed parking lot meets the side setback requirement of 10 feet along
the east and south property lines. The proposal includes a front setback reduction along Druid
Road to 18.5 feet to the pavement of the parking area along the east side of the property, and a
front setback reduction along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to 15 feet to the pavement of the
parking area along the south side of the property. These setbacks to pavement are common for
new developments (whether residential or nonresidential). The other setback reductions are for
entry feature columns, one on each side of the driveways on Druid Road and Martin Luther King
Jr. Avenue. These entry columns are proposed 10 feet from the Druid Road right-of-way (two feet
from the east property line) and four feet from the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue right-of-way (1.9
feet from the south property line). These entry feature columns are designed approximately five
feet square and 10 feet tall, each with a light on top of the column. These columns are solely
decorative features, will contain the site address and are located outside of the sight visibility
triangles. They are not intended for site signage. The pool deck is proposed to be located within
the front setback from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue; however, the pool itself will meet the
required front setback. The pool will be fenced in accordance with Code requirements. While the
proposed pavement and pool deck do not fully meet the Code front setback requirements, the
proposal complies with landscape buffering requirements along these roadways, providing
adequate areas for site landscaping. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks are
justified by the benefits of the building exceeding required setbacks allowing for significant
landscaped areas along the roadways, enhancing the surrounding area. The development of this
parcel may be viewed as otherwise impractical without the requested deviations from the required
setbacks, wherein all setback reductions are to non-building structures. Additionally, the stepped
design of this project creates an interesting building form and function which will enhance the
character of the surrounding area, and which breaks up the scale and massing of the building.
The proposal meets the required 15-foot wide landscape buffer along both Druid Road
and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue (to pavement). Additionally, the site meets the required 1 a-foot
landscape buffer along the east and south property lines (to pavement). With the retention area
located along the north and west sides of the building, the proposal complies with the required
amount of level areas for landscaping within the buffers. The four-foot high fence, depicted on the
site plan along the east and south property lines to screen off-street parking from the adjacent
parcels, will need to be solid/opaque.
The site design provides one driveway on the east side along Druid Road and one
driveway on the south side along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. The applicant is providing the
minimum required parking of 71 spaces for the 47 attached dwellings (1.5 spaces per dwelling
unit). Parking will be open and uncovered.
Community Development 2005-08-16
12
.
.
.
The proposal includes an increase to building height from 30 feet to 55 feet (to roof deck),
with an additional six feet for perimeter parapets, providing for five floors of residential units. The
parapets are of varying heights above the roof deck to provide visual interest to the roofline of the
building. As a Flexible Development use, the Code provides a building height range from 30 to
130 feet for attached dwellings. The property to the north across Druid Road is developed with a
12-story residential building. The property to the south and east is developed with an attached
dwelling complex of two-story buildings. The property farther to the southeast has been
redeveloped as the Renaissance Square attached dwelling complex (formerly the Sunshine Mall)
with buildings up to four and five stories in height. While the proposed height is greater than that
of the existing adjacent residential buildings to the east and south, the proposed height is less
than the maximum height allowable and can be viewed as transitioning the height between the
building to the north and the buildings to the south and east. The proposed building height will be
in harmony with the scale, bulk, density and character of adjacent properties. Flexibility in regard
to building height is justified by the benefits of a well-designed building that is stepped in design
around the center atrium that is compatible with the surrounding character. The increase for the
parapets may be viewed as making them proportional in respect to the height of the building and
to aid in the screening of the rooftop air conditioning units.
The existing sidewalks along Druid Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue will be
retained. Retaining the sidewalk in its present location and width along Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue will aid in the preservation of the existing trees within the right-of-way.
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. Future signage will need to
meet the requirements of the Code and any freestanding sign must be a monument-style sign a
maximum six feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the buildings.
Staff's support for this proposal is based on the reasons enumerated above. The proposal is
compatible with the surrounding properties. All applicable Code requirements and criteria
including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residentiallnfill
Project criteria (Section 2-504.F) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues
associated with this site.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 1.613 acres is zoned High Density Residential District
and has 265.16 feet of lot width on both Druid Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue; 2) The
site is currently vacant; 3) Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30
dwelling units per acre, the subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 48 dwelling
units, which is one more than the proposal of 47 dwelling units; 4) The property to the north
across Druid Road is developed with an attached dwelling building 12 stories in height; 5) The
property to the south and east is developed with an attached dwelling complex with buildings
two stories in height; 6) The building proposed is designed to be 55 feet in height, with parapets
a maximum of six feet above the roof deck, providing for five floors of residential units. The
property farther to the southeast has been redeveloped as the Renaissance Square attached
dwelling complex (formerly the Sunshine Mall) with buildings up to four and five stories in height;
7) The proposed height is less than the maximum height allowable and can be viewed as
transitioning the height between the building to the north and the buildings to the south and
east; 8) All buildings meet required setbacks. Setback reductions requested are to non-
buildings (pavement, entry feature columns and pool deck); 9) Required landscape buffers are
provided around the perimeter of the property; 10) Parking provided meets the minimum
requirements of the Code; and 11) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Community Development 2005-08-16
13
.
.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-504.F; 2) Staff further
concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-
913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed
conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit
47 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to
entry feature columns) and from 25 feet to 18.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to four feet (to entry feature columns) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to
pavement and pool deck), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to
entry feature column), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 1.9 feet (to entry
feature column) and an increase to building height from 30 feet to 55 feet (to roof deck) with an
additional six feet for perimeter parapets, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-504.F for the site at 1105 Druid Road, with the following bases and conditions: Bases
for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential
Infill Project per Section 2-504.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the
Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the
conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That the site and landscape
plans be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to show a four-foot high opaque fence or
wall along the north and south property lines to screen off-street parking from the adjacent
parcels, reduced to a maximum height of three feet within the front setback area; 3) That future
signage meet the requirements of the Code and any freestanding sign be a monument-style
sign a maximum six feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the
building; 4) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed
underground; 5) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy; 6) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of
any permits; and 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits.
See motion of approval on page 36.
3. Case: FLD2005-05038 - 1520 North Saturn Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: Religious Community Services, Inc.
Applicant: The Haven of RCS.
Representative: Jay F. Myers, AlA, PA (9170 Oakhurst Road, Seminole, FL 33776; phone:
727 -595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; e-mail: mversacrch@ix.netcom.com).
Location: 0.66 acre located at the southwest corner of North Saturn Avenue and Flagler
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261 B.
Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a white PVC fence six feet in height
within the front (east) setback along North Saturn Avenue without substantial grill work and
masonry columns and without a three foot wide landscape strip on the street side of the
fence as otherwise required by Sections 3-804.A.1 and 3 on a property within the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) district, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions
of Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: Community Residential Homes.
Community Development 2005-08-16
14
.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 0.657 acre, located at the southwest corner of North Saturn Avenue and Flagler
Drive. The site consists of a two-story building containing eleven dwelling units as well as four
small sheds, a play area, and an associated parking lot with access on North Saturn Avenue.
The site is operated by Religious Community Services, Inc., and operates as a community
residential home providing temporary shelter for battered women and their children.
The development proposal consists of the installation of a six foot high, white PVC fence
within the front (east) setback along North Saturn Avenue. No other changes are proposed for
the site or building. Pursuant to Article 3, Section 3-804.A., walls and fences located in front of
a permitted structure (Le. within the front setback) shall not exceed 36 inches in height.
However, within the MDR District brick or other masonry walls or walls with masonry columns
linked by substantial grillwork shall be permitted to a maximum height of six feet in a required
front setback [ref.: Section 3-804.A.1]. Further, any fence or wall that exceeds three feet in
height as is located within any required structural setback adjacent to a public right-of-way shall
provide a three-foot wide landscape strip on the street side of the fence [ref.: Section 3-804.A.3].
.
The proposed fence is being reviewed as part of Residentiallnfill Redevelopment
Project because as proposed, it does not meet the above criteria. The fence will provide added
security for the residents of the site, generally women (and their children) who have suffered
physical and/or mental abuse by preventing visual and/or physical harassment/contact with/by
those who may have abused those individuals living there. As such, the provision of substantial
grillwork within a fence or wall could potentially allow for the residents to be "contacted" by those
whom they are being sheltered from. Thus, the provision of grillwork would be
counterproductive to the intent of the use. However, with regard to the provision of the three
foot wide landscape strip abutting the fence; based upon the survey provided by the applicant, a
landscape strip approximately five feet in width currently exists between the edge of pavement
for the parking lot drive aisle and the property line. As such, the provision of a three-foot wide
landscape strip on the street side of the fence can and should be provided.
The development proposal is in keeping with the character of the area. The site
effectively operates as attached. dwellings similar in size and scale as other attached dwellings
in the area. A social/community center (the Polish Center) is located to the east across North
Saturn Avenue. Several other fences of similar height (wood and chain link) exist along North
Saturn Avenue and elsewhere in the immediate neighborhood. The Haven of RCS provides a
vital humanitarian service needed by the community, and the provision of the six-foot high white
PVC fence will serve to enhance the functionality of that use by offering better protection of its
residents. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
development is consistent with and will further the City's goals of improving the character of the
area. Further, the proposal will be in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible
Development approval for a Residentiallnfill Project use and with all applicable standards of the
Community Development Code once the attached conditions of approval are met.
.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit a white PVC fence six feet in height within the front (east) setback along
North Saturn Avenue without substantial grillwork and masonry columns as otherwise required
Community Development 2005-08-16
15
.
.
.
by Section 3-804.A.1 on a property within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District, as
part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G, based upon the
recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as follows:
Findinqs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 28,634 square-feet (0.657 acre), approximately
281 feet wide; 2) The site is within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the
Residential Medium (RM) future land use plan classification; 3) Applicant seeks relief from
maximum wall/fence height limitation under Code provisions of Section 3-804.A. through the
use of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G; 4) No other changes
are proposed for the site or building; and 5) The proposed fence is similar to other fences in the
neighborhood and will improve the security and safety of the residents of the site.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the General Purposes of
the Code per Sections 1-103.A, B.2, E.9 and E.12; 2) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the
Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-304.G; 3) Staff further finds the proposal compliant
with the General Applicability Standards per Section 3-913; and 4) Staff recommends Board
approval of FLD2005-05038 based on the above recommended findings of fact and conditions
proposed.
Condition of Approval: That prior to the issuance of a building permit, revised plans are
submitted which provide for the required three foot wide landscape strip along the street side of
the fence adjacent to North Saturn Avenue as well as Flagler Drive.
See motion of approval on page 36.
4. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-05051 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard
Owners/Applicant: DiVello Land Trust, Fulvio DiVello Trustee.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-mail:
nestech@mindsprinQ.com).
Location: 1.79 acres at the northeast corner of Harnden Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (111 overnight
accommodation units existing to be converted to 83 dwelling units, where 53 dwelling units
are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development
approval to permit 83 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (south along S.
Gulfview Blvd.) setback from 15 feet to1 0 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet
(to trash staging area), reductions to the front (west along Harnden Drive) from 15 feet to
12.5 feet (to building and proposed pavement), from 15 feet to five feet (to existing
pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side
(north) from 10 feet to three feet (to existing pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to
existing pool deck), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) with
an additional seven feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 22.5 feet
for elevator and stair towers (from roof deck) and a deviation to allow direct access to an
arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (83 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com); 440 West, Inc.
Community Development 2005-08-16
16
.
.
.
Condominium (Fred White, 440 South Gulfview Boulevard, #203, Clearwater, FL 33767;
phone: 727-461-2885; fax: 727-442-6628; email: et440@juno.com); Continental Towers
(675 South Gulfview Boulevard, #1002, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-449-9189;
email: fandinassif@webtv.net); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
This 1.789 acres is located at the northeast corner of Hamden Drive and South Gulfview
Boulevard. This site was originally developed as two separate overnight accommodation uses,
but combined a number of years ago. The property is presently developed with two buildings
(Building A - southern building; Building B - northern building). The southern building was
constructed in 1974 and the northern building was constructed in 1988. The southern building
(Building A) has a real estate office on the west side of the ground floor. The first floor of the
northern building (Building B) has been developed with the business office for the motel and
restaurant/banquet facilities. The property has an occupational license for 116 hotel units.
Under current density provisions, the site could only be developed with a maximum of 72 hotel
units/rooms or 53 dwelling units. The site is developed with 123 parking spaces, in either open,
paved parking areas or on the ground floor under the northern building (Building B).
On August 17, 2004, the CDB approved the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
density to allow the relocation of five hotel units/rooms from the southern to the northern
building and the elimination of the accessory office and restaurant in the northern building (Case
FLD2004-04023). The following conditions of approval were adopted by the CDB: 1) That a
maximum of 111 total units/rooms be provided at this hotel/motel (including the owner/manager
unit); 2) That the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of
Hotels and Restaurants license and the City's occupational license be amended to reflect the
change in number of units/rooms, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
units in the northern building (Building B). Guest stays for both buildings shall not exceed 30
days (except the owner/manager unit). Units/rooms shall not qualify for homestead exemption
or home or business occupational licenses; 3) That no more than one unit be leased for a non-
hotel/motel business use on the west side of the southern building (Building A) and its use be
limited to office-type uses; 4) That the final design and color of the modifications to both the
southern and northern buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as
modified by, the CDB; 5) That hedges and other landscaping (not including trees) on the
northern portion of the site be maintained to a maximum height of three feet to provide
continued views of the water by adjacent property owners and tenants/guests. Landscape
materials along the north and east sides of the property shall be of a type that minimizes insect
and maintenance debris impacts on the neighbor to the north. Landscape plans shall show
compliance with these requirements prior to the issuance of building permits for the relocated
units/rooms in the northern building (Building B); 6) That, prior to the issuance of permits for the
northern building units, the Planning Department approve the Comprehensive Sign Program
(SGN2004-07010). Installation and final inspection of signage under the Comprehensive Sign
Program shall occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated units in
the northern building (Building B); and 7) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records
prior to the issuance of any permits.
The applicant is requesting to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density, for
the purpose of converting these 111 overnight accommodation units/rooms to 83 dwelling units.
The existing northern building will be converted through the combination of rooms to 31 dwelling
units on five living floors. This existing northern building was damaged during the hurricanes
Community Development 2005-08-16
17
.
.
.
last year, including interior wall damage due to water intrusion and removal of the roof decking
and materials. The existing southern building will be demolished and replaced by a residential
building of nine living floors over ground level parking. The existing southern building received
some hurricane damage, but not to the extent of the northern building.
Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required
improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the
Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing
improvements from the southern portion of the site and is providing parking that meets Code
provisions; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns. outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures.
The applicant is removing the southern building and all other improvements on the southern
portion of the site, except the pool and pool deck. Nonconforming signage will need to be
removed as part of any approval; and 4) Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and
Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program
is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape
Program is not necessary with this proposal.
The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due
primarily to a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street. The height increase and
setback reductions otherwise could have been a Flexible Development request for "attached
dwellings." The criteria for attached dwellings prohibit direct access to an arterial street. South
Gulfview Boulevard is an arterial street and the proposal provides driveway access to it, much
as the existing overnight accommodation use presently also has a driveway to access this site.
The proposal includes reductions to the front (south along South Gulfview Blvd.) setback
from 15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area),
reductions to the front (west along Hamden Drive) from 15 feet to 12.5 feet (to building and
proposed pavement), from 15 feet to five feet (to existing pavement) and from 15 feet to zero
feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the side (north) from 10 feet to three feet (to
existing pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pool deck). With the redesign of
the southern portion of the site, the applicant is significantly increasing the amount of
landscaping along South Gulfview Boulevard and Hamden Drive. The actual new building
meets or exceeds the required front setback from both South Gulfview Boulevard and Hamden
Drive. New parking spaces within this southern area are partially located under the building,
with only the front of the spaces projecting from the building fa9Cide, at a front setback of 18.3
feet to South Gulfview Boulevard and a front setback of 12.5 feet to Hamden Drive. The
applicant is proposing to cover the front of these spaces with an awning. The applicant is
proposing to locate the corner of new open parking at a front setback from South Gulfview
Boulevard at 10 feet, where 15 feet is required. Due to the angle of the property line and the
parking lot design, approximately half of this parking space meets the required setback. New
trash staging areas are located adjacent to the South Gulfview Boulevard and Hamden Drive
rights-of-way at a zero-foot setback. Trash collection rooms are being provided on the ground
floor within both the northern and southern buildings. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging
area on collection days. The location of the trash staging areas within the front setback is
necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site. Setback reductions
otherwise are to existing parking areas on the northern portion of the site and to the existing
pool deck. These "non-building structures" are being maintained in their present locations.
The existing northern building will have six dwelling units per floor for Levels 3 - 6, with
units ranging from 614 to 1,436 square-feet of living area, and seven dwelling units on Level 2,
with units ranging from 786 to 2,255 square-feet of living area. The units proposed on Level 2
Community Development 2005-08-16
18
.
.
.
will be constructed essentially in the same layout as approved under FLD2004-04023 last year,
with the addition of balconies to the east side of the building. The prior metal roofing material
has been replaced with blue-black shingles. The existing exterior siding will be replaced with a
stucco finish to match the proposed southern building. Otherwise, this northern building will be
unchanged from that which exists today.
As stated earlier, the existing southern building will be demolished and replaced by a
new residential building of nine living floors over ground level parking. Units in the building are
oriented on a diagonal to the site toward the intersection of Hamden Drive and South Gulfview
Boulevard, with the main entrance to this building at the intersection, allowing maximum views
of the water at the rear of the units. There are seven units per floor planned for Levels 2 - 5,
five units per floor for Levels 6 - 9 and four units on Level 1 0 (penthouse level). Units will range
between 1,561 square-feet and 2,143 square-feet. The building is stepped horizontally at Level
6, allowing the end units on Level 6 to have a deck area above the end units on Level 5. The
building will have unit access along exterior walkways facing the street intersection or along
Hamden Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard. The building will be of Mediterranean
architecture, incorporating "tropical vernacular" themes, with barrel tile roofing over the entry
feature and elevator and stair towers. There is a second level recreation deck with a gazebo
planned connecting between the new southern building and the existing northern building. The
existing pool and deck adjacent to the existing docks is being retained and incorporated into the
site design.
The proposal includes an increase to building height for the new, southern building from
35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) with an additional seven feet for perimeter parapets (from roof
deck) and an additional 22.5 feet for elevator and stair towers (from roof deck). There are no
changes to the height of 62 feet for the existing northern building. The proposed height of the
new, southern building is compatible and consistent with existing, under construction or
approved projects surrounding this site. The building directly to the east (Harborview Grande,
514 South Gulfview Boulevard), which is currently still under construction, was approved at 93
feet in height (midpoint of all roofs). The property to the south (Entrada, 521 South Gulfview
Boulevard), which was approved by the COB on January 18, 2005, (but not yet constructed)
was approved at a height of 128 feet (to highest roof deck) with an additional 16 feet for the
pinnacle facade focal point (from highest roof deck). The existing residential buildings in the
440 West complex to the southwest across South Gulfview Boulevard are 157 feet in height.
The proposal includes an additional 22.5 feet for elevator and stair towers [measured from the
roof deck at 100 feet above BFE (Base Flood Elevation)]. Code restricts these building
elements to 16 feet as of right. While staff has advertised this additional height, these building
elements are excessive. There has been no justification submitted that requires these building
elements at the proposed height. Based on other projects, the maximum height of the elevator
and stair towers should be restricted to 16 feet above the roof deck.
The site presently has 123 parking spaces. Based on the proposed change in use to 83
attached dwellings, 125 parking spaces are required. The applicant is providing 132 parking
spaces. With the prior application, the applicant provided parking for the marina that was part of
the property. The use of these slips is being changed with this application to accessory docks
for sole use of the residents and their guests, which eliminates any additional parking
requirement. Parking on the northern portion of the site will be unchanged from as it exists.
The proposal includes the closing of the northernmost driveway on Hamden Drive,
relocating driveway access to the existing northern building to align with the centerline of
Coronado Drive. An existing driveway on Hamden Drive for the existing southern building will
Community Development 2005-08-16
19
.
be closed with this proposal, as well as the westernmost driveway on South Gulfview Boulevard
close to the intersection with Hamden Drive. The driveway access on South Gulfview
Boulevard near the eastern property line is essentially in the same location as it exists today.
The applicant is required to bring the site into full compliance with the requirements of
the Landscape Code. The proposal includes augmenting the existing landscaped areas on the
northern portion of the site where necessary to have continuous hedging where deficient.
Complementary landscaping will be installed where the northernmost driveway on Hamden
Drive is being removed. All landscaped area must be protected from vehicular traffic by curbing
and wheel stops, including the existing northern parking area. Revised site and landscape
plans will be required, showing compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of any
permits. Part of the site design for the southern portion of the site is to provide a landscaped
berm along South Gulfview Boulevard and Hamden Drive between the parking and building and
the right-of-way line. A four-foot high retaining wall adjacent to the parking spaces will facilitate
this berming. Significant landscape material will be installed along the street frontages of South
Gulfview Boulevard and Hamden Drive on this southern portion of the site, which will have a
considerable impact on the visual aesthetics at this intersection from the existing conditions.
Foundation and interior landscaping requirements will be met with this proposal. The landscape
plan must be revised prior to the issuance of any permits indicating the landscaping of the area
at the intersection between the rights-of-way lines and the main sidewalk from the new southern
building.
.
While the northern portion of the site has existing landscaping along the perimeter and
interior of the site, neighbors to the north and west have previously submitted letters outlining
their concerns regarding the landscaping of this northern area. Their concerns dealt with the
continued ability to view the water east of the subject property unobstructed by tall landscaping.
Maintenance of the landscaping to a maximum height of three feet would continue to provide
these views of the water, which is also sufficient to provide any necessary screening of views of
the parking lot from the Hamden Drive right-of-way and from the motel to the north. Due to the
proximity of a pool/spa on the motel property to the north, care should also be taken in the type
of landscaping along the north and east (water) sides of the subject property to maintain water
views, minimize negative impacts due to insects on the landscape material, and to minimize
debris due to maintenance of this landscape material. A condition of approval previously
included under the prior approval should also be included in any approval of this request.
Due to the change in use for this property, and the demolition of the existing southern
building and the construction of a new southern building, all signage will be required to be
brought into compliance with Code requirements for residential developments. The
Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties.
Therefore, the previous Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2004-07010) will no longer be
applicable. The maximum height in the Tourist District of a freestanding sign is four feet. Prior
to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in the northern building, existing signage will
be required to be brought into compliance with current Code requirements.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-803.C) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated
with this site.
.
Community Development 2005-08-16
20
.
.
.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 1.789 acres is zoned Tourist District and has 515 feet of
lot width along Hamden Drive and 195 feet of lot width along South Gulfview Boulevard; 2) The
current use of the site is for 111 overnight accommodation units/rooms, which is nonconforming
to current density limitations; 3) Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30
dwelling units per acre, the subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 53 dwelling
units; 4) The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity to allow the
conversion of the 111 overnight accommodation units/rooms to 83 dwelling units on the
property; 5) The existing northern building will be retained in its existing location and
configuration, converting this building to'31 dwelling units, with changes to the exterior finish
material from the existing siding to be replaced with a stucco finish to match the proposed
southern building; 6) The applicant proposes to demolish the existing southern building and
construct a new building with 52 dwelling units in a 10-level residential building 100 feet in
height, which is consistent and compatible with the developed, developing or approved
character of surrounding properties; 7) All buildings meet required setbacks. Setback
reductions requested are to non-building elements (pavement, trash staging areas and existing
pool deck). Even with reductions requested, the landscape area is significantly increased over
existing conditions on the southern portion of the site; 8) Parking provided meets and exceeds
the minimum requirements of the Code; 9) The proposal reduces the number of driveways on
Hamden Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard and represents an improvement over the existing
conditions; 10) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, will enhance the
character of the immediate vicinity and will improve the appearance of this site and the
surrounding area; and 11) There are no active code enforcement cases for this property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria to Terminate the Status of Nonconformity for density per Section 6-109.C;
2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 3) Staff further concludes
that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and
the other standards of the Code; and 4) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions,
Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the application for (1) Termination of Status of
Nonconformity for density (111 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 83
dwelling units, where 53 dwelling units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6-
109; (2) Flexible Development application to permit 83 attached dwellings with reductions to the
front (south along S. Gulfview Blvd.) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 15
feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the front (west along Hamden Drive) from
15 feet to 12.5 feet (to building and proposed pavement), from 15 feet to five feet (to existing
pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (north)
from 10 feet to three feet (to existing pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pool
deck), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) with an additional
seven feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 22.5 feet for elevator and
stair towers (from roof deck) and a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C for the
site at 445 Hamden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard, with the following bases and
conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria
to Terminate the Status of Nonconformity for density per Section 6-109.C. 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; and 4) The development is
Community Development 2005-08-16
21
.
.
.
consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the
final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to,
or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the
issuance of any permits; 3) That boats moored at the existing dock, lifts 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; 4) That hedges and other landscaping (not
including trees) on the northern portion of the site be maintained to a maximum height of three
feet to provide continued views of the water by adjacent property owners and tenants/guests.
Landscape materials along the north and east sides of the property shall be of a type that
minimizes insect and maintenance debris impacts on the neighbor to the north. Landscape
plans shall show compliance with these requirements prior to the issuance of building permits.
for the relocated units/rooms in the northern building (Building B); 5) That revised site and
landscape plans be submitted showing all landscaped areas protected from vehicular traffic by
curbing and wheel stops, including the existing northern parking area, prior to the issuance of
any permits; 6) That the landscape plan be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to
indicate landscaping of that area at the intersection between the rights-of-way lines and the
main sidewalk from the new southern building; 7) That future signage meet the requirements of
the Code and any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height,
designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building. Prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy in the northern building, existing signage must be brought into
compliance with current Code requirements; 8) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39
of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 9) That all proposed utilities (from the
right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground; 10) That a condominium plat be
recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 11) That all Parks and
Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 12) That all Fire Department
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits.
See motion of approval on page 36.
5. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
Owners/Applicant: TW/Beach Residences - Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
(P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-441-8617; e-mail:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 2.45 acres located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately
500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts.
Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight
accommodation units existing to be converted to 112 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units
are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development
approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units, 78 overnight accommodation
rooms/units and 2,910 square-feet of retail sales with reductions to the front (east) setback
from 15 feet to six feet (to patios/seating areas) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash
staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet from the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) (to building) and from 10 feet to four feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to trash staging
area), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet from the CCCL (to
building), increases to building height from 35 feet 100 feet for the overnight accommodation
building tower and from 35 feet to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck) with an
Community Development 2005-08-16
22
.
additional six feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 24 feet for
architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet
to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (3) Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR2005-05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus
Avenue, two dwelling units from 625-627 Bay Esplanade, two dwelling units from 665 Bay
Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of
Section 4-1402.
Proposed Use: Mixed use of 112 attached dwellings (condominiums), 78 overnight
accommodation rooms/units and 2,910 square-feet of retail sales.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphv@aol.com); 440 West, Inc.
Condominium (Fred White, 440 South Gulfview Boulevard, #203, Clearwater, FL 33767;
phone: 727-461-2885; fax: 727-442-6628; email: et440@juno.com); Continental Towers
(675 South Gulfview Boulevard, #1002, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-449-9189;
email: fandinassif@webtv.net); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
.
The 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acre zoned Open
Space/Recreation District) site is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard,
approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater beach. The
site has approximately 235 feet of frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard (east) and 296 feet of
frontage on the Gulf of Mexico (west). This parcel is currently developed with a 217 -room/unit
overnight accommodation use (Adam's Mark Clearwater Beach Resort) in a building 155 feet in
height. The hotel is currently closed due to damage sustained during Hurricane Jeanne in
September 2004. Attached dwellings (condominiums) exist adjacently to the southeast. This
area is a tourist-dominated area due to the site's proximity to the public beach.
.
On April 19, 2005, the COB approved a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
density to allow the continuation of an existing 217-room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms/units are
permitted today) and for height to allow the existing 155-foot high building (where a maximum
height of 150 feet is permitted today) and Flexible Development approval for the overnight
accommodation use (Case Nos. FLD2005-01 005/SGN2005-01 016), with 10 conditions: 1) That
any voluntary demolition of this existing building shall not vest the existing height of 155 feet.
Any future reconstruction requires compliance with current Code height. requirements; 2) That
the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted
to, or as modified by, the COB; 3) That the sidewalk within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-
of-way be designed and constructed for the site frontage in accordance with BeachWalk design
specifications. The developer and City may agree on an alternate construction schedule or the
provision of payment in lieu of construction; 4) That all City approvals and easements necessary
for the sidewalk connection for handicap accessibility to the sidewalk on City property to the
north be obtained prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion; 5) That prior to the
issuance of any permits, site and building plans be revised to show the removal of, and the
striping out of, the two southern parking spaces on the west side of the porte cochere as a "no
parking" area, acceptable to the Engineering Department; 6) That fencing within the visibility
triangles and waterfront visibility triangles be brought into compliance with Code provisions prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Fence height increases above that otherwise
permitted and alternate fence materials shall only be allowed: a) in the waterfront visibility
triangle if a letter of "no objection" is submitted from the adjacent condominium association
Community Development 2005-08-16
23
.
board and b) in the visibility triangle if acceptable to the Engineering Department; 7) That the
City, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, approve the sidewalk cafe on the west
side; 8) That the monument-style freestanding sign not exceed six feet in height, meet a five-
foot setback from property lines and include the site address; 9) That all construction comply
with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) requirements; and 10) That all Fire
Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits.
The proposal is to demolish the existing hotel and reconstruct the property as a mixed use
of 112 attached dwellings (condominiums) and 78 overnight accommodation rooms/units. The
proposed building will have three floors of parking, with portions of levels 2 and 3 designed with
dwellings along the northern and eastern edges. There are two towers proposed, one a
residential tower in the shape of an "l" with the legs along the north and west sides of the site and
the other an overnight accommodation tower in the southeast portion of the site.
.
The applicant is requesting to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density, for the
purpose of converting a portion of the existing overnight accommodation units/rooms to dwelling
units. It is noted that the application was advertised for 112 dwelling units, 78 overnight.
accommodation rooms/units and 2,910 square-feet of retail sales area (equivalent to two dwelling
units). It has been determined that a portion of the retail sales areas proposed, which would
constitute outdoor retail sales and display, is prohibited by Beach by Design and the other retail
sales portion is located on the ground floor, in violation of FEMA regulations. Based on these
determinations and in order to comply with Code Termination and Transfer of Development Rights
provisions, the applicant is withdrawing the retail sales portion of the request and reducing the
number of dwelling units being transferred onto this site from 10 to eight dwelling units. There will
be no change to the number of dwelling units proposed (112 dwelling units), however, based on
the conversion factor from overnight accommodations to dwelling units, this conversion under the
Termination provisions is now 104 dwelling units. Based on the maximum allowable density of 40
rooms/units per acre for the RFH land use category and the 1.87 acres zoned Tourist, the site
could be developed today with only 74 overnight accommodation rooms/units or 56 dwelling units.
Under the Termination of the Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required
improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the
Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing
improvements and is providing parking that meets Code provisions; 3) Removal of nonconforminq
siqns, outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing
nonconforming signs and other accessory structures under this proposal; and 4) Use of
Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements.
The Comprehensive Sign Program may be utilized in the future, but has not been submitted as
part of the application package. The Comprehensive landscape Program is not necessary with
this proposal.
.
The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due
primarily to the proposal being a "mixed use," which is not a use permitted in the Tourist District,
the proposed setbacks, the proposed height being greater than 100 feet and a deviation to allow
direct access to an arterial street. The criteria for attached dwellings, overnight accommodations
and retail sales prohibit direct access to an arterial street. South Gulfview Boulevard is an arterial
street, the site has no other means of street access and the proposal provides driveway access to
it, much as the existing overnight accommodation use presently has a driveway to access this
site.
Community Development 2005-08-16
24
.
.
.
The proposal includes reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to six feet (to
patios/seating areas) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side
(north) setback from 10 feet to five feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) (to
building) and from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from
10 feet to two feet (to trash staging area) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to
eight feet from the CCCL (to building). With the total redesign of this site, the applicant is
significantly increasing the amount of site landscaping, increasing the pervious area from 10 to 36
percent. Section 3-905.A requires setbacks to be measured from the CCCL. The application has
been advertised including side and rear setback reductions from the CCCL. The project,
however, has been designed with the building set back from the side property line a minimum of
13 feet and a minimum of 20 feet from the seawall (which is the edge of the Tourist District,
whereas the rear property line extends into the water). Setback reductions are otherwise to the
trash staging area in the southeast corner of the property. Trash collection rooms are being
provided on the ground floor. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days.
The location of the trash staging areas within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the
necessity of the trash truck coming on-site.
The project has been designed with both residential units and overnight accommodation
units as a "mixed use." These uses have been separated by function into two towers on the site.
As stated earlier, the proposed building will have three floors of parking, with portions of Levels 2
and 3 designed with dwellings along the northern and eastern edges, with 10 dwelling units on
Level 2 and 11 dwelling units on Level 3. There are two towers proposed, one a residential tower
in the shape of an "L" with the legs along the north and west sides of the site and the other an
overnight accommodation tower in the southeast portion of the site. Level 4, which is the amenity
level with a club for the residents, separate pools for the residences and the hotel and other
recreational facilities, will have seven dwelling units in the residential tower and one hotel unit in
the hotel tower. In the residential tower, there are nine dwelling units each on Levels 5 - 10, eight
dwelling units on Level 11, six dwelling units each on Levels 12 - 13 and five dwelling units on
Levels 14 -15. In the hotel tower, there are eleven rooms/units on Levels 5 -11.
The residential building has been designed stepped or tiered horizontally at various levels
on both the eastern and southern legs of the building, reducing the bulk of the building and
presenting a more aesthetically pleasing building. The building will be of West Indies architecture,
with barrel tile roofing, stucco walls, decorative aluminum and glass railings and decorative
aluminum entry gates, grillwork, and trellises.
The proposal includes increases to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet for the
overnight accommodation building tower and from 35 feet to 150 feet for the residential tower (to
roof deck) with an additional six feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 24
feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck). The residential buildings to the south (440
West) are 157 feet in height. The hotel building was designed to not exceed 100 feet in order to
comply with Beach by Design requirements regarding separation between buildings over 100 feet
in height. The tiering of the proposed residential building has been designed to comply with the
Beach by Design and the Transfer of Development Rights 100-foot separation distance between
buildings over 100 feet in height. The heights of both the residential and hotel towers are
consistent and compatible with the heights of adjacent properties. This site is located within the
Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design, which is indicated as a distinctive area of mixed use,
including high-rise condominiums. For structures within 500 feet to the southeast, the proposed
residential tower is separated by 186 feet (100 feet allowable), whereby there are not more than
two buildings 100 feet in height located within 500 feet of each other. The additional height for the
decorative mansard architectural embellishments will hide various rooftop mechanical equipment
Community Development 2005-08-16
25
.
.
.
and will provide proportion to the buildings with the "tiered" appearance with separated rooftops.
Portions of the increased height will provide proper clearance for elevator equipment. The design
of this project creates a form and function that will be consistent with and enhance the character
of this area.
Based on the proposal, including the change in use to 112 attached dwellings and the 78
overnight accommodation rooms/units, and the elimination of the retail sales areas, 246 parking
spaces are required for this development. The applicant is providing 274 parking spaces,
including two spaces dedicated for taxis for the hotel use. The proposal includes a reduction to
driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet. The site has been designed with two driveway
accesses on South Gulfview Boulevard, with the southern driveway primarily dedicated to the
hotel use and the northem driveway dedicated to upper floor parking for the residential use. The
driveway separation requested is necessary to provide safe and efficient access for the residents
and guests of this property and is acceptable to the Engineering Department. Sidewalk
connections on the north side to a sidewalk on City property is proposed to allow residents and
guests safe access to the beach and BeachWalk facilities.
Beach by Design calls for the construction of 1 O-foot wide sidewalks along major roads for
pedestrian safety and convenience. The site plans indicate compliance with this requirement.
However, with the construction of BeachWalk improvements, and to ensure consistency of
sidewalk design (along with any landscape or street lighting improvements), the applicant will
need to work with the City toward meeting the City design specifications. Approval of this request
should be conditioned on compliance with these specifications and to allow for an alternate
construction schedule or the provision of payment in lieu of construction of the sidewalk within the
right-of-way.
The application has been advertised with a Transfer of Development Rights of four
dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, two dwelling units from 625-627 Bay Esplanade,
two dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade.
The application was erroneously advertised transferring two dwelling units from 625-627 Bay
Esplanade, where the proposal is to only transfer one dwelling unit from this sending site. With
the elimination of the retail sales from this proposal and compliance with the Termination
provisions, the transfer of the two units from 665 Bay Esplanade are being eliminated from this
request. Based on 1.87 acres zoned Tourist District, the density for the residential portion is 59.89
dwelling units per acre, and 41.71 rooms/units per acre for the hotel portion.
Due to the demolition of the existing building on this site, all signage will be required to be
brought into compliance with Code requirements. The maximum height in the Tourist District for a
freestanding sign is four feet, unless approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program for a six-
foot high sign. Any approval of this application should require any future freestanding sign be a
monument-style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913), Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-803.C) and Transfer of Development Rights (Section 4-1402) have been met. There
are no outstanding enforcement cases for this property.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District: 0.58
acres zoned Open Space/Recreatiori District) is located within the Clearwater Pass District of
Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a 217 -room hotel (which is nonconforming
to current density maximums of 74 rooms or 56 dwelling units), at a building height of 155 feet
Community Development 2005-08-16
26
.
.
.
(which is nonconforming to current maximum building heights of 150 feet) and with 201 parking
spaces (198 spaces within a parking garage and three spaces at the porte cochere on the north
side of the building, where 217 spaces are required under current Code regulations); 3) The site
is located adjacently south of Clearwater Beach and the BeachWalk District of Beach by
Design; 4) The hotel is currently closed due to damage sustained during Hurricane Jeanne in
September 2004; 5) The proposal includes the demolition of the existing hotel building and all
existing site improvements; 6) The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of
Nonconformity to allow the conversion of 139 of the existing overnight accommodation
units/rooms to 104 dwelling units; 7) The applicant is requesting the Transfer of Development
Rights of eight dwelling units to this site; 8) While reductions to setbacks to building and
pavement are requested, these reductions are less than the setbacks to building and pavement
for the existing development; 9) The proposed building height of 150 feet for the residential
tower bears a reasonable relationship between the number of units being transferred through
the Transfer of Development Rights and the proposed height; 10) The proposal is compatible
with the surrounding development, and will enhance the character of the immediate vicinity; and
11) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity
for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
per Section 2-803.C; 3) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General
Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes
that the proposal complies with the Transfer of Development Rights per Section 3-1403; 5) Staff
concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 6) Based on the above findings
and proposed conditions, staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity
for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units;
where 56 dwelling units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible
Development application to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight
accommodation rooms/units with reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to six feet
(to patios/seating areas) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the
side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet from the CCCL (to building) and from 10 feet to four
feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to trash
staging area), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet from the CCCL (to
building), increases to building height from 35 feet 100 feet for the overnight accommodation
building tower and from 35 feet to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck) with an
additional six feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 24 feet for
architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to
90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (3) Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR2005-05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue,
one dwelling unit from 625-627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay
Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4-1402, for the site at 430 South Gulfview
Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal
complies with the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density per Section 6-109; 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 complies with the Transfer of Development Rights per Section 3-1403; 5) The proposal
Community Development 2005-08-16
27
.
.
.
complies with Beach by Design; and 6) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding
development. 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 use
of the property be for a maximum of 112 dwelling units, including eight units through the
Transfer of Development Rights, and 78 overnight accommodation rooms/units. The retail sales
and services have been eliminated from the proposal; 3) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That the use of that portion of the property
for overnight accommodations meet the definition of the Community Development Code, with
owner and guest stays not to exceed 30 days, where occupancy of rooms/units arise from a
rental agreement, other agreement or the payment of consideration. At the request of the City
Manager or designee, the records of the business shall be made available for examination to
determine whether the length of stay 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 obtained and maintained from the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. A registration lobby operated 24
hours a day, seven days a week, shall be maintained. This portion of the site development shall
not be deemed attached dwellings with individual dwelling units, nor shall rooms/units in the
overnight accommodations qualify for homestead exemption or home or business occupational
licenses; 5) That the sidewalk within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way be designed
and constructed for the site frontage in accordance with Beach Walk design specifications. The
developer and City may agree on an alternate construction schedule or the provision of
payment in lieu of construction; 6) That all City approvals and easements necessary for the
sidewalk connection to the sidewalk on City property to the north be obtained prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion; 7) That the applicant obtain all right-of-way, easements
or other legal instruments prior to the issuance of building permits for the installation of any
landscaping and irrigation on the City property north of the subject property; 8) That any future
freestanding sign be a monument-style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials
and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet
high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 9) That fencing within the visibility triangles and
waterfront visibility triangles be brought into compliance with Code provisions prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Fence height increases above that otherwise permitted
and alternate fence materials shall only be allowed a) in the waterfront visibility triangle if a letter
of "no objection" is submitted from the adjacent condominium association board and b) in the
visibility triangle if acceptable to the Engineering Department; 10) That a special warranty deed,
specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 557 and 579 Cyprus
Avenue, 625-627 Bay Esplanade and 667 Bay Esplanade and being transferred to this site, be
recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall
also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 557 and 579 Cyprus
Avenue, 625-627 Bay Esplanade and 667 Bay Esplanade due to the transfer of development
rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, 625-627 Bay
Esplanade and 667 Bay Esplanade) shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior to
the issuance of any permits; 11) 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; 12) That any future
storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines. Should such storage
Community Development 2005-08-16
28
.
.
.
units be proposed and approved by Staff as a Minor Revision to this approval, evidence of this
restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed
restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy; 13) That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site
design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior
to the issuance of building permits; 14) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the
Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 15) That a condominium plat be recorded
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 16) That all construction comply with
FEMA requirements; 17) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and 18) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits.
The request to pull this item from the Consent Agenda was withdrawn.
See motion of approval on page 36. .
6. Case: FLD2005-06052 - 1415 San Juan Court Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Camille Courtney.
Representative: Henry C. Kyle, III/Robert Elder (8100 Ulmerton Road, Largo, FL 33771;
phone: 727-535-9885; fax: 727-539-1377; email: bob@tampabav.com).
Location: 0.137 acre located on the south side of San Juan Court approximately 150 feet
east of Hillcrest Avenue.
Atlas Page: 288A.
Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to allow an addition to an existing single-family
residence with a reduction to the front setback from 25 feet to 20.3 feet (to building), under
the provisions of Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: diw@qte.net); East
Gateway (1318 Franklin Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-656-9460).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I.
The 60-foot by 100-foot, 0.137 -acre parcel is located on the south side of San Juan
Court, approximately 150 feet east of Hillcrest Avenue. Surrounding uses are primarily
detached and attached dwellings. The site is currently developed with a conforming detached
dwelling structure (single-family residence), located toward the eastern portion of the lot. There
is presently a carport and driveway off of San Juan Court on the west side of the single-family
residence providing two off-street parking spaces on a driveway that is in an extreme state of
decline. The existing front porch and carport exist at a 20.3-foot front setback. While the
character of front setbacks of the adjacent properties is less than the required 25 feet, the
overall front setbacks in the vicinity are primarily maintained at the minimum required, 25 feet.
Even with the front setbacks of the immediate vicinity not being characteristic, staff believes that
the proposed addition with a reduced setback will enhance the appearance and value to the
subject property as well as the immediate area. The driveway improvement will create a
uniform surface for the driveway alleviating the possibility for injury. The conversion of the
carport to a garage will offer an enclosed area for storage of vehicles and other household items
that are currently left open to the elements under the existing carport. The garage will
additionally provide an improved level of securing personal property. The improvements to the
driveway and the conversion/addition of the carport into a garage will make the property and the
immediate area safer for persons residing in the neighborhood. The design of the carport to
Community Development 2005-08-16
29
.
garage conversion/addition and driveway improvements to the existing single family residence
will have little impact to traffic congestion and is not creating any adverse effects to adjacent
properties.
Due to the diversity of uses in the area from offices to attached dwellings determining
the consistency of carport conversions is difficult. There are several attached and detached
dwellings located on the San Juan Court that have no garages or carports. These dwellings
appear to have a shortage of off-street parking as there were several vehicles parked in the
grass or on poorly maintained driveways. Those detached dwellings that did have carports or
garages were located on properties that appeared to have been well maintained and stood out
as drastic improvements to the neighborhood.
The redevelopment of this site, with enhanced driveway improvements, will improve the
appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria
including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residentiallnfill
Project criteria (Section 2-304.G) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues
associated with this site.
.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The 0.137 acre is located on the south side of San Juan Court
approximately 150 feet east of Hillcrest Avenue; 2) This site is zoned MDR and the single family
residence is a permitted use; 3) Adjacent uses consist of a wide mix of single family residential,
multi-family residential and offices; 4) The existing front porch and carport exist at a 20.3-foot
front setback; 5) The character of the adjacent properties front setbacks to buildings are less
than the required 25 feet and the reduced setback and proposed addition will enhance the
appearance and value to the subject property as well as the immediate area; and 6) The
improvements to the driveway and the conversion/addition of the carport into a garage will make
the property and the immediate area safer for persons residing in the neighborhood.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposed is compatible with the adjacent properties and 2)
The proposed will enhance other redevelopment efforts in the Community.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to allow an
addition to an existing single-family residence including a front setback reduction from 25 feet to
20.3 feet (to building), per section 2-304.G., for the site at 1415 San Juan Court, with the
following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-304.G; 2) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will
enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That any new concrete
driveway apron(s) constructed within the right of way shall be a minimum six inches thick fibrous
concrete, and a minimum 3,000 pounds per square-inch with six-inch by six-inch / ten by ten
W.W.F. (Welded Wire Fabric). Additionally, sidewalks shall not be constructed within this apron
area(s) and 2) That the final design of the building and site plan be consistent with those
approved by staff.
See motion of approval on page 36.
.
7. Case: FLD2005-05046 - 700 Druid Road
Owner/Applicant: Religious Community Services, Inc.
Level Two Application
Community Development 2005-08-16
30
.
.
.
Representative: Jay Myers, AlA (9170 Oakhurst Road, Seminole, FL 33776; phone: 727-
595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; email: mversarch@ix.netcom.com).
Location: 1.064 acres located on the north side of Druid Road, approximately 150 feet east
of Myrtle Avenue and on the west side of Myrtle Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of
Druid Road.
Atlas Page: 295B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion and renovation of floor
area of an existing social/public service agency with a reduction to lot width from 100 feet to
58 feet (along Myrtle Avenue), a reduction to the front (south along Druid Road) setback
from 25 feet to five feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the front (east along Myrtle
Avenue) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the side (west)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the
landscape buffer along Druid Road (south) from 10 feet to five feet (to existing pavement), a
reduction to the landscape buffer along the east from five feet to zero feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west from five feet to zero feet (to
existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north from 10 feet to five
feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to interior landscape area from 10 percent to 7.4
percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-
1202.G.
Proposed Use: Expansion and renovation of the RCS food bank.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 1.064 acres is located on the north side of Druid Road, approximately 150 feet east
of Myrtle Avenue and on the west side of Myrtle Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Druid
Road. The subject site was part of a larger site encompassing 4.1 acres and bounded by
Turner Street on the north, Druid Road to the south, South Myrtle Avenue to the east, and the
CSX railroad tracks on the west, previously developed as the Scotty's Hardware and Lumber
store. The northern 2.79 acres of this overall site was approved by the CDB on August 17,
2004, for the development of Wells Court, a mixed use development of 48 attached residential
dwellings, 2,757 square-feet of retail space and 1,600 square-feet of restaurant space
(FLD2004-05039). The subject site was approved for the RCS Food Pantry by the CDS on
October 16, 2001, with one condition (FL 01-08-27). The use has operated on this site without
any violations since being established in mid-2002.
Due to the sale of the northern portion of the site for the development of the site for the
Wells Court mixed use project, this proposal includes additional on-site parking, the installation of
landscaping to the site and additional building improvements. The owners retained only 58 feet of
frontage along South Myrtle Avenue with the sale of the northern parcel for the Wells Court
project. This eastern finger of the property is solely for parking and landscaping for the use. This
area includes an existing driveway on South Myrtle Avenue that will be retained for use by the
Food Pantry. Since the building for this use is oriented toward Druid Road and the building was
(and is) an existing building, the reduction to lot width will not result in a building out of scale with
buildings in the immediate vicinity.
The applicant has designed parking and landscaping to the entire site in amounts that are
possible for the particular areas of the site, due to the dimensional requirements for parking lots,
Community Development 2005-08-16
31
.
.
.
the need for on-site parking, and the location of the building. In some areas of the site, there are
no proposed landscaping improvements, whereas in other areas there will be improvements
meeting Code requirements. Parking and landscaping improvements along Druid Road are in
accordance with previously approved plans. There are no landscape improvements proposed
along the east side of the property adjacent to the offices to the east, as there is an overhead door
on the east side for loading purposes and a pass-by lane otherwise. Landscape improvements
along the west adjacent to the CSX railroad starts at approximately 12 feet wide and tapers down
to zero feet at the northwest corner of the building in order to have an adequate drive width and
turning movement for trucks. The applicant is proposing to meet the Code setbacks along the
south side of the property adjacent to the office at 708 Druid Road. Existing pavement adjacent to
South Myrtle Avenue will be cut back to provide the required 15-foot wide landscape buffer along
this major roadway. This front buffer will match that approved for the Wells Court development to
the north. The paved area directly north of the building provides maneuvering space for trucks at
the two overhead doors on the north side of the building, as well as adequate turning movements
for fire trucks. Landscape improvements along the north property line adjacent to the Wells Court
development ranges from a minimum of 5.5 feet to 12 feet in width, due to the jogging of the
property line, and are being coordinated with the Wells Court development. A six-foot high PVC
fence is also proposed along this north property line for buffering purposes. This fence cannot
exceed three feet in height within the front setback area along South Myrtle Avenue (the first 25
feet). Some of the tree heights presently indicated do not meet Code requirements. Prior to the
issuance of any permits, the landscape plan must be amended to indicate tree heights that
comply with Code requirements. The proposed reductions to setbacks and landscape buffers,
and the flexibility requested, significantly improve these existing conditions and will upgrade and
enhance the community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity.
The proposal includes improvements to the exterior of the building for aesthetic and
functional purposes. Stucco panels are proposed to the south, east, and west sides of the
building to break up the metal "skin" of the exterior walls. The west side of the building is also
planned with mural space to enhance views from the Pine lias Trail, located to the west of the CSX
railroad tracks. Additional windows for the mezzanine will be added on the south side of the
building. The existing building is painted a light blue. The applicant proposes to repaint the
building the same color, but to add darker shades of blue and white to the stucco panels.
The applicant also proposes to screen the dumpsters in the northwest corner of the
property in an enclosure meeting Code requirements. A freestanding sign is proposed adjacent to
South Myrtle Avenue. Freestanding signage should be limited to a maximum height of six feet
and be coordinated with the color of the building.
Since the larger site was previously developed as the Scotty's Hardware and Lumber
store, the overall original site contained two parcels. In order to modify the parcel lines to that
indicated as the north property line of the subject parcel, a Minor Lot Adjustment and Unity of Title
must be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits. All applicable Code
requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913)
and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-704.C) have been met.
There are no outstanding enforcement cases pending against this site.
Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 1.064-acre site is zoned Commercial District; 2) The
subject site was part of a larger site encompassing 4.1 acres, previously developed as the
Scotty's Hardware and Lumber store; 3) The northern 2.79 acres of this overall site was
approved by the CDB on August 17, 2004, for the development of Wells Court, a mixed use
development; 4) The subject site was approved for the RCS Food Pantry by the CDB on
Community Development 2005-08-16
32
.
.
.
October 16, 2001; 5) The reduction to lot width for this eastern finger of the property will be used
solely for parking and landscaping for the use and will not result in the existing building being
out of scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity; 6) Proposed parking and landscaping
improvements to various areas of the site are based upon the location of the existing building
and the dimensional requirements for parking lots of the Code, as well as necessary
maneuvering area for trucks and fire trucks; 7) The proposed reductions to setbacks and
landscape buffers, and the flexibility requested, significantly improve these existing conditions
and will upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance of the
immediate vicinity; 8) Improvements to the exterior fac;ade of the building will improve the
aesthetics of the building; 9) The proposed development is consistent and compatible in scale,
bulk, coverage and character with other commercial properties in the vicinity; 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 as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2)
Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria
per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and
proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to permit the
expansion and renovation of floor area of an existing social/public service agency with a
reduction to lot width from 100 feet to 58 feet (along Myrtle Avenue), a reduction to the front
(south along Druid Road) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to
the front (east along Myrtle Avenue) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to existing pavement), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement) and a
reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with a
reduction to the landscape buffer along Druid Road (south) from 10 feet to five feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east from five feet to zero feet (to
existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west from five feet to zero feet
(to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north from 10 feet to five
feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to interior landscape area from 10 percent to 7.4
percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G,
for the site at 700 Druid Road, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1)
The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.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
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That a Minor Lot Adjustment and Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 2) That the maximum height
of fencing within the front setback along South Myrtle Avenue be three feet and be indicated on
revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That all freestanding and attached signage
meet Code provisions and be consistent with the color of the building. The Comprehensive
Sign Program may be utilized to provide additional signage in accordance with Code provisions,
but freestanding signage shall be limited to six feet in height; 4) That prior to the issuance of any
permits, the landscape plan be amended to indicate tree heights that comply with Code
requirements; and 5) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits.
See motion of approval on page 36.
Community Development 2005-08-16
33
.
8. Case: ANX2005-05016 - 1753 Grove Drive Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Virginia Phillips
Location: 0.19 acre on the east side of Grove Drive, 85 feet south of Terrace Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A
Request:
(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(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
.
This annexation involves a 0.19-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
east side of Grove Drive, approximately 85 feet south of Terrace Drive. 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 sanitary sewer and solid waste
service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) The
annexation of 0.19-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See motion to recommend approval on page 36.
.
9. Case: ANX2005-05017 - 1501 Country Lane E. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Donald Kirkham and Robert Hutchings
Location: 0.33 acre on the south side of Country Lane E., 500 feet south of NE Coachman
Road.
Atlas Page: 273B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.33 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) and Water Categories
(County) to Residential Low (RL) and Water Categories (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
Community Development 2005-08-16
34
.
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael Schoderbock, Consulting Planner.
This annexation involves a 0.33-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
south side of Country Lane East, approximately 500 feet south of NE Coachman Road. The
property is within an enclave and is not contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the
proposed annexation is consistent with Pine lias County requirements with regard to voluntary
annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use
Plan designations of Residential Low (RL) and Water/Drainage Overlay and zoning categories
of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P). There are no current code
enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) The
annexation of 0.33-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Low (RL) and
Water/Drainage Overlay Future Land Use Plan classifications; and 3) The Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) zoning classifications pursuant to the City's
Community Development Code.
See motion to recommend approval on page 36.
10. Case: ANX2005-05018 -1644 Bellrose Drive N. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Kathy Sadler
Location: 0.19 acre on the north side of Bellrose Drive N., 530 feet east of Lake Avenue.
Atlas Page: 315B.
Request:
(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-2, Single Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail:
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 Bellrose Drive North, approximately 530 feet east of Lake Avenue. The property is
contiguous to existing City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The
applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste
service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan
Community Development 2005-08-16
35
.
.
.
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR). There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on
this site.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The property already receives City water service. The proposed
annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pine lias
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding municipal annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of 1)
annexation of 0.19 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) The Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #D1, Case FLD2005-05048 for
331 Cleveland Street based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as
listed, Item #D2, Case FLD2005-05037 for 1105 Druid Road based on findings of fact,
conclusions of law, bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed, Item #D3, Case
FLD2005-05038 for 1520 North Saturn Avenue based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
condition of approval as listed, Item #D4, Case FLD2005-05051 for 445 Harnden Drive and 504
South Gulfview Boulevard based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and
conditions of approval as listed, Item #D5, Case FLD2005-05047rrDR2005-05022 for 430 South
Gulfview Boulevard based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and
conditions of approval as listed, Item #D6, Case FLD2005-06052 for 1415 San Juan Court based
on findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed,
Item #D7, Case FLD2005-05046 for 700 Druid Road based on findings of fact, conclusions of law,
bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed, Item #D8, and recommended approval of
Case ANX2005-05016 for 1753 Grove Drive, Item #D9, Case ANX2005-05017 for 1501 Country
Lane E., and recommended approval of Item #D10, Case ANX2005-05018 for 1644 Bellrose
Drive N. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E - CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2):
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; e-mail:
nestech@mindsprino.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
Community Development 2005-08-16
36
.
.
.
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; e-mail:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
This case was continued at the applicant's request at the July 19, 2005, COB meeting, to
this meeting.
The 0.676-acre site is located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 150 feet
south of Skiff Point. The site has 144.63 feet of frontage on Island Way and is currently
developed with 12 attached dwellings in a two-story building on the east side of the property.
Covered parking is along the north and south sides of the property. All existing improvements,
including the dock, are planned to be demolished.
The subject property is an area of Island Estates that is dominated by attached dwellings
of varying heights. The property to the direct north is developed with one-story attached
dwellings. The property to the direct south at 405 Island Way and the property at 333 Island
Way are currently developed with attached dwellings in two-story buildings. The parcel directly
south is presently being processed for a Flexible Development application to redevelop that
property in a manner similar to the proposal for the subject property with attached dwellings in a
four-story building over ground-level parking. Parcels farther south are developed with attached
dwellings of two stories over ground-level parking or taller buildings. Directly to the west across
Island Way is a 16-story attached dwelling building at 400 Island Way. Properties across the
canal to the east are developed with single-family dwellings zoned Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District, as well as parcels farther north on Island Way.
The proposal is to redevelop the site with 20 attached dwellings in three buildings. The
two western buildings will contain two dwellings each as townhomes of approximately 1,805
square-feet of living area, with each town home building 24.83 feet in height above BFE (Base
Flood Elevation) (two stories over ground level garage parking). Sixteen dwelling units, each
approximately 1,865 square-feet of living area, are proposed in the eastern four-stories over
ground level parking residential building (four dwelling units per floor).
The proposal includes a reduction to lot width for attached dwellings from 150 feet to
144.63 feet. The lot was developed on one and one-half of platted lots in its current manner in
1960. Abutting lots to the north and south are developed with existing attached dwellings. While
the lot to the south is also proposed to be redeveloped on a similarly sized lot, each development
is by different developers. The lot width can be viewed as being a minor reduction, with no ability
to meet current requirements. The flexibility in regard to lot width is justified by the benefits to the
surrounding area and to the City by allowing redevelopment of the property with new, modern
buildings meeting current Building Codes and significant increases to landscaping.
Community Development 2005-08-16
37
.
.
.
The request is being processed as a Residential I nfi II Project due to the height increase
and setback reductions being requested to the pavement, patios and the trash staging area. The
proposal includes 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) and a
reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pool deck). In regard to the front
setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the eastern building will have a trash collection
room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Townhomes in the two western buildings will
have areas on the rear patios for black barrels, which will be rolled out to the street on collection
days. Dumpsters from the eastern building will be rolled out to the staging area on collection
days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the
trash truck coming on-site.
The two townhome buildings are proposed to meet the required front setback of 25 feet.
The proposal includes a front setback reduction to 12 feet for two parking spaces, one on each
side of the center driveway, west of the townhomes. The existing development on this site
presently is at a zero front setback to pavement, with no landscaping in the front setback area.
Most existing attached dwelling developments along Island Way have no or very little landscaping
in the front setback area, with most pavements at the front property line (any grass or landscaping
appears to be within the right-of-way). While the proposal does not fully meet the Code
requirements, the proposal significantly increases the amount of landscaping in the front setback.
All three buildings meet the 10-foot side setback requirement. The reductions to the side
setbacks proposed are to patios for the townhomes and to the pavement backup flair for the
eastern residential building. The property is currently developed with the residential building and
carports at a side setback of seven feet. The side setbacks proposed represent short areas
where the reductions are proposed and do not extend the entire depth of the property. The patios
proposed do not extend a large distance from the town home buildings and the Building Code
requires a minimum patio of three feet. The pavement backup flairs for the eastern residential
building are not required under Code provisions, but are commonly designed in parking lots and
assist drivers exiting the northernmost or southernmost proposed parking spaces. The dwellings
proposed on this property are all less than 1,900 square-feet each, which are moderately sized
units in today's condominium market. The proposal includes a rear setback reduction to zero feet
for the pool and pool deck. The eastern residential building is proposed to be setback a minimum
of 21.1 feet from the rear property line, which exceeds the minimum 15-foot requirement and 18-
foot Building Code requirement. The existing residential building is approximately at a 21-foot
rear setback. Current development practices place the pool area at the rear of the property, which
is generally the most private area of the property (even if on a canal with detached dwellings on
the other side of the canal), with a pool deck at a zero setback. The requested flexibility in regard
to required setbacks are justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the
surrounding area and to the City as a whole for both buildings and landscaping. The
redevelopment of this parcel may be viewed as otherwise impractical without the requested
deviations from the required setbacks, and all setback reductions are to non-building structures.
Additionally, the design of this project with the two smaller townhome buildings separated from the
taller, eastern building creates a form and function which enhances the character of the
surrounding area, which breaks up the scale and massing of the buildings.
Concurrent with the front and side setback reductions, this proposal includes 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
Community Development 2005-08-16
38
.
.
.
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 with the front setback reduction requested, the location of the trash staging
area within the front landscape buffer area is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash
truck coming on-site. Again, the side setbacks proposed represent short areas where the
reductions are proposed and do not extend the entire depth of the property. Adequate areas have
been proposed for landscaping of the site. Landscaping includes tiering of landscape materials
for visual interest and improves the site appearance. Landscaping proposed may be viewed as
being more attractive than minimum landscape standards. While not shown on the site plan, a
four-foot high opaque fence or wall is required along the north and south property lines to screen
off-street parking from the adjacent parcels. Utility lines along the north and south property lines
must be placed as close to the buildings as possible to provide adequate landscape planting
areas and be shown on revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits.
-
The site today appears as one large driveway, as there is pavement along the width of the
property from the curbing of the Island Way roadway to the carports along the north and south
property lines. The center area of the site is a gravel drive and parking area. The proposal will
remove the entire pavement within the right-of-way and provides a center drive to the town homes
and the eastern building. The applicant is providing the minimum required parking of 30 spaces
for the 20 attached dwellings. The townhomes will have garage parking under their buildings.
Most of the parking for the condominium flat units in the eastern building are provided under the
building or in open parking off this center drive.
The town homes proposed as part of this request are designed 24.83 feet in height above
BFE (two stories over ground level garage parking), which is less than the maximum height
allowed as a minimum standard use. Even with the parapets proposed at 42 inches above the
roof deck, the town homes are still less than the maximum height. The elevator and stairs for
these town homes extend the maximum allowed of 16 feet above the roof deck, which also provide
access to rooftop private recreation areas. Cantilevered bay windows on these town homes
extend the maximum two feet allowable by Code and are less than 50% of the wall length they
are attached to. The eastern residential building has been designed at a height of 43.17 feet to
the 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 Flexible Development use, the Code provides a
building height range from 30 to 50 feet for attached dwellings. While the proposed height is
greater than that of the existing adjacent residential buildings to the north and south, the proposed
height is less than the maximum height allowable and will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
density and character of adjacent properties. A similar development proposal for a four-story over
ground level parking directly south is anticipated to be scheduled for COB review next month. A
16-story residential building is directly west across Island Way from this property. Redevelopment
of this parcel meeting current Building Codes (including meeting FEMA requirements) with a
development that is marketable with units of adequate size is otherwise impractical without
deviations from the height standards of the MHDR District. Flexibility in regard to building height
is justified by the benefits to an upgraded site that is compatible with the surrounding character
and that benefits the City with a redeveloped site that reduces flood hazards to residential
property. The increase for the parapets may be viewed as making them proportional in respect to
the height of the building and to aid in the screening of the rooftop air conditioning units. The
elevator and trash chute towers have been designed to meet the maximum allowable height of 16
feet from the rooftop. The rooftop of this building has also been designed as an amenity for the
residents. Together with the stairwells and the elevator and trash chute towers, the rooftop
pavilion provides varying, appealing rooftop elevations. As an open-air resident amenity, the
rooftop pavilion must not be enclosed in any way in the future.
Community Development 2005-08-16
39
.
.
.
The sidewalk along the Island Way right-of-way will be reconstructed as part of this
redevelopment proposal, increasing pedestrian safety by the constriction of driveway access to
one central driveway. Sidewalks from the stairwells for the eastern building will need to be
revised to meet Building Code requirements prior to the issuance of any permits. Site drainage is
proposed within retention ponds between the townhomes and the eastern residential building. To
comply with Code requirements, the site-grading plan must be revised prior to the issuance of any
permits to indicate the pool deck elevation not exceeding one-foot above grade.
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. Future signage will need to
meet the requirements of the Code and any freestanding sign must be a monument-style sign a
maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the
buildings.
Staff's support for this proposal is based on the reasons enumerated above. The
proposal is compatible with the surrounding properties. The redevelopment of this site will
improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements
and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and
Residentiallnfill Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) have been met. There are no outstanding
enforcement issues associated with this site.
Findinos of Fact: 1 ) The sUbject 0.676 acre is zoned Medium High Density Residential
District and has 144.63 feet of lot width; 2) The current use of the site is for 12 attached
dwellings, in a two-story building not meeting current FEMA requirements; 3) Based on current
Land Use Category density limitations of 30 dwelling units per acre, the subject site may be
redeveloped with a maximum of 20 dwelling units, which is the proposal; 4) The lot width of
144.63 feet does not meet current Code requirements for attached dwellings (150 feet), but its
reduction is; 5) The applicant proposes to redevelop the site in three residential buildings with
the tallest, eastern building 43.17 feet (to roof deck) above BFE (four stories over ground level
parking). The western two townhome buildings each contain two dwellings at a height of 25.33
feet above BFE (two stories over ground level garage parking). The height increase for the
eastern building is within the Flexible Development range for attached dwellings. While the
height is not consistent with the existing developed character of the properties to the north and
south, it is compatible with surrounding development, including the 16-story building to the west;
6) All buildings meet required setbacks. Setback reductions requested are to non-buildings
(pavement, patios, trash staging area and pool deck). Even with the reductions requested,
landscape area is significantly increased over existing conditions; 7) Parking provided meets the
minimum requirements of the Code; 8) The proposed site design with a center driveway
represents an improvement over the existing condition reflecting one large driveway across the
entire lot width; 9) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, will enhance
the character of the immediate vicinity and will improve the appearance of this site and the
surrounding area.; and 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 as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) Staff further
concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-
913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed
conditions, staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 2, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit
Community Development 2005-08-16
40
.
.
.
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 for the site at
415 Island Way, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-
404.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; AND Conditions of Approval: 1)
That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations
submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public
records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the pavilion on the roof of the eastern
building be open-air and not be enclosed in any manner; 4) That the utility site plan be revised
prior to the issuance of any permits to show utility lines along the north and south property lines
placed as close to the buildings as possible to provide adequate landscape planting areas; 5)
That the sidewalks from the stairwells for the eastern building be revised to meet Building Code
requirements prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That the site grading plan be revised prior
to the issuance of any permits to indicate the pool deck elevation not exceeding one-foot above
grade; 7) That the site and landscape plans be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to
show a four-foot high opaque fence or wall along the north and south property lines to screen
off-street parking from the adjacent parcels; 8) That boats moored at the existing or future dock,
lifts and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums
and/or town homes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums
and/or townhomes; 9) That future signage meet the requirements of the Code and any
freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match
the exterior materials and colors of the building; 10) That all applicable requirements of Chapter
39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 11) That all proposed utilities (from
the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground; 12) That a condominium plat
be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 13) That all Parks and
Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14) That all Fire Department
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits, including any extension of the fire
riser to the north for the future docks.
The Chair reported this is quasi-judicial hearing.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reported letters in opposition were submitted to the CDB.
Kevin Barry requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Kevin Barry party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2005-08-16
41
.
Frank Dame requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Frank Dame party status. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Diane Aradi requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Diane Aradi party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Troy Perdue, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request. He said the
requested height of 43 feet is within the flexible development guidelines, and has been
supported previously by the CDB as appropriate for this area. He said multiple buildings will
create the effect supported by the City with respect to articulations and open spaces. He said
the architect designed an aesthetically pleasing structure on a lot with substandard width. He
said all building setbacks meet minimum requirements and the only setback reductions
requested are for patios, trash staging area, sidewalks, the pool, and parking lot flairs.
.
Robert Pergolizzi, expert planner for the applicant, said he analyzed the project's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and compatibility
with surrounding land uses. He reported the property is zoned Residential High in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and is permitted a maximum of 30 units per acre. He said this project,
with 20 units on two-thirds of an acre, is consistent with Comprehensive Plan density standards.
He said nearby land use categories include Commercial General. Properties north and east of
waterway properties are zoned Residential Urban. He said this property is separated from the
single-family community by a bridge and canal. He said the character of the neighborhood has
mixed-uses, with high-rise and mid-rise condominiums, quadraplexes, and duplexes. He opined
the project is consistent with approved and proposed residential developments in this
neighborhood on properties with similar or identical zoning.
Mr. Pergolizzi said the neighborhood is in transition with older structures being converted
into single-family attached residential development as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan
and area zoning. He said the proposed height is consistent with projects in the immediate area.
He said Island Estates is dominated by projects four stories or taller. He said this project places
the tallest building at the site's rear, away from the street, and 105 feet from the western
property line. Shorter villa-style buildings are oriented toward the site's front. He said this
project will increase the pervious surface above what is permitted and provide more landscaping
than currently exists, and the building's design will provide more open space than required. He
said most lots on Island Way have no setbacks to pavement, including this site. He said this
proposed project has minimal traffic impact in the area with 117 daily trips and 11 peak hour
trips. He said the applicant agrees with the staff report. In response to a question, Mr.
Pergolizzi said a traffic study for this project was not required nor performed.
Party Status Holder Kevin Barry spoke in opposition to the project, stating it is too tall
and lacks on-street parking, guest, and maintenance parking spaces, will further degrade water
pressure, and the road is too narrow and area too congested.
.
Party Status Holder Frank Dame, representing the Island Estates Civic Association
Board, spoke in opposition to the project as Code does not allow flexibility regarding minimum
Community Development 2005-08-16
42
.
.
.
lot widths, required parking is inadequate, and Island Way is a major thoroughfare without on-
street parking.
Party Status Holder Diane Aradi spoke in opposition to the project, stating too few
parking spaces are proposed, the project will generate too much traffic, and it is too large for the
lot.
In response to questions, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said a building to the
west side of Island Way is 16 stories high. Mr. Wells said for Residentiallnfill, the Code allows
a minimum lot width of 150 feet for attached dwellings.
In response to a question, Mr. Perdue said condominium and homeowners' documents
will restrict overflow parking. He said the Police will control on-street parking. He said the
applicant must meet concurrency requirements.
One person spoke in opposition to the application.
Mr. Wells said many homeowners along Island Way today make U-turns at median cuts.
Party Status Holder Barry said a couple hundred residents signed a petition on
opposition to the application, and others have written to staff. He said the building is too
massive and will result in more dense projects.
Party Status Holder Dame said the project has provided no place for overflow parking,
and opposed the request for additional setbacks, the mass of the building, and lack of sufficient
parking.
Party Status Holder Aradi opposed the mass of the building, the lack of green space
between buildings, and resulting traffic congestion.
Mr. Perdue said the proposed parking meets Code. The applicant will be required to
meet traffic concurrency.
Empathy was express for area homeowners regarding parking. Discussion ensued with
comments that Code needs to be updated as 1.5 parking spaces per unit are insufficient, the
project is attractive, backs up to the water, and fits into the surrounding community, developing
property owners have rights, the developer has reduced the mass near the street, thereby
increasing open space, and the project will not greatly increase the number of residential units.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #E1, Case FLD2005-04035 for 415 Island
Way, based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval and conditions of approval
as listed, the staff report, and testimony presented. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
2.
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.
Community Development 2005-08-16
43
.
.
.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-mail:
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 lnfill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C., Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-03019) of two dwelling units
from 116 Brightwater Drive (donor site) to 657 Bay Esplanade (receiver site) under the
provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 and a request for Termination of Status of
Nonconformity under the provisions of Section 6-109.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (13 condominium units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The CDB reviewed the development proposal at its meeting of June 21, 2005, where a
motion to approve the application was made and seconded. However, the final vote on that
motion was three in support of the approval and two against; thus resulting in an automatic
continuance to July 19, 2005. The applicant did not submit new data for this meeting and the
application, supporting materials, Staff Report and recommendations did not change.
On July 19, 2005, the CDB reviewed the development proposal and voted to continue
the item to August 16, 2005, with direction to staff to prepare recommended conditions of
approval. The applicant has submitted revised plans, which address several outstanding
conditions for the project; however the application and recommendations have not changed. It
is noted that the Staff Report has been altered to address the conditions that have been met
and to correct a few minor discrepancies; however, the analysis contained within the report has
not been altered.
The site consists of 0.348 acre on the south side of Bay Esplanade approximately 200
feet east of Poinsettia Avenue. The site has 132 feet of frontage on Bay Esplanade. The parcel
is zoned Tourist (T) District and is currently developed with 11 attached dwelling units (7
apartments and 2 duplexes) 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 that 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: 1) La Risa I, at 650 Bay Esplanade, is 69.5 feet in height; 2) La
Community Development 2005-08-16
44
.
.
.
Risa II, at 669 Bay Esplanade, is 52 feet in height; and 3) 665 Bay Esplanade, is 59 feet in
height.
The proposed building will have five living floors (64 feet from BFE to roof deck), with
floors two through four containing three dwellings each, and floors five and six containing two
dwelling units each. All five living floors will include approximately 6,600 square-feet of livable
space. The living units will be a mix of two-, three-, and four-bedrooms. Elevators, located
centrally along the north fa<;ade of the building, will provide access to the units. Two stairwells,
also located centrally along the north facade, are adjacent to the elevator shafts.
Sidewalks will be constructed within the rights-of-way of Bay Esplanade for pedestrian
safety, where no sidewalks presently exist. Amenities for the proposal include a swimming pool
and at the southeast corner of the site the. Parking and a solid waste staging area will be located
on the ground floor. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time.
The proposal also includes a termination of status of nonconformity to permit a total of 11
existing dwelling units to remain on the site where 10 dwelling units are permitted. The site is
located within the RFH FLUP category, which permits up to 30 dwelling units per acre, and is
0.348 acre. Therefore the site is permitted up to 10 dwelling units. The site has been developed
with 11 dwelling units. The applicant desires to maintain the 11 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 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 Medium Density Residential (MDR), Tourist (T) and High
Density Residential (HDR) districts. The immediate vicinity is composed of attached dwellings,
small motels and condominiums. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the 1950s
and appear to have been progressively expanded. The proposed height (64 feet to roof deck;
67.5 feet overall from BFE) of the building and the form of development (condominium) are
inconsistent with the preferred development type and permitted height of the "Old Florida District."
The height is also inconsistent with the majority of existing buildings in the area.
Staff has found instances within the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design where
developments approved by the CDB, with staff support, have and are dramatically changing the
character of the area. These changes have generally not been consistent with the vision and
requirements of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. Due to these conditions, staff has
taken a more conservative approach to development within the Beach by Design plan area,
especially related to building height and type of use, and, therefore, cannot support the height
and the condominium use requested for this project. This proposal is inconsistent with the "Old
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 impractical without
Community Development 2005-08-16
45
.
.
.
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 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; 3) The development of the parcel proposed for development as a
comprehensive intill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development. The proposal continues the current trend of oversized buildings on
small lots with reduced setbacks (which further emphasize the over-sized scale of the building
with regard to both the lot on which the building is located and the surrounding neighborhood)
further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design and will result in a
building out of scale with surrounding buildings; 4) The design of the proposed comprehensive
infill redevelopment project creates a form and function, which enhances the community
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale with surrounding buildings
most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the proposed overall height of 67.5
feet as measured from BFE; and 5) Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height
and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The
applicant has not clearly shown that an overall height of 67.5 feet from BFE provides a benefit to
the community character and the immediate vicinity of the property. The proposal will result in a
building out of scale with the site on which it will be located.
Additionally, the proposal does not meet the following General Applicability (3-913.1 & 5)
criteria: 1) Development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density
and character of adjacent properties. The proposal includes a building with an overall height of
67.5 feet (64 feet to roof deck from BFE). The proposed height is inconsistent with the majority
of the buildings in the neighborhood and is inconsistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach
by Design and will result in a building out of scale with the site on which it will be located and 2)
Development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The
development is inconsistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity which
consists primarily of buildings less than 50 feet in height and the preferred type of development
in this area is single family dwellings and townhome units.
Transfer of Development Riqhts:
This proposal includes the Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) of two dwelling units
to this site from 116 Brightwater Drive. The maximum number of permitted units for 116
Brightwater Drive is 10 dwelling units. The site has been developed with six dwelling units;
therefore an excess of four unused dwelling units exists. The maximum number of dwelling
units permitted on 657 Bay Esplanade is 30 dwelling units per acre or 10 dwelling units (0.378
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 TORs provided both the sender and
Community Development 2005-08-16
46
.
.
.
receiving sites are located within the Beach by Design redevelopment area. The proposal is in
compliance with the Plan policy regarding TORs and with the TOR criteria per Section 4-1402.
The proposal is not in compliance with the following standards and criteria set forth in
Community Development Code Section 4-140; 1) The development of the parcel proposed for
development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal continues the current trend of
oversized buildings on small lots with reduced setbacks (which further emphasize the over-sized
scale of the building with regard to both the lot on which the building is located and the
surrounding neighborhood) further eroding the vision of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by
Design and will result in a building out of scale with surrounding buildings and 2) The design of
the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function, which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale
with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the
proposed overall height of 67.5 feet as measured from BFE and will result in a development out
of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC
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 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) 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) The 0.348-acre subject property is within the Tourist
(T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) Currently,
the site is developed with 11 attached dwelling units; 3) The site is permitted 10 dwelling units
(30 dwelling units per acre); 4) The site is overdeveloped by one dwelling unit requiring a
termination of status of nonconformity to permit that additional dwelling unit to remain on the
site; 5) A transfer of development rights is required to provide two additional dwelling units for a
total of 13 dwelling units; 6) Adjacent uses are zoned Tourist District developed with multi-family
dwellings generally between one and three stories in height, surrounding area a mixture of
attached dwellings and 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 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
Community Development 2005-08-16
47
.
.
.
land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent
properties. The proposal includes a building with an overall height of 67.5 feet (64 feet to roof
deck from BFE). The proposed height is inconsistent with the majority of the buildings in the
neighborhood and is inconsistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design and b)
Development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The
development is inconsistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity which
consists primarily of buildings less than 50 feet in height and the preferred type of development
in this area is single family dwellings and townhome units; 12) Staff finds the proposal does not
meet the following Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria (Section 2-803.C): a) The
development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise
economically impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards. Staff
agrees that the requested reduction in rear setback and minimum lot width is warranted given
the size and shape of the lot and historical development patterns in the area. However, the
applicant has not shown how the increase in height from 30 feet to 64 feet (to roof; 67.5 feet
overall from BFE) is necessary for the development of the site. In addition, the proposed
setbacks reductions will result in a building out of scale with the character of the area an out of
scale with regard to the parcel on which it will be sited; b) The uses within the comprehensive
infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent lands uses. The proposed overall
building height of 67.5 feet from BFE is taller than most surrounding buildings and is
inconsistent with the requirements of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. The
proposed condominium use is not compatible with adjacent land uses; c) The development of
the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will
upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal continues
the current trend of oversized buildings on small lots further eroding the vision of the "Old
Florida District" of 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; d) Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height
and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. While
the reduction in lot width are warranted given the pie shape of the site and the existing
development pattern within the neighborhood, the proposed height is not consistent with Beach
by Design. The increase in height and the reduction in the side (east) and rear (south) setbacks
will result in a building out of scale with the lot on which the building will sit and with the
surrounding area. The applicant has not clearly shown that an overall height of 67.5 feet from
BFE and a decrease in setbacks provides a benefit to the community character and the
immediate vicinity of the property; 13) Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the following
Transfer of Development Rights per Section 4-1403: a) The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the 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; b) The design of the
proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function, which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the building is out of scale
with surrounding buildings most of which are one to three stories in height, well below the
Community Development 2005-08-16
48
.
.
.
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; and c) 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; and 14) 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 Infill Project per Section 2-803.F.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7; 3)
The proposal does not comply with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.1 and 5; 4) The proposal is in compliance with the criteria
for a termination of status of nonconformity per Section 6-109; 5) The proposal is not in
compliance with the criteria for a Transfer of Development Rights per Section and 4-1403.4 and
5; 6) The development is not compatible with the surrounding area and will not enhance other
redevelopment efforts; 7) The development is in compliance with Section 4-1402; and 8) The
proposal does not comply with requirements of the Fire Department with regard to the provision
of an adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes.
Should the COB approve the development proposal, the following conditions of approval
have been provided:
Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) That the existing water main within the Bay
Esplanade right-of-way be upgraded to the satisfaction of the Fire Department in order to
ensure adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes, and that said upgrades are depicted on
a revised Grading, Drainage & Utilities Site Plan (sheet C4.1) prior to the issuance of a
Development Order; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits all Parks and
Recreation fees need to be paid; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
landscape plan is submitted that is acceptable to Planning Department staff; 4) That prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any/all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 5)
That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall
setbacks; 6) 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; 7) That all
proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. That
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; 8) That all Fire Department requirements be
met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all Traffic Department requirements be met,
prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be
limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building and be
architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material
and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior to the
issuance of any permits which includes: 11) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in
terms of including the same color and font style and size; 12) All signs be constructed of the
highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style
of the building; 13) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the
Community Development 2005-08-16
49
.
.
.
public right-of-way; 14) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by August
16, 2006) of CDB approval; 15) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two
years of issuance of the first building permit; 16) That all utility equipment including but not
limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from
view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 17) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive
use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased
separately from the condominiums; and 18) That "Do Not Enter" signage be provided along both
sides of the egress drive aisle.
Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed corrections to the Staff Report. In response to a
question, he reported that staff still recommends denial of the application, primarily due to the
height of the proposed projec~.
Nathan Hightower, representative, said this is the third time the applicant has come
before the CDB. He said the applicant met with staff and made minor changes to side setbacks.
He said east and west side setbacks now comply with Code. He said the BAABF (Board of
. Adjustment on Building and Flood) had approved reducing the rear setback to 12 feet from the
seawall. He said the applicant accepts the proposed conditions of approval.
Mr. Hightower reviewed the project. He said the project to the north, as well as other
nearby projects, are taller than what is proposed. He said the view corridor around the pool will
feature enhanced landscaping. He reported the project features 1.92 parking spaces per unit.
He reported no residents objected to the project at three neighborhood meetings, neighborhood
consensus preferred projects lower than 75 feet. He said the project presents no density
issues, will not attract an unusual amount of traffic, and will handle parking on site. He said the
front setback is minimally being reduced. He said the City encourages the transfer of density
being proposed. Mr. Hightower said the project is consistent with forthcoming changes.
Nine people spoke in support of the project.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that the project is larger than permitted by
Code and approving an exception would establish a precedent and encourage similar requests.
Member Fritsch moved to deny Item #E2, Case FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019
for 657 Bay Esplanade, based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the staff report, and
the testimony given. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Plisko, Milam,
and Fritsch voted "Aye"; Members Coates, Johnson and Alternate Board Member Dennehy
voted "Nay." Motion carried.
F. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (Item 1):
1. Case: FLD2005-01004 - 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; e-mail: oressinc@aol.com).
Location: 0.39 acre on the west side of North Highland Avenue, approximately 250 feet
south of Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Community Development 2005-08-16
50
.
.
.
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; e-mail: Diw@qte.net);
Fountain Square Condo Association (1799 Highland Ave, # 147 Q, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 442-7335).
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
On July 19, 2005, the CDB approved Case #FLD2005-01 004 to permit a problematic
use. The Planning Department believes the CDB made a mistake in its decision to approve the
case without conditions. The City requests that the CDB reconsider this case for the purpose of
attaching conditions at the September 20, 2005 meeting.
The CDB also approved a Comprehensive Sign Program application contained within
Case #FLD2005-01 004 on July 19, 2005. The Planning Department requests that the CDB
reconsider approval of this application based on mistakes of fact and law.
Several mistakes of fact occurred with regard to the request for attached signage. The
Planning Department staff report did not indicate that the attached sign (located on the awning)
was illuminated. Based on the definition of sign area in Code Section 8-102, the illuminated
portion of a sign structure shall be considered part of the sign area. In this case, the awning is
the sign structure; therefore, the report should have indicated that the proposed attached sign is
324 square-feet in area instead of 30 square-feet. This factual mistake is a basis for
reconsideration of the application. Additionally, it appears that a copying mistake occurred in
that certain packets provided to the CDB and Assistant City Attorney and Board Attorney did not
contain a complete Comprehensive Sign Program application. Furthermore, such application
did not clearly indicate that the attached sign was illuminated. The sign was not described as
an illuminated sign in the narrative or on the elevations. The illumination could only be
determined based upon a review of the electrical plan submitted by Thomas Signs.
The Planning Department believes that a mistake of law occurred when the CDB
approved the attached sign. Code Section 3-1807.B.4.i specifies that through a Comprehensive
Sign Program the maximum area permitted for attached signage shall range from 1 % up to a
maximum of 6% of the building fac;ade to which the sign is to be attached. The sign approved
by the Board (324 square-feet) equals 46.5% of the building fac;ade (696.66 square-feet) and
exceeds the amount of signage allowed by the Code. This mistake of law is also a basis for
reconsideration.
Reconsideration or rehearing of cases is regulated under Section 4-206.H of the
Community Development Code. That section states that after a final decision, reconsideration
or rehearing may be granted only upon a determination by the CDB or the Hearing Officer, as
the case may be, that the decision was based upon mistake, fraud or misrepresentation. The
decision to reconsider/rehear a case must be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of
Community Development 2005-08-16
51
.
the COB or within ten days of a Hearing Officer's decision. If reconsideration or rehearing is
granted, notice shall be provided in the same manner as the original proceeding. If the COB
decides to reconsider this case, it will be scheduled for September 20, 2005.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reported that she had only received a
portion of the Comprehensive Sign package in last month's package.
Todd Pressman, representative, said the types of awnings used by Amscot typically are
illuminated. He said discussions at the COB meeting had inferred that the awnings on both
sides of the building were to be illuminated, and that the project included an electrical plan. He
said the applicant has provided a rendering of language that could be attached separately to the
awning. He said the COB had recommended two conditions of approval, that were acceptable.
He did not feel mistakes were made and opposed reconsideration of the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said at the last meeting, the COB provided
clear direction regarding the signage. He said the applicant is willing to have a separate wall
sign with an awning surrounding it.
Discussion ensued with comments that it was obvious that the awning signs would be
illuminated when the item was approved, that some COB members had thought the sign was
separate from the awning, that the request is unusual, and that the awning is part of the
signage.
.
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes reviewed Code requirements for COB action.
Planning Director Michael Delk said the signage, as presented, is inconsistent with Code. Staff
is responsible for interpreting the Code and is concerned regarding the ramifications of this
approval. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed Code requirements related to signage.
Mr. Delk said staff feels the COB did not have the authority to approve a variance to
increase signage from 30 square-feet to 324 square-feet and the signage does not meet Code.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the proposed signage is 46.5% of the building fayade and exceeds
Code, which permits up to 6%. In response to a question, Mr. Delk said staff had not addressed
this item sufficiently before. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the application should have indicated that
the awning signs were illuminated.
Discussion ensued. It was felt that the CDS knew the awning signage would be
illuminated as everyone is familiar with Amscot signage. Concern was expressed that the COB
is being told they voted improperly due to a staff error. Ms. Grimes reviewed staff's statement
that they had made a mistake of law. Mr. Delk said staff must follow the permitting process in
accordance with Code.
Ms. Grimes reviewed COB options. She reviewed staff statements: 1) the Code does
not allow the COB to approve a sign of the size proposed by Amscot and 2) the COB decision
was based on its understanding that it could approve that size signage, however the COB did
not fully understand Code restrictions to that type of decision. Staff claims the COB decision
was based on a mistake of the conditions of law. Concern was expressed that not all members
agree that the awning is part of the sign.
.
Member Coates moved to reconsider Case #F1, Case FLD2005-01004 for 1874 North
Highland Avenue, on September 20, 2005, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law and
the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded.
Community Development 2005-08-16
52
.
.
.
Staff wants to work with the applicant on acceptable signage. This case will be revisited
with a corrected staff report regarding the size of the signage. In response to a question, Ms.
Dougall-Sides said with a Comprehensive Sign application, the CDB could consider signage
with a different configuration. Mr. Delk said staff intends to apply standard conditions to the
signage issue. Ms. Grimes recommended the CDB limit their reconsideration to the signage
issue.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The CDB recessed from 2:57 to 3:08 p.m.
G - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: FLD2005-05044 - 629 Bay Esplanade
Owner: Tse Tse, LLC.
Applicant: M3B Development, LLC.
Representative: Robert Szasz (1860 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-467-0730; fax: 727-467-0732; e-mail: rbszasz@aol.com).
Location: 0.677 acre located on the north side of Bay Esplanade at the northern terminus of
Cypress Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 20 attached dwellings in the Tourist
District, an increase in height from 35 feet to 58 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 and
a reduction the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 3.33 feet to pool deck and six feet (to
pool), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: diw@qte.net);
Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone:
727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 0.67-acre subject property is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade at the
northern terminus of Cypress Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of Tourist (T)
District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High
(RFH). The property is also located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by
Design, as part of the "Old Florida District."
According to City records, the subject property is developed with 8 attached dwellings
(629,635 Bay Esplanade) and 11 overnight accommodation units (637 Bay Esplanade). The
subject property includes four single-story buildings, two accessory shuffleboard courts, and
back-out parking encroaching into the Bay Esplanade right-of-way. The immediate vicinity is
almost entirely comprised of attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) with single-family
dwellings further to the north and the structures vary in height between one and three stories.
Within the immediate vicinity, there are four approved condominium developments: La Risa I
(650 Bay Esplanade) at 69.5 feet in height, La Risa II (669 Bay Esplanade) at 52 feet in height,
Community Development 2005-08-16
53
.
Nepenthe (665 Bay Esplanade) at 59 feet in height, and Poinsettia Place (605 Poinsettia
Avenue) at 37 feet in height.
The development proposal consists of five habitable floors over a level of parking (58
feet from BFE to roof deck), with four dwelling units per habitable floor. Each dwelling unit
consists of approximately 3,000 square-feet of living area with three bedrooms. A pair of
elevators and four stairwells will be located along the south fa<;ade of the building, providing
access to the floor lobby's as well as directly to the units themselves.
The existing back-out parking within the Bay Esplanade right-of-way will be removed and
replaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line. No sidewalk
presently exists adjacent to the subject property. The development proposal also includes the
provision of a swimming pool I spa with deck at the northwest corner of the site. Parking and a
solid waste staging area will be located on the ground floor. No signage is proposed for the
development at this time.
As previously noted, the 0.67-acre subject property is located within the RFH FLUP
category, which permits a maximum density of 30 attached dwelling units per acre. Therefore,
the subject property is permitted a maximum of 20 attached dwelling units. The development
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Code and the FLUP limitations with regard to
density.
Beach bv Desian:
.
In 1997 and 1998, a Plan was prepared for the City entitled "Clearwater Beach:
Strategies for Revitalization." This Plan was prepared after an extensive public process,
directive surveys and input from the City Council and City administration. The purpose of Beach
by Design, which was adopted by the City Council in 2001, is to implement the
recommendations of that Plan and regulate development within certain areas of the beach.
The subject property is located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach by Design
special area redevelopment plan and is defined as "an area of transition between resort uses in
Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia (Street)." In
order to implement this vision, Beach by Design identifies new single-family dwellings and
townhouses as the preferred form of development within the "Old Florida District." Further,
Beach by Design states that densities within the District should be generally limited to the
density of existing improvements and that building height should be low to mid-rise in
accordance with the Community Development Code. While "mid-rise" is not specifically defined
within the Code, based upon the height standards set forth in the Medium Density Residential
(MDR), Tourist (T), and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts, the Planning Department has
interpreted "mid-rise" development as having a maximum height of 50 feet.
.
Development within the immediate vicinity of the subject property consists of attached
dwellings, small motels, and condominiums between one and three stories in height with
building styles generally resembling architecture from the 1950s. Based upon the above, the
type of development proposed (condominium) is inconsistent with the preferred development
types in the "Old Florida District." Further, the proposed height of the building (58 feet to roof
deck) is also adjudged to be inconsistent with low to mid-rise development, and is therefore
inconsistent with Beach by Design.
Community Development 2005-08-16
54
.
.
.
Staff has found instances where development proposals have been approved within the
"Old Florida District" (some with staff support) that, in retrospect, are wholly incompatible and
inconsistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. These projects, if built, will be
out of scale with the surrounding area and could result in the failure of the District to function as
originally intended (i.e. as a transitional area between the Central Beach and the low intensity
residential neighborhoods north of Acacia Street). Due to these developing conditions and after
extensive study of the "Old Florida District," staff has taken a more conservative approach to
development within this Beach by Design plan area, especially as it relates to building height.
Therefore, the height requested with this development proposal, as it is inconsistent with the
"Old Florida District," cannot be supported.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and General Applicability Criteria (Sections
2-803.C and 3-913.A). In addition to the development proposals inconsistency with the "Old
Florida District," the development proposal is also inconsistent with the following
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria: 1) The development or redevelopment of
the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use,
intensity and development standards. Staff agrees that the requested deviation to the rear
(north) setback is warranted given the size and shape of the lot, historical development patterns
in the area, and the fact that the reduction is to a pool deck. However, the applicant has not
provided sufficient justification as to how development of the site is impractical without an
increase to the permitted height from 30 feet to 58 feet (from BFE to roof deck); 2) 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
development proposal continues the trend of oversized buildings within the "Old Florida District,"
which only serves to further erode the purpose of the "Old Florida District" as a transition area
and will result in an additional building that will be out of scale with District; 3) 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, the majority of which are one to three stories in height, and well
below the proposed building height of 58 feet. The development proposal is contrary to the
stated, desired form and function of the "Old Florida District," which states that new single-family
dwellings and townhouses are the preferred form of development within the District and that .
building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Code; 4) 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 provided sufficient justification that an
increase to the permitted height from 30 feet to 58 feet (from BFE to roof deck) provides a
benefit to the community character, immediate vicinity, or the City as a whole. As previously
stated, the development proposal will continue the trend of oversized buildings within the "Old
Florida District," which will only serve to further erode the purpose of the "Old Florida District" as
a transition area, and will result in an additional building that will be out of scale with the District.
Additionally, the development proposal does not meet the following General Applicability
criteria: 1) The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The development
proposal consists of a building with height of 58 feet to the roof deck as measured from BFE. The
proposed height is inconsistent with a majority of the buildings in the "Old Florida District." The
proposal is contrary to the purpose of the "Old Florida District" as a transition area between resort
uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street
and 2) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate
Community Development 2005-08-16
55
.
.
.
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The community character of the immediate
vicinity is attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single-family dwellings with heights
varying between one and three stories; whereas the development proposal is for a condominium
building 58 feet in height (as measured from base flood elevation to roof deck). Thus, the
development proposal is inconsistent with the preferred form of development within the "Old
Florida District" of single-family dwellings and townhouses, as well as being incompatible with the
statement that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community
Development Code. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with this site.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development application to permit 20
attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District, with an increase to the permitted height from 35
feet to 58 feet (as measured from BFE to roof deck), to increase the height of the parapet wall.
from 30 inches to 42 inches, to reduce the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 3.33 feet (to pool
deck), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section
2-803.C, based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended
conclusions of law
Recommended FindinQs of Fact: 1) The 0.67-acre subject property is within the Tourist
(T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) The subject
property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the
"Old Florida District"; 3) Beach by Design identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses
as the preferred form of development within the "Old Florida District" and further states that
densities within the District should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements
and that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community
Development Code, with "mid-rise" interpreted as having a maximum height of 50 feet based
upon the height standards set forth in the Medium Density Residential (MDR), Tourist (T), and
High Density Residential (HDR) Districts; 3) The subject property is currently developed with 8
attached dwellings and 11 overnight accommodation units; 4) The subject property is permitted
a maximum of 20 attached dwelling units (30 du/ac); 5) The development proposal is consistent
with the Community Development Code and the Future Land Use Plan category with regard to
the maximum allowable density; 6) Adjacent properties are zoned Tourist (T) District, and
developed with attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single-family dwellings with
heights varying between one and three stories, with the surrounding area consisting of a mixture
of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations; 7) The proposed height of the building is
58 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck; 8) There are no pending Code Enforcement issues
with these sites; 9) Staff finds that the development proposal does not meet General
Applicability criteria 3-913.A.1 and 5; 10) Staff finds that the development proposal meets
General Applicability criteria 3-913.A.2, 3, 4 and 6; 11) Staff finds that the development proposal
does not meet Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria 2-803.C.1, 5, 6 and 7; and 12) Staff
finds that the development proposal meets Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria 2-
803.C.2, 3, 4, 8 and 9.
Recommended Conclusions of Law: 1) The development proposal is not compatible with
the surrounding area; 2) The development proposal does not comply with the "Old Florida
District" of Beach by Design, which identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as
the preferred form of development; 3) The development proposal does not comply with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project per Section 2-803.C.1, 5, 6 and
7; and 4) The development proposal does not comply with other standards in the Code including
the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.A.1 and 5.
Community Development 2005-08-16
56
.
Ed Armstrong, representative, said this case is similar to others reviewed by the CDB in
the "Old Florida District." He said staff typically recommends denial for projects that exceed 50
feet in height.
Ethyl Hammer, representative, said she evaluated the application and found it consistent
with criteria in the Land Development Code, with emerging development trends in the "Old
Florida District," and with adjacent land uses. She said condominium uses are permitted,
although staff claims preferred uses are single-family and townhouses. She said Beach by
Design has a glitch as single-family homes are not permitted in the Tourist District. She said
this project can be approved up to 50 feet in height but the applicant requests 58 feet, which is
consistent with emerging development trends and previous approvals. She said this project is
economically impractical without increased height. She said the project and will increase the
fair market values of abutting properties, condominiums are consistent with past approvals, and
the project is compatible with adjacent land uses. She said the area is characterized with
condominiums, town homes, and attached dwellings. She said the only setbacks not met relate
to the pool and rear. She said the project exceeds parking requirements and features an
upscale architectural design. Ms. Hammer said the "Old Florida District" serves as a transition
between the beach district and residential area. She said other nearby projects are of similar
heights and densities. She felt the project will be a significant asset and will stimulate
redevelopment in this area.
.
Mr. Armstrong requested the CDB consider current development of the site. He said
approval of this project removes parking from the street, provides landscaping, lowers the
impervious surface ratio, and improves current conditions. He said single-family homes are not
permitted as a matter of right in this area.
Eleven people spoke in support of the application.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Item #81, Case FLD2005-05044 - 629 Bay
Esplanade. The motion was duly seconded.
It was suggested the motion be amended to include the reasons for the approval.
Member Fritsch agreed to withdraw his motion to allow Mr. Dennehy to restate it. The
seconder agreed.
.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #81, Case FLD2005-05044
for 629 Bay Esplanade, based on the Board's Findings of Fact that the subject property is 0.67
acre and is within the Tourist District and the Resort Facilities High Future Land Use Plan
Category, that the subject property is within the special area redevelopment area as part of the
"Old Florida District," the subject property currently is developed with 8 attached dwellings and
11 overnight accommodation units, the subject property is permitted a maximum of 20 attached
dwelling units, the development parcel is consistent with the Community Development Code
and the future land use category with regard to the maximum allowed density, the adjacent
properties are zoned T District and are developed with attached dwellings and single-family
dwellings with heights varying between one and three stories, the surrounding area consists of a
mixture of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations, the proposed height of the
building is 58 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck, and there are no pending Code
enforcement issues, and Conclusions of Law based upon evidence in the staff report,
submissions made by the applicant and testimony today, that criteria in Section 2-803.C,
Section 3-913 are met and are consistent with Code. The motion was duly seconded.
Community Development 2005-08-16
57
.
.
.
Members Fritsch, Coates, Johnson, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye";
Members Gildersleeve, Plisko and Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried.
2. Case: FLD2005-05045 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald and Karen Kozan.
Applicant: Newkirk Ventures, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-mail:
nestech@mindsprinq.com).
Location: 0.67 acres located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 300 feet south of
Skiff Point.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (26 existing and proposed
attached dwelling units; 20 dwelling units maximum under land use category), under the
provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 26 attached
dwelling units with a reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 144.65 feet,
reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 23 feet (to building) from 25 feet to 20
feet (to balcony), from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash
staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.1 feet (to balconies)
and from 10 feet to 5.4 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet
to 6.1 feet (to balconies) and from 10 feet to five feet (to sidewalk) and an increase to
building height from 30 feet to 46 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of six feet (from
roof deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and
reductions to the landscape buffer along Island Way from 15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement)
and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the landscape buffer
along the north side from 10 feet to 5.4 feet (to sidewalk) and a reduction to the landscape
buffer along the south side from 10 feet to five feet (to sidewalk), as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (26 condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Island Estates Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #2
39, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237); Dolphin Cove Condo Association (255
Dolphin Point, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; email:
dlphincove1@netzero.com); Village on Island Estates (Tom Baiocco, 240 Windward
Passage, Unit 803, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-3861; email:
narctom@msn.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544
Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.676-acre site is located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 300 feet
south of Skiff Point. The site has 144.65 feet of frontage on Island Way and is currently
developed with 26 attached dwellings in a two-story, U-shaped building. Some covered parking
is along the west side of the building. All existing improvements, excluding the dock, are
planned to be demolished.
The subject property is an area of Island Estates that is dominated by attached dwellings
of varying heights. The property to the direct north at 415 Island Way is presently developed
with 12 attached dwellings in a two-story building on the east side of the property and is
currently being processed for redevelopment in a manner similar to the subject proposal with
attached dwellings in a four-story building over ground-level parking (FLD2005-04035, on this
same CDB agenda). The property to the direct south at 333 Island Way is currently developed
Community Development 2005-08-16
58
.
.
.
with attached dwellings in two-story buildings. Parcels farther south are developed with
attached dwellings of two-stories over ground-level parking or taller buildings. Directly to the
west, across Island Way, is a 16-story attached dwelling building at 400 Island Way. Properties
across the canal to the east are developed with single-family dwellings zoned Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District, as well as parcels farther north on Island Way.
The proposal is to redevelop the site with 26 attached dwellings in one building. The
western portion of the building will have three interconnected "wings," served by common
elevators and stairs. The north and south "wings" are four stories in height, containing one
dwelling per floor of 1,870 square-feet of living area. The center "wing" is three stories in height,
with an amenity room for the residents on the second floor and one dwelling per floor otherwise of
1,660 square-feet of living area. Sixteen dwelling units, each approximately 1,954 square-feet of
living area, are proposed in the eastern portion of the building (four dwelling units per floor).
Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required
improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers of fifteen feet along Island
Way and 10 feet along the north and south sides of the property are required by the Code. The
applicant is requesting reductions to these buffers: a) Along Island Way from 15 feet to 10 feet (to
pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area). The reduction to 10 feet to
pavement occurs in the southwest corner of the parcel, where the western (rear) edge of the
angled parking space is within the required buffer. The distance from the front property line to the
front edge of the angled parking space is 20 feet. Based on an average between the rear and
front of the angled parking space, the intent of the buffer is satisfied. In regard to the reduction
related to the trash staging area, the building will have refuse collection rooms on the ground floor
within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days.
The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the
necessity of the trash truck coming on-site; b) Along the north side from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to
sidewalk) - The building and pavement meet the required setback and buffer along this edge of
the property. The reduction is due to a Building Code requirement for a sidewalk from the stairs
from the upper floors to the sidewalk within the right-of-way; c) Along the south side from 10 feet
to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk) - The building and pavement also meet the required setback and buffer
along this edge of the property. The reduction here is the same as "b" above; 2) The applicant
has submitted a Comprehensive Landscape Program to offset the above reductions (see "4"
below). Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing
improvements and is providing parking that meets Code provisions; 3) Removal of nonconforminq
siqns, outdoor Iiqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing
improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) Use of
Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements.
The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties. The
applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscape Program to satisfy the requested
reductions to the landscape buffer requirements listed above. The reductions along the north and
south side represent 55% of the length of the property depth. The eastern portion of the property
exceeds the required buffer width. Landscape areas along the front exceed the required buffer,
providing adequate areas for landscaping of the site. Landscaping includes tiering of landscape
materials for visual interest and improves the site appearance. Landscaping proposed may be
viewed as being more attractive than minimum landscape standards.
The proposal includes a reduction to lot width for attached dwellings from 150 feet to
144.65 feet. The lot was developed on one and one-half of platted lots in its current manner in
1962. Abutting lots to the north and south are developed with existing attached dwellings. While
the lot to the north also is proposed to be redeveloped on a similarly sized lot, each development
Community Development 2005-08-16
59
.
.
.
is by different developers. The lot width can be viewed as being a minor reduction, with no ability
to meet current requirements. The flexibility in regard to lot width is justified by the benefits to the
surrounding area and to the City by allowing redevelopment of the property with new, modern
buildings meeting current Building Codes and significant increases to landscaping.
The request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the height increase
and setback reductions to pavement, sidewalks and the trash staging area. The application was
mistakenly advertised to include reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 23 feet (to
building) from 25 feet to 20 feet (to balcony). The center "wing" of the building is proposed 37.8
feet to the front property line, with the balcony proposed 31.8 feet to the front property line, both
exceeding the minimum 25-foot front setback requirement. The proposal includes reductions to
the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to
trash staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.1 feet (to balconies)
and from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk - 5.4 feet advertised) and reductions to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to 6.1 feet (to balconies) and from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk - five feet
advertised). In regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the eastern
building will have a trash collection room on the ground floor. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the
staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is
necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site.
The proposal includes a front setback reduction to 10 feet to the rear (west) edge of the
southern angled parking space and a reduction to 16 feet to the front (west) edge of the northern
angled parking space. The existing development on this site presently is at a zero front setback to
pavement, with no landscaping in the front setback area. Most existing attached dwelling
developments along Island Way have no or very little landscaping in the front setback area, with
most pavements at the front property line (any grass or landscaping appears to be within the right-
of-way). While the proposal does not fully meet the Code requirements, the proposal significantly
increases the amount of landscaping in the front setback. The reductions to the side setbacks
proposed are to above ground balconies (one per floor), located 6.1 feet from the side property
lines and to the sidewalks from the building stairs. The property is currently developed with the
residential building at a side setback of 8.4 feet (north side) and 7.8 feet (south side) and
pavement at a side setback of approximately four feet. The proposed building and pavement
meet the required setback and buffer along this edge of the property. The reductions along the
north and south side represent 55 percent of the length of the property depth. The eastern portion
of the north and south sides of the property exceeds the required buffer width. The dwellings
proposed on this property average approximately 1,900 square-feet each, which are moderately
sized units in today's condominium market. The proposed building is located at a rear setback of
18 feet (to building, meeting Building Code requirements) and 16 feet (to cantilevered balconies),
which exceeds the minimum required rear setback of 15 feet. The existing residential building is
approximately at a 24.5-foot rear setback. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks
are justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and to the
City as a whole for both buildings and landscaping. The redevelopment of this parcel may be
viewed as otherwise impractical without the requested deviations from the required setbacks, and
all setback reductions are to non-building structures (except the above ground balconies on the
north and south sides of the building). Additionally, the design of this project creates a form and
function that enhances the character of the surrounding area, which breaks up the scale and
massing of the buildings.
While there are driveways to the on-site parking on the north and south sides of the
property, the site today appears as one large driveway, as there is pavement along the width of
the property from the curbing of the Island Way roadway to the property line. There is striped,
Community Development 2005-08-16
60
.
parallel parking within the right-of-way. The proposal removes the entire pavement within the
right-of-way and provides an entrance driveway on the south and an exit driveway on the north.
The applicant is providing 43 parking spaces, exceeding the minimum required parking of 39
spaces. Parking for the condominium units are provided under the building or in open parking off
these directional drives. While not shown on the site plan, a four-foot high opaque fence or wall is
required along the west, north and south property lines to screen off-street parking from the
adjacent parcels and roadway.
.
The proposed building has been designed at a height of 46 feet above BFE (four stories
over ground level garage parking) with perimeter parapets of six feet in height (from roof deck).
The elevator and stairs extend less than 14 feet above the roof deck. As a Flexible Development
use, the Code provides a building height range from 30 to 50 feet for attached dwellings. While
the proposed height is greater than that of the existing adjacent residential buildings to the north
and south, the proposed height is less than the maximum height allowable and will be in harmony
with the scale, bulk, density and character of surrounding properties. A similar development
proposal for a four-story (43.17 feet above BFE) over ground level parking directly north is on this
same COB agenda (FLD2005-04035, 415 Island Way). A 16-story residential building is directly
west across Island Way from this property. Redevelopment of this parcel meeting current Building
Codes (including meeting FEMA requirements) with a development that is marketable with units of
adequate size is otherwise impractical without deviations from the height standards of the MHDR
District. Flexibility in regard to building height is justified by the benefits to an upgraded site that is
compatible with the surrounding character and that benefits the City with a redeveloped site that
reduces flood hazards to residential property. The increase for the parapets may be viewed as
making them proportional in respect to the height of the building and to aid in the screening of the
rooftop air conditioning units. The elevator and stairwells towers have been designed meeting the
maximum allowable Code height of 16 feet from the rooftop.
A sidewalk along the Island Way right-of-way will be constructed as part of this
redevelopment proposal, increasing pedestrian safety by the constriction of driveway access to
the directional driveways. Site drainage is proposed within a retention vault under the building. It
is noted that the windows and sliding glass door shown on the front elevation for the center "wing"
are not accurate to the floor plans submitted. The floor plans indicate two sliding glass doors and
a wider balcony than that indicated on the front elevation. While not shown on the plans, the
existing dock is planned to be retained. Use of this dock will need to be restricted to use of the
condominium residents and/or their guests.
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. Future signage will need to
meet the requirements of the Code and any freestanding sign must be a monument-style sign a
maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the
buildings.
Staff's support for this proposal is based on the reasons enumerated above. The
proposal is compatible with the surrounding properties. The redevelopment of this site will
improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements
and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and
Residentiallnfill Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) have been met. There are no outstanding
enforcement issues associated with this site.
.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Community Development 2005-08-16
61
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
. 11.
The subject 0.676-acre site is zoned Medium High Density Residential District and has
144.65 feet of lot width;
The current use of the site is for 26 attached dwellings, which is nonconforming to
current density limitations, in a two-story building not meeting current FEMA
requirements;
Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30 dwelling units per acre,
the subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 20 dwelling units;
The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity to allow the
reconstruction of the same 26 dwelling units on the property;
The lot width of 144.65 feet does not meet current Code requirements for attached
dwellings of 150 feet;
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with one residential building with a height of
46 feet (to roof deck) above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (four stories over ground level
parking). The height increase for this building is within the Flexible Development range
for attached dwellings. While the height is not consistent with the existing developed
character of the properties to the north and south, it is compatible with surrounding
development, including the 16-story building to the west;
All buildings meet required setbacks. Setback reductions requested are to non-building
elements (pavement, trash staging area and sidewalks). Even with the reductions
requested, the landscape area is significantly increased over existing conditions;
Parking provided meets and exceeds the minimum requirements of the Code;
The proposed site design with one entrance and exit driveway represents an
improvement over the existing condition;
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, will enhance the
character of the immediate vicinity and will improve the appearance of this site and the
surrounding area; and
There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law:
1. Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F;
2. Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability
criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and
3. Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of
this application.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 30, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Termination of
Status of Nonconformity for density (26 existing and proposed attached dwelling units; 20
dwelling units maximum under land use category), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2)
Flexible Development application to permit 26 attached dwelling units with a reduction to the
minimum lot width from 150 feet to 144.65 feet, reductions to the front (west) setback from 25
feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to
the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.1 feet (to balconies) and from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to
sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.1 feet (to balconies) and from
10 feet to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk) and an increase to building height from 30 feet to 46 feet (to roof
deck) with perimeter parapets of six feet (from roof deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under
the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and reductions to the landscape buffer along Island Way from
15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction
to the landscape buffer along the north side from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk) and a
.
Community Development 2005-08-16
62
.
reduction to the landscape buffer along the south side from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to sidewalk), as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the site at
405 Island Way, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other
standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the
conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the windows and
sliding glass doors on the front elevation be coordinated with that indicated on the floor plans
prior to the issuance of the building permit; 4) That the site and landscape plans be revised prior
to the issuance of any permits to show a four-foot high, landscaped opaque fence or wall along
the west, north and south property lines to screen off-street parking from the adjacent parcels
and roadway; 5) That boats moored at the existing or future dock, lifts 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; 6) That future signage meet the requirements of
the Code and any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height,
designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building; 7) That all applicable
requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 8) That all
proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground; 9)
That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy;
10) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 11)
That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits, including any
extension of the fire riser to the north for the future docks.
Kevin Barry requested party status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Kevin Barry party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Frank Dame requested party status.
Member Coates moved to grant Frank Dame party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Diane Aradi requested party status.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Diane Aradi party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Wells said landscape buffer areas are greater than originally approved by staff and
reductions in setbacks along the north and south are for sidewalks only.
.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said the highest point on the building is 46 feet. The
project has many items in common with the project next door. Open space requirements are
15%; this project offers 36.5%. He said the project adheres to ADA (Americans with Disabilities
Act) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirements. He said the project is
Community Development 2005-08-16
63
.
consistent with the Code. In response to a question, Mr. Ghovaee said the proposal does not
include docks.
Party Status Holder Kevin Barry opposed the project, as the building is too massive and
will generate too much traffic.
Party Status Holder Frank Dame opposed the project, as parking requirements are
inadequate, the lot is nonconforming, and the project is too dense.
Party Status Holder Diane Aradi opposed the project, citing density concerns,
inadequate green space between buildings, and a lack of parking.
One person spoke in opposition to the project.
Mr. Ghovaee said the site currently has 26 units. He said the applicant is providing 4
more parking spaces than required by Code. He said the building was designed to meet Code.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Fire Department reported no concerns regarding
the project.
.
Member Fritsch moved to deny Item #G2, Case FLD2005-05045 for 405 Island Way, as
the project is too dense, and based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Section 2-
404.f(1) that the development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is not
otherwise impractical without deviations from intensity and development standards, and with
general conditions in Section 3-913 that the development will not be in harmony with either the
scale, bulk, or density, or the character of adjacent properties. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Fritsch, Plisko, and Milam voted "Aye"; Members Gildersleeve, Coates, Johnson, and
Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Nay." Motion failed.
Member Coates moved to approve Item #G2, Case FLD2005-05045 for 405 Island Way,
based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Bases for Approval, Conditions of
Approval, as listed and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates,
Gildersleeve, Johnson, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Members Fritsch,
Plisko, and Milam voted "Nay". Motion carried.
H . LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1):
1. Case: TA2005-08001 - Community Development Code Amendment
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Parks and Recreation Department
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code establishing a Public Art and
Design Program and a Public Art and Design Board to administer the program.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Margo Walbolt, Cultural Affairs Manager, Parks and Recreation Department
.
Cultural Affairs Manager Margo Walbolt said the 2002 Clearwater Cultural Plan, created
by the Clearwater Arts Foundation and endorsed by the City Council, recommended the
development of a "percent for art" program. The Cultural Planning process with the participation
of over 1,000 community leaders and citizens included an assessment with surveys, interviews,
and meetings. The study indicated that Clearwater was lacking in visual arts. Citizens who
were surveyed cited examples of neighboring communities such as St. Petersburg, Tampa, and
Sarasota who have adopted Public Art Ordinances as a means of distinguishing the look and
Community Development 2005-08-16
64
.
.
.
feel of their cities. The State of Florida, Pinellas County and Hillsborough County also have
ordinances that require a percentage of construction costs for new or redeveloped public
buildings allocated for public art. In addition to public projects, communities also are looking to
private development projects to include public art as a means of increasing quality of life and
enhancing the character and identity of the community. Over 350 American municipalities,
counties and states have percent for art ordinances that establish a long-term commitment to
economic development by enhancing civic design, celebrating heritage, and promoting the
distinct fabric of neighborhoods.
Currently, more than 24 cities in the United States have private development design
requirements for public art. Six programs exist in Florida including the 15-year-old requirement
in Palm Beach Gardens and a six-month-old requirement in Tamarac. Extensive research of
existing public art programs has led to the development of a proposed public art ordinance for
Clearwater. As part of the process, a needs assessment by a public art consultant was
commissioned to analyze the current and historical conditions and to make recommendations
for future expectations. The assessment recommends that in order to meet the expectations of
citizens and businesses; public art for new, expanded and renovated public and private
buildings constructed in Clearwater should be required as a design guideline.
Proposed Amendments
Proposed Ordinance #7489-05 includes amendments to the existing Community
Development Code as follows:
The creation of Article 3, Division 24 consisting of Sections 3-2401 through 3-2407:
Section 3-2401 Public Art and Design Program. This provision creates a program that requires
an allocation of 1 % of the total construction budget of eligible City capital projects for the
incorporation of public works of art. Eligible private development projects shall also allocate not
less than 1 % of the aggregate "Job Value" for on-site public art to enhance the visual appeal of
the project and City. An in-lieu-of contribution to the City's Public Art and Design Program will
also satisfy this requirement.
Section 3-2402 provides for definitions within the proposed ordinance.
Section 3-2403 Public Art and Design Funds establishes a separate accounting of monies to be
used solely for expenses associated with the selection, commissioning, acquisition, installation,
maintenance, public education, administration, removal and insurance of the works of art.
Custody of the public art and design funds will remain with the City and all City policies and
procedures shall be strictly adhered to regarding the oversight of such funds. All funds will be
used only as permitted by law.
Section 3-2404 Appropriation of City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Funds proposes that
commencing with FY 2006/07, all appropriations for eligible City capital improvement projects
include a City Public Art Contribution of not less than 1 % of the Total Construction Budget but
not to exceed the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per project, subject to the
City budgeting and appropriating such funds. Only funding sources legally permitted to be used
for artwork will be included in this appropriation. Eligible City capital improvement projects are
defined as any new facility construction or renovation projects equal to or greater than $500,000
including but not limited to buildings, greenways, roads, parking facilities, bridges or other above
Community Development 2005-08-16
65
.
.
.
ground projects. Specifically excluded are street resurfacing, major drainage, wastewater,
below-grade utilities, annual repair and replacement projects.
Section 3-2405 Public Art and Design Allocations for Private Construction Projects and
Developments would require that commencing October 1, 2006, all new construction of, or
renovation related to, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and residential projects and
developments which equal or exceed an Aggregate Job Value of $5 million dollars must
allocate not less than one percent (1 %) of the Aggregate Job Value up to the sum of two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per project for the provision of public art.
When a project is subject to a public art allocation, the developer shall have two options:
1) The developer may contract with a professional artist to site a permanent public artwork as
part of the development project. Artworks must be located in publicly accessible locations. Such
artwork may include amenities such as streetscapes, paving treatments, architecturally
integrated water features as well as mosaics, murals, or sculpture, etc. The artwork must be
completed or commissioned before a certificate of occupancy will be issued and 2) In lieu of an
on-site project, a developer may contribute .3% of the Aggregate Job Value to the City's Public
Art and Design Program. This in lieu fee must be paid prior to the issuance of building permit.
Excluded from this requirement shall be: 1) Projects with an Aggregate Job Value under
$5,000,000; 2) Residential developments of new construction for affordable housing as defined
and utilized by the Housing Division of the Economic Development & Housing Department; and
3) Eligible Projects pending approval for a building permit that have submitted a complete
application prior to October 1, 2006.
Section 3-2406 Ownership and Maintenance contains provisions for title, contract review,
responsibility for maintenance of the artwork, and procedures for removal.
Proposed Ordinance #7489-05 also includes amendments to Section 2, Division 11
creating Sections 5-1101 through 5-1105, which creates a seven-member board appointed by
the City Council to administer the Public Art and Design Program. The proposed amendment
provides for the composition, powers and duties, terms of office, and removal of members as
required by City policy and ordinance.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, Policies, and
objectives of the Community Development Code.
Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life
in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the City; to establish rules of
procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property
owners of the city.
Section 1-103(8) - It is the purpose of this Community Development Code to create
value for the citizens of the City of Clearwater by:
(1) Strengthening the City's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
Community Development 2005-08-16
66
.
Section 1-1 03(D) - It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the
beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future
uses and structures in the City are attractive and well maintained to the maximum extent
permitted by law.
Section 1-103(E) - It is the further purpose of this Development Code to:
(1) Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the City
through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and
beneficial development of land within the city;
(2) Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the
resident and tourist population consistent with the City's economic underpinnings;
(3) The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, Policies, and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan clearly states the importance of beautification. In Section
22.4, the City has determined to preserve and to enhance several streets and places as
"aesthetic gateways and landmark visual images" important to Clearwater.
22.4.1 The City shall maintain and enhance Memorial Causeway and continue
beautification efforts to ensure its major contribution as an aesthetic gateway and landmark to
City beaches.
.
22.4.2 The City shall maintain and enhance Edgewater Drive as a scenic corridor to ensure its
major contribution as an aesthetic gateway and landmark visual image of Clearwater.
22.4.3 The City shall maintain and enhance the Courtney Campbell Parkway as an aesthetic
gateway and landmark visual image of Clearwater.
22.4.4 The City shall maintain and enhance Bayshore Boulevard as a scenic corridor to ensure
its major contribution as an aesthetic gateway and landmark visual image of
Clearwater.
24.4.10 Enhance the image of Clearwater by developing gateway corridor beautification
projects.
The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, Policies and
objectives of the other City plans.
All the recent civic plans for the redevelopment of downtown Clearwater and the beach
have incorporated aesthetic elements into the desired streetscapes and buildings. The
Downtown Redevelopment Plan calls for artworks" to enliven open spaces and buildings
adding to the cultural vibrancy of a city." The plan mentions many other elements that are part
of the design and creativity that today's public artists bring to urban areas across the USA and
world. These amenities in the plan include "benches, chairs, tables, planters and landscaping."
The Downtown Clearwater Master Streetscape Plan encourages similar amenities to "improve
aesthetics" and "create a sense of identity" for Downtown. Beach by Design will include
decorative sidewalk patterns, street furniture, street lighting and fountains that are interesting,
engaging and unique.
. Parks and Recreation Master Plan April 2002
Community Development 2005-08-16
67
J
.
.
.
The proposed amendment helps address the following elements included in the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, Section 3- Action Plan and Implementation Program, continuous
actions/policies.
Item 25 - Work with citizen groups to develop more projects similar to the Cleveland
Street Alley Park.
Item 26 - Create additional downtown plazas and parks through redevelopment.
Item 27 - Support the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Item 46 - Partner with the Clearwater Arts Foundation to develop and implement the
Clearwater Cultural Plan.
Item 63 - Continue to expand use of business partnerships and corporate sponsorships.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 2003. Open Spaces
Open spaces provide public "living rooms" in the urban setting. The design and location
of these spaces are important determinants in creating successful pedestrian environments. In
general, the type and character of the urban open space should be influenced by the desired
function of the space, surrounding uses and the potential users of the space. In addition,
amenities provided within open spaces can enhance the connectivity of the various design
elements making up these spaces. Amenities include benches, chairs, tables, planters and
landscaping. Public art enlivens open spaces and buildings adding to the cultural vibrancy of a
city.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 2003. Streetscape
The streetscape plan is intended to accomplish the objectives listed below:
. Improve the pedestrian and vehicular environments within Downtown;
. . Create opportunities for an active street life e.g. sidewalk cafes, special events, etc.;
. Better define the Downtown area;
. Improve aesthetics of Downtown; and
. Create a sense of identity for the Downtown."
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 2003. Downtown Corridor
Improvements include a variety of paving materials, medians, palm and oak trees,
decorative lighting fixtures that can support banners and hanging plants, a fountain plaza and
wrought iron-style street furnishings. The Plan also includes the placement of finials, urns, and
other street furniture throughout the area to provide an interesting pedestrian experience.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 2003. Beach Access Corridor
The streetscape treatment along this corridor will consist of sidewalks, palm trees,
decorative lighting, benches, and painted crosswalks.
Community Development 2005-08-16
68
. Beach bv Deskm: Desian Goals
1. To ensure aesthetically pleasing architecture in a tropical vernacular
2. To create inviting, human scale "places" at the street level of all buildings
3. To promote an integration of form and function
4. To create a sense of a "beach community neighborhood" throughout Clearwater Beach
5. To use landscape material to differentiate Clearwater Beach from other beach areas
and intensely developed places in Pine lias County"
Beach bv Desian: StreetscafJe
"Distinctive paving patterns should be used....."
Street furniture, including benches and trash receptacles, should be liberally placed
along the sidewalks.
Street lighting should respond to the pedestrian-oriented nature of a tourist destination.
In this context, it should balance the functional with the attractive.
Fountains provide attractive focal points to public spaces and add natural elements to
urban environments. They should be interesting, engaging and unique."
.
As a result of the Needs Assessment and the Cultural Plan, the Parks and Recreation
staff recommends the establishment of a public art program by ordinance.
The recommended model is a design requirement on new, expanded and renovated
public and private construction. As per the standard program across the United States, the
amount of the expenditure for public art will be set as equal to 1 % of the aggregate "job value"
of construction costs. The private property owner will have the option of either providing public
art on their property equaling at least 1 % of the aggregate job value up to the sum of $200,000,
or pay an in-lieu fee of .3% of the aggregate job value to the City of Clearwater public art
program. The City will utilize the in-lieu fees to commission public art for city property that
serves the future users of the new construction at neighborhood or citywide facilities. The
requirement will apply to all new construction or renovation to commercial, industrial, mixed-use
and residential projects, which equal or exceed $5 million dollars except for affordable housing
as defined by the Housing Division of the Economic Development and Housing Department.
As part of this amendment, the City will require a percent for public art program for the
City CIP program of 1 % on all new buildings, parks and streetscape projects equal to or greater
than $500,000. The Parks and Recreation Department should manage the program with a
public art committee and an auxiliary non-profit to secure additional funding.
The ordinance will apply to City projects commencing with FY 2006-2007. Private
projects applying for a building permit on October 1, 2006 or after also may be subject to this
requirement.
.
The Parks and Recreation Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #7489-
05 that revises the Community Development Code.
Community Development 2005-08-16
69
.
.
.
In response to a question, Ms. Walbolt said residential projects of $5 million and above
qualify for the program, with the exception of affordable housing. City recreation centers also
would qualify but would not be able to use the "in-lieu of' option.
Discussion ensued with remarks that this program is a great idea and an example of
how Clearwater is maturing into a world-class city.
In response to a question, Ms. Walbolt said the October 1, 2006 beginning date for
private projects applying for building permits was established in order to give people time to
prepare their budgets, provide the City time to get the word out, and time for the City to develop
specific guidelines, do research, and implement the program. It was suggested an earlier date
be considered so the program would affect the recent surge in development.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said staff will review how permitting, etc. will apply to
the public art program. As public artwork can be considered to be a public asset, he said it may
be considered differently than other items regulated by Code. It was remarked that issues need
to be addressed such as private construction projects, artwork in publicly accessible locations,
within rights-of-ways or setbacks, fence work or railings, etc., and maintenance of the artwork.
Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance #7489-05 to the City
Council. The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed that the public contribution is three times that of what private
developer are required to contribute. Ms. Walbolt said a public art design committee will
develop program guidelines. She said public art artists are unique as they have experience in
specific fields and in working with developers, architects, etc. Typically, community art projects
are developed to help local artists become public artists. This ordinance will be presented to the
Council on September 1, 2005.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Other
In response to a concern regarding deterioration to properties on Marshall Street and at
1501 Ft. Harrison Avenue, Ms. Clayton will report on the status.
Mr. Delk thanked the CDB for their comments. Staff anticipates 40 proposed changes to
the Code, including further discussion regarding the issue of whether 1.5 parking spaces per
unit is insufficient. Once the Council reviews the proposed changes, they will be available for
public input. Mr. Delk anticipated proposed changes will be submitted to the CDB in September
or October. Staff also plans to present their findings and recommendations regarding the "Old
Florida District" to the City Council. He said future staff recommendations will be more
consistent with community and CDB expectations.
Community Development 2005-08-16
70
.
.
.
The Chair reported the September 20, 2005 meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m.
I - ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
Community Development 2005-08-16
71
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
allman Dana Kirk
AILING ADDRESS
3033 Pin Oak Drive
CITY
Clearwater
COUNTY
Pine lIas
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Communit Develo ment Board
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
~ CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
September 20, 2005
o ELECTIVE
~ APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, counCI
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depend in
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form beforl
completing the reverse side and filing the form. .
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whicr
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
rent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the ass,embly the nature of your interest in: the measure on which you
are,abstaining from voting; and . .
WITHIN 1~ DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
.;
APPOI~TED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting .in the ,situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally .or in writing and whether made
by you or ~t your direction.
Arou IN~.ErjP !9. MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE-DECISiON PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
~KEN:
. You must ,complete an9 file thi,s form (before r:naking any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of ttiemeeting; who wili incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
-~
J
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
.
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of thE
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, D;mR Ki rk 1'R 11 mRn
, hereby disclose that on September 20
'h
,2002-
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
-L inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom J am retained; or
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
Community Development Board Application ANX2005-07024, 2275 McMullen Booth Road, .
a request for recommendation for an annexation, plan ameridment and rezoning. The
nature of my conflict is that the subject property is in close proximity to my home.
, which
q /"2::J / f)~-
I
, ,--I
Jt ~: .
, ,
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DIS~LOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMft"ND, 0 A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
, , ,
jl '.
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
~ C~~_NC~~~~rru ORITY,ORCOMMITTE rhlf)
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
I3"CiTY 0 COUNTY
NA~~ OF POLITICAL S~BDIVISION:
c., e i=' e L.eA~t-
MY POSITION IS: /
o ELECTIVE W"'APPOINTIVE
OUNTY
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
t:iJlI6
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serVing at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special priyate. gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of pommunit~ redevelopment ag~mcies und~r Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "bu'siness associate" means any person or entity engaged.in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joi.nt venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchang!3).
ELECTED OFFICERS:'
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above; you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the ass~mbly the nature of your interest in' the measure on which you
are.abstaining from voting; and .
WITHIN 1~DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
.:
APPOIf:-JTED OFFICERS:
;
Although you must abstain from voting jn the .sitl,Jations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclos'e the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally.or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
I
. YOU INT,E~,r;:> T9 MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
AKEN:
· You must,complete an9 file)his form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting; who wiliincorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
I
j
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
J
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form mU5t be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. .
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
.
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form arid file it within 15 days after the vote occurs ~ith the person 'responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is tiled.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, l)MI,~ B ~t4\t.PC-iZ~Le~'Je
, hereby disclose that on
SEfTPMt;efL
~.
, 20 oS; :
(a) A measure came sr \ViM C6R*: before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
/' inured to the special gain or loss Of~e?~ ~eP6f PiZDJECr The,
CalSTlJJG C!.U=fSr)
,
, by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
T tt8 ItfPUCM/O~ SeEtS PtEa6Le vev~ Nf~k., VlJ tePf!JJetbP
f a,PAPD ~. {3if,71JJ6 ~I[)~ SJf&,"fF;t I ~~ 6;n8UBIX!! !liJdf!lU'j 'tpc...
(Hr3') I~ ^ O-lAcwr fJF rvt\ T5W1(Ut(C{l) WMJe7tllHt) I"J.JC.. IfJIflLli &JA-P6'7~
DID IJtJT Wb~ tl~ 1bZS MfWIJ'V70JJ (0As€ FtJ)'AOOS--CJ1(),,~J)
WE ~B f~1J1DGD ffaJPf!ljf,t7)~kt- Co~SuOrt~ SeflaCGs OJ.) omBL
tTt, C/rmiUS fflOJec.:rs (tJ ttlffi Pt6f" t terw(!v,.JlJJ.JDBfl, a~.
.
q JJO /0 5"
Date Fi(ed I
::""
...."
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DIS~LOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEPiCHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND; O.
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. ' ' . i
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
; i . ; ~
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICER~
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
F'l...' I~C!:> A" t; ><.
AILING ADDRESS
, 10 (, 0,0.1( Av
CITY
~t-e A(\ AT1:!:J'L
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
er,. ~
COUNTY
'1#e/;~~
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
" t\~l \a.S ~t:>
o ELECTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
'.
. . ~
This form is for use by any person se'rVing at the county, city, or other local level of govern~en(on an,appoinied or elected board, counc:
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depend in
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form ~efon
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
\.
, 11, ., " "t"
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whic!"
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organizati?n or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of 'a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate", means anyyerson or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described ab0ve, you must disclose the contlict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly"stating to the ass~mbly the nature of your interest in. the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and .
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by compl~ting and filing this form ,with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*;
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you'must abstain from voting .in the .situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally .or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction. I .
I
YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
_ ~ .-,...-v ". ,t .. . . . .
fAKEN:
. You must,complete an9 filethis form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible.for recording the
minutes of the meeting; who wili incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must b~ read publicly at the hext meeting after the form is filed.
.. ~ .. J \.
.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
,,.
..
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
'. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the v~te occJ'rs with the person respohsible fof'recordi~~ the "minutes of thE
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. .
I,
A UK
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
rc,{C,IL-Q
, hereby disclose that on
S.er't" ·
z..o
20 oS'
'-
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
V inured to the special gain or loss of )( Fb","~ T1-IY ~clt.POc;,
whom I am retained; or
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
FL\) ~o"5 -0. 0 ~l? - ,\0 \ '5. =c.-lfDi~ ~_.
r~~ ~~i)'-' _ ~~ ...~
~ ~V:)~ ~ ~ ~\oOV.fc: ~ \ '5 "-
~ on '^'C ~:r- W"\ .
.
9.,. Zo-o~
~~]J
'\1 .
Signature ",.. :
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DIS~LOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMft,.ND, 0
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
;",:
I;
\.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 16, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2):
1.
Case: FLD20~035 - 415 Island Way
~ yes no
2.
32 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 9):
1. Case: FLD2005-05038 - 1520 North Saturn Avenue
V;es
no
2. Case: FLD2005-05044 - 629 ay Esplanade
no
3. Case: FLD200s-021eveland Street no
4. Case: FLD2005-05037 - 11 ~id Road
~s no
5. Case: FLD2005-05~ 700 Druid Road
Vyes no
~
I
\,
/
6. Case: FLD2005-05~ 405 Island Way
-./ yes no
7. Case: FLD2005-050~415 San Juan Court
Vyes no
8. Case: FLD2005-050~~7445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard
V yes no
R2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1.
Case: ANX20~05016 - 1753 Grove Drive
V yes no
2.
Case: ANX200~0 1 7 - 1501 Country Lane E.
~ yes no
3.
18 - 1644 Bellrose Drive N.
no
4.
Case: T 71 - Community Development Code Amendment
yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning De
Date: P-- /;2-t?J
D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
\
\\o~~\)
o,,~~~'\' ~ . \\>e
:\)~\'\'~ \)~~~~~'b~'i>\ \6'~~~t''<'\ 'O\te ,,\'0,\ \0
CO~~~, e\\t''b \)'~\ . ~ ot' \\\e 'Q
~~e ~\Cb?J.t\o
~ \1\~eS
e'(So1\?J.
o.ucteo. ?J. 'Q
\ \>,<,,,e co'O' ;SO'Qe'f'.\e'O.
\0\\0~,t''b 'Q
\ ' ~,..
~S (\\eli'" ~ ~'J
~1) \~ 4\~ \.\~,,\\
cO~" 040?>~ ~
.1\>1)').00'>- ~ ,,0 ~~\..".,p.'
C.",e. ~ 6,1 <I"'J
;;" O,.0.,,r1i\9 .
~ ,\uR2-0
\),0' ~ '3.{\0- V
.r~~').oCJ" ~ ,,0
C~<:.e. ~
3e'2> \ " 9\'
~ O~S o.te~'2>
~yy\JC~'t~
~~ ~O ".."".
\>~ _, <I\> S"~
\5~\l \.",0
D').OO"O'O?>'/, ~ ~ \\0
\. c""...r~ /"" ~
~'2>'Q \'3.{\'ac\e
AA ' 6~9 y,'3.~
. r~~').OO"O'O \\0
. C"", . -------
.. ~......---
c\e"Je\'3.{\O- Street
[\r:.[\A/~" 3'\
n~\l\l5'\J.J\J
C~<:.e~ l''-'v J ______no
?>. y......---
\.
\ \ 0' 1>"',<1 Rolli
. -c,-,U~O\l')'\l5\l'11 .'
. C"..., ~o
~. ~.. ~
1,.
1\l\l Utu\O- RO'O;
. l''-'U~\l\l5'\l75\lA6 "
~. C".,. .....-'
je'2> ---------
~
1
r---
t
~
"
6. Case: FLD200S-0S04S - 40S Island Way
yes / no
7. Case: FLD200S-0S0S2 - l41S San Juan Court
yes / no
8. Case: FLD200S-0S0Sl - 44S Harnden Drive and S04 South Gulfview Boulevard
/
yes
no
9 Case: FLD200S-0S047/TDR200S-,22 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1.
Case: ANX200S-0S016 - l7S3 Grove Drive
/
yes no
2.
Case: ANX200S-0S017 - IS01 Country Lane E.
yes / no
3.
Case: ANX200S-0S018 - 1644 Bellrose Drive N.
/no
yes
4.
Case: TA200S-0800! - com7 Development Code Amendment
yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning Dep
Date: 81 \Ip \ 0;-
ment\C D B\CDB, prop y investigation chec list.doc
2
.
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 16, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
\",..--, yes
no
2. Case: FLD2005-03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
~' yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 9):
;>
1. Case: FLD2005-05038 - 1520 North Saturn Avenue
V yes
N.~~ .
no
2. Case: FLD2005-05044 - 629 Bay Esplanade
,
V yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-05048 - 331 Cleveland Street
yes
no
4. Case: FLD2005-05037 - 1105 Druid Road
~. yes
no
I
\ ,
I
5. Case: FLD200~46 - 700 Druid Road
,
F__~ ~.~~
yes
no
.
\
6. Case: FLD2005-05045 - 405 Island Way
/
yes no
't-- 7. Case: FLD2005-05052 - 1415 San Juan Court
'/IfV' ~ ~ ~eno-
V'
yes
no
8. Case: FLD2005-05051 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard
yes
no
9 Case: FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
yes
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-4):
1.
Case: ANX2005-05016 - 1753 Grove Drive
G <'1> ltt S ~ ~~Pt- .
f.'
v
yes
no
2.
Case: ANX2005-05017 - 1501 Country Lane E.
f....,/
t~lq
~<~~ .f/; (
yes
no
3.
Case: AN~JO:050 18 - 1644 Bellmse Drive N.
es no
N -1Mw td.. - eqf H0tv~ .
4. Case: T A2005-0800 1 - Community Development Code Amendment
)
~ no I~J
Date: , (n ~~ LeT\) S- .
DB, property investigation ~dIb ~
2
"
\,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 16, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2):
Case: FLD~035 - 415 Island Way
es no
Case: FLD~.005 03032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 9):
1.
2.
1. Case: FLD2005-05038 - 1520 North Saturn Avenue
~es
no
2. Case: FLD200S-0S07:9 Bay Esplanade
'es no
3. Case: FLD2005-05048 - 331 Cleveland Street
+es
no
4. Case: FLD200S-0Z~: Druid Road
no
5. Case: FLD200l046 - 700 Druid Road
yes no
",
\
6. Case: FLD2005-05045 - 405 Island Way
-*yes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-05052 - 1415 San Juan Court
-Lyes
no
8. Case: FLD2005-05051 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gu1fview Boulevard
~e'
no
9 Case: FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gu1fview Boulevard
fe,
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-4):
1. Case: ANX2005-05016 - 1753 Grove Drive
yes
x
no
2. Case: ANX2005-050 17 - 1501 Country Lane E.
yes ~ no
3. Case: ANX2005-05018 - 1644 Bellrose Drive N.
yes 'f. no
4. Case: TA2005-08001 - Community Development Code Amendment
yes
no
Signat~' ~ Date:Mr
S:\P1anning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
~
FA I tscA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 16, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: FLD2005-04035 - 415 Island Way
/yes
no
2.
Case: FLD200:?,3032 and TDR2005-03019 - 657 Bay Esplanade
,/ yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 9):
1. Case: FLD2005-05038 - 1520 North Saturn Avenue
/no
yes
2. Case: FLD2005-05044 - 629 Bay Esplanade
V yes
no
3. Case: FLD2005-05048 - 331 Cleveland Street
Lyes
no
4. Case: FLD2005-05037 - 1105 Druid Road
'/yes
no
5. Case: FLD2005-05046 - 700 Druid Road
~s no
,
6. Case: FLD200S-0S04S - 40S Island Way
-Lyes no
7. Case: FLD200S-0S0S2 - 141S San ~ Court
yes t/ no
8. Case: FLD20057l - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard
yes no
9 Case: FLD200S-0S0)7/TDR200S-0S022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
V yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1.
Case: ANX200S-0S016 - 17S7ve Drive
yes no
2.
Case: ANX200S-0S017 - IS01 ;s>untry Lane E.
yes V no
3.
Case: ANX200S-0S018 - 1644 Bellrose Drive N.
V no
yes
4.
Signature:
S:\Planning De
2