11/21/2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 21, 2006
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
J. B. Johnson Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Acting Board Member
Absent: Kathy Milam Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 17, 2006
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 17,
motion
2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1-2):
Community Development 2006-11-21 1
1. Case: FLD2006-05032 – 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to December 19, 2006)
Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc.
Applicant: Mark LeBlanc.
Representatives: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.253 acre located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600
feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue.
Atlas Page: 306A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a
reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions
to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building),
from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to
the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet
to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three
feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the
pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation
to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers
along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10
feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along
the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape
requirement from 10% to 5.5% and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet
wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120
Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; email: duketieman@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2006-05032 to December 19, 2006. The
motion carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
2. Level Three Application
Case: TA2006-09007 – Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Development and Neighborhood Services
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code Renaming Occupational Licenses
to Business Tax Receipts consistent with recent changes in Florida Statutes.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758)
Presenter: Michael Delk, AICP.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to continue Case TA2006-09007 to December 19,
motion carried
2006. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Community Development 2006-11-21 2
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting (Items 1-18):
1. Case: FLD2006-07044 – 1721 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
(Continued from October 17, 2006)
Owner: PBP of Clearwater, LLC.
Applicant: Pilot Construction Technology, Inc.
Representative: Abdi R. Boozar-Jomehri (685 Main Street, Suite A, Safety Harbor, FL
34695; phone: 727-725-2550; fax: 727-725-2317; email: pcti@pilotconstruction.com).
Location: 2.49 acres located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard between
Duncan and Plumosa avenues.
Atlas Page: 297B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 20,050 square-foot office building in
addition to existing retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25
feet to 7.29 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to
5.53 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 22.91 feet
(to existing building) and from 25 feet to 10.82 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the
side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side
(north) setback from 10 feet to 6.48 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to 5.1 feet (to proposed building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to existing
pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 50 feet (to roof deck) and a reduction
to required parking from 193 spaces to 104 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter landscape
buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 15 feet to 7.29 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction
to the perimeter landscape buffer along Duncan Avenue from 10 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing
pavement) and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the west from five feet to
4.77 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Addition of a 20,050 square-foot office building (existing 22,209 square-foot
retail sales and services – West Marine).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors (Joanna Siskin, President, 121 N. Crest
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
On October 17, 2006, the CDB (Community Development Board) continued this
application, at the applicant’s request, to November 21, 2006, in order to address issues raised
in the Staff Report. The Staff Report has been revised to reflect the current amended proposal.
The 2.49 acres is located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard between Plumosa
and Duncan avenues. It currently is developed with a 22,209 square-foot building for retail
sales and services (West Marine). The property to the north is zoned Commercial (C) District
and is currently developed with retail sales and services, a problematic use and offices. The
property to the east is zoned Commercial (C) District and Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District and is currently developed with a motel and detached dwellings respectively. The
property to the south is zoned Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts and is currently
Community Development 2006-11-21 3
developed with an office complex. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District
and is currently developed with retail sales and services (shopping center).
The development proposal is to construct a four-story, 20,050 square-foot office building
on the west side of the site where the parking lot exists today, in addition to the existing one-
story, 22,209 square-foot retail sales and services building (West Marine). Offices are a
permitted use within the Commercial (C) District, as well as retail sales and services. The
project is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due to the
setbacks proposed with this proposal.
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the
maximum allowable F.A.R. for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. As
such, the maximum development potential of the 2.49-acre parcel is 59,576.15 square-feet.
The existing one-story West Marine building is 22,209 square-feet. The proposed four-story
office building will be 20,050 square-feet in size, which results in a total square footage of
42,259 square-feet and a F.A.R. of 0.39. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable
F.A.R.
Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Sections 2-701.1 of the Community
Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The proposed I.S.R. is 0.78, which
is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the
minimum lot area for both retail sales and services and offices as a Flexible Development use is
within a range between 3,500 and 10,000 square-feet. The lot area of 108,320.28 square-feet
exceeds these minimum Code requirements.
Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the
minimum lot width for both retail sales and services and offices as a Flexible Development use
is within a range between 30 and 100 feet. Along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (north), the lot width is
281.74 feet. Along Plumosa Avenue (east), the lot width is 342.33 feet. Finally, along Duncan
Avenue (west), the lot width is 131.76 feet. In all cases, the minimum lot width exceeds these
minimum Code requirements.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the
minimum front setback requirement for both retail sales and services and offices ranges
between 15 – 25 feet. The minimum side setback requirement for both uses ranges between 0
– 10 feet. The minimum rear setback requirement for both uses ranges between 10 – 20 feet.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.29 feet (to
existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing
pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 22.91 feet (to existing building)
and from 25 feet to 10.82 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback
from 10 feet to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10
feet to 6.48 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to
5.1 feet (to proposed building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to existing pavement) and a
reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement). Since the
proposed setbacks exceed those listed in Table 2-704, the request must be processed as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
Community Development 2006-11-21 4
When properties are improved by the addition of a new use, the conversion of the
existing use to a new use or the improvement of the existing use to an extent of 25% or more of
the value of the building according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, the property must
be brought into full compliance, including required setbacks, with the Parking and Loading
Division and the Landscape/Tree Protection Division (Sections 3-1202.A.2 and .3 and Sections
3-1401.B.2 and .3).
The applicant proposes to add a new office building to this site retaining most of the
existing setbacks to pavement along the property lines, resulting in the requests to reduce
setback requirements. Two primary areas where setback reductions to pavement are requested
are along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and along Duncan Avenue (these reductions also affect the
provision of required landscape buffers). Along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, that area west of the
driveway exceeds the 15-foot setback to pavement that can be requested as a Level 1 (Flexible
Standard Development) application; whereas the pavement area east of the driveway at its
smallest dimension is 7.29 feet. The location of the existing West Marine building significantly
affects the ability to provide the required setback to pavement. There are established trees
within the existing setback/buffer area. The applicant will be enhancing the existing
setback/buffer area along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with additional accent trees, shrubbery and
groundcover. The applicant is relocating the driveway on Duncan Avenue from the south to the
north side of the property, aligning the new driveway with the drive aisle on the north side of the
proposed office building. On the north side of this proposed driveway, the setback to pavement
is approximately 28 feet, exceeding the minimum requirement of 25 feet. On the south side of
the driveway, the proposed setback/buffer ranges from a maximum of eight feet on the north
side to a minimum of 5.5 feet on the south side. The minimum setback to pavement as a Level
1 request is 15 feet and the minimum buffer along Duncan Avenue is 10 feet. The proposed
location of pavement (cutting back the existing pavement) along Duncan Avenue is greater than
existing conditions, but is less than Code requirements. The location of the proposed building,
which affects this proposed front setback/buffer is a function of the need to provide necessary
truck maneuvering area for the existing truck well on the south side of West Marine, the
provision of an additional, required loading space and required foundation landscaping on the
west side of the proposed office building. While total compliance with required setbacks (to
pavement) and buffers is not being achieved with this proposal, the applicant is upgrading the
existing appearances along both roadways from a landscape standpoint.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the required side setback along the south property
line from 10 feet to 5.1 feet for the proposed office building. The prior proposal on the October
17, 2006, CDB agenda located the building at a five-foot side setback to the south property line.
The design of the south side of the prior building on the October 17 agenda was based on
erroneous information. Based on more accurate Building Code information, coupled with the
relocation of the proposed building to a side setback of 5.1 feet, the appearance of the southern
façade of the building is no different than the other three sides (prior proposed southern façade
was markedly different, with fewer and smaller windows and more “blank” wall). These design
modifications have produced dramatic changes to the point the concerns Planning Staff
previously had are reversed where staff is supportive of the proposed building design and
location.
There are setback reductions requested that are a result of existing conditions where
compliance with Code setback requirements would create undue hardships on the property.
Community Development 2006-11-21 5
The request includes a reduction to the front (east) setback along Plumosa Avenue from 25 feet
to 22.91 feet (to existing building) and from 25 feet to 10.82 feet (to existing pavement). This
site does not take access to Plumosa Avenue and the building exists at less than the required
setback. Existing parking in the northeast corner of the site does not meet the required
minimum setback for parking lots of 15 feet, but the existing setback exceeds the minimum
landscape buffer requirement along this roadway. Landscaping enhancements can be
accommodated within the existing areas along this roadway. The request also includes a
reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement) and a
reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.48 feet (to existing pavement). These two
setback reductions are adjacent to the automobile service station located to the north and west
of this site. While less than the required side setback, they exceed the landscape buffer
requirements along these edges of the property and are to existing parking lot pavement.
Finally, the request includes a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to seven feet
(to existing pavement) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to
existing pavement). These reductions occur to existing parking lot pavement south of the
existing West Marine building. There is an existing parking lot and loading space (truck well)
south of the building where access would be impaired in order to meet Code setback
requirements. Landscape buffering can be accommodated within these existing areas.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development
Code, the maximum structure height for both retail sales and services and offices ranges
between 25 – 50 feet. The existing retail sales and services (West Marine) building is at a
height of 22.67 feet, which meets the minimum standards for height under Table 2-702. The
proposed office building is proposed at a height of 50 feet (to roof deck). While most
surrounding commercial buildings along this stretch of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard are no greater
than two stories in height, there is greater potential for redevelopment along this corridor with
taller buildings. The proposed office building could be viewed as setting a new standard for this
area and along this commercial corridor. There is a one-story office complex directly to the
south of this proposed building, providing a separation between detached dwellings farther
south. This proposed building is viewed as being compatible with the surrounding area.
The proposed building is designed as a rectangle 50 feet deep by 127 feet long with the
façade designed with “modules” creating a window rhythm. The square windows in these
modules on all sides of the building are proposed with four large panes of glass, with solex
green glazing to create contrast with the building façade colors. The size of each floor is the
same. The building façades have vertical and horizontal banding, augmented with emblems at
the intersections of the banding. There is a distinctive fenestration pattern created with this
building design, as well as the provision of the banding and colors of the building.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-702 of the Community Development
Code, the minimum-parking requirement for retail sales and services, based on 22,209 square-
feet GFA (Gross Floor Area) and five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, is normally 111
parking spaces. Based on 20,050 square-feet and four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet,
the minimum parking requirement for offices is normally 80 parking spaces. For stand-alone
projects, the total requirement is normally 191 parking spaces (as advertised in the request).
However, this normal requirement for stand-alone projects is modified by the shared parking
formula of Section 3-1405, whereby the required parking for these two uses on this property is
167 parking spaces.
Community Development 2006-11-21 6
The request includes a reduction to required parking from 167 spaces to 104 spaces,
which represents the provision of only 62.3% of the required amount of parking for both uses.
The existing retail sales and services use (West Marine) requires 111 parking spaces. There
are presently 132 spaces on-site. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study that
analyzed the existing West Marine parking characteristics. The analysis demonstrates that
parking demand for the West Marine use are satisfied while also accommodating parking
demand for the proposed office building. Staff’s prior concerns for the October 17, 2006, CDB
meeting was with the future use of the West Marine building when West Marine ceases
operation and a new use desires to operate in this building that may not have the same
operational characteristics as West Marine. The reality is that businesses and ownership expire
or change. Once the office building is constructed and filled with tenants, the parking demand
for office parking utilizing the available on-site parking spaces will not diminish.
The Parking Demand Study concludes that the office parking can be accommodated
based on the low parking usage by West Marine (maximum of 22 parking spaces occupied
during any hour of the study period whereas 111 spaces are required based on building square
footage and the Code required parking ratio). Staff’s concern relates to documenting similar
operational characteristics of a future tenant that is not operating on the property and potential
resultant inadequate on-site parking creating off-site impacts. After discussion with the City
Attorney’s office, where the applicant is in agreement, approval of this application should be
conditioned on limiting the future use of the West Marine building through a development
agreement or similar agreement prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
office building.
An existing loading space (truck well) on the south side of the West Marine building is
being retained. The applicant has demonstrated that trucks will still be able to access this truck
well with construction of the proposed office building. The applicant is also proposing to add a
loading space, usable to both West Marine and the proposed office building, on the east side of
the office building, meeting Code requirements.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development
Code, all outside mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public
streets and/or abutting properties. Air-conditioning units are located on the roof of the existing
West Marine building. Staff is unaware of any screening issues with this existing building. The
applicant proposes to also locate the air-conditioning units on the roof of the proposed office
building, which should also not be able to be viewed from public streets and/or abutting
properties. Any screening issues of mechanical equipment with the proposed building will be
part of the review of a building permit, should the CDB approve this request. Based upon the
above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of
outdoor mechanical equipment.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development
Code, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may
be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet
above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. There is one existing driveway on Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard that is not proposed to be revised. There is an existing driveway on Duncan
Avenue that is proposed to be relocated northward to line up with a proposed drive aisle north of
the proposed office building.
Community Development 2006-11-21 7
The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing a right-of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a
clear and unobstructed view of one another. There is an existing palm tree encroaching within
the sight visibility triangle on the east side of the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard driveway. Since
vehicles exiting the site at this driveway must turn right, as Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is a divided
roadway at this location, the existing encroachment has not caused any known vehicular-
pedestrian conflicts to-date.
This existing encroachment upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in the grant of
a special privilege as similar situations have been approved elsewhere under similar
circumstances. It is noted that the City’s Engineering Department does not object to the existing
palm tree within the sight visibility triangle. Based upon the above, positive findings can be
made with respect to continuing to allow the encroachment of the one palm tree within the sight
visibility triangle, as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code.
Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for
development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines
shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan
for this proposal indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines will be placed
underground in conformance with this Code requirement. There exist overhead utility lines
within the right-of-way of Plumosa Avenue (east), but these overhead lines are only for a portion
of the property and are adjacent to the roadway curbing. There also exist overhead utilities
within the right-of-way of Duncan Avenue (west). Finally, there are overhead utility lines along
the south property line on the adjacent property south of the proposed office building. Due to
limited frontage of this site in relation to the length these overhead lines are located and for
whom the utilities provide service, it is impracticable to require the undergrounding of these
existing overhead lines within the right-of-way. These overhead utility lines do present
constraints on the type of trees that can be planted within 20 feet of the lines (only accent trees,
which generally do not grow to a height that would interfere with the lines).
Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this
site is required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a 10-foot wide
landscape buffer along Plumosa and Duncan avenues and a five-foot wide landscape buffer
adjacent to other nonresidential development (automobile service station to the north and west
of the subject property and the offices to the south). Buffers are to be planted with one tree
every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes a reduction to the
perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 15 feet to 7.29 feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Duncan Avenue from 10 feet to
5.53 feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the
west from five feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement).
The area on the north side of West Marine and the north and west sides of the proposed
office building are proposed to meet the minimum requirement for a five-foot wide landscape
area along the foundation of the buildings, planted to meet Code requirements. The east side of
the West Marine building is being upgraded to comply with the foundation landscape and
perimeter buffer requirements through the combination of these requirements to visually
enhance this side of the building.
Community Development 2006-11-21 8
Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Code requires the provision of 10% of the vehicular use area
in interior landscaping. The proposal indicates the area amount of interior landscaping provided
to be 11.18%. The area along the south property line west of the proposed office building
indicated as interior landscape area needs to be planted with trees to qualify as interior
landscaping. The approve of this request should include a condition to revise the landscape
plan prior to the issuance of any permits to revise the by planting the interior landscape area
west of the proposed office building along the south property line in accordance with Code
requirements.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or
modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain
criteria. Staff does point out that existing landscaping is being augmented in many locations to
meet the intent of the Comprehensive Landscape Program.
Solid Waste: There is an existing dumpster enclosure on the south side of the site, west
of the existing West Marine building. This existing enclosure does not meet Code requirements,
as there are no gates screening views of the dumpster. There also exists an unenclosed
dumpster for cardboard west of the existing enclosure. The development proposal includes
providing a double dumpster enclosure meeting Code requirements near the south property line
adjacent to the east side of the proposed office building. Construction of this dumpster
enclosure will require the relocation of an existing electric transformer at this location. The
proposed solid waste facility has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Signage: On November 9, 2005, a Development Order was issued for a Comprehensive
Sign Program for this property, permitting two freestanding signs and three attached signs
(Case #SGN2005-09006). Since there is a new use proposed for the property, signage for all
uses on this site has to be brought into compliance with Code provisions through a new
Comprehensive Sign Program. Signage will need to be coordinated, including sign type,
exterior materials and color.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of August 31, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be
sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 2.49 acres is located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard between Plumosa and Duncan avenues; 2) That the property is located within the
Commercial (C) District and is currently developed with a 22,209 square-foot building for retail
sales and services (West Marine); 3) That the development proposal is to construct a four-story,
20,050 square-foot office building on the west side of the site where the parking lot exists today,
in addition to retaining the existing one-story, 22, 209 square-foot retail sales and services
building (West Marine); 4) That the property is “L” shaped, with frontages on Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, Plumosa Avenue and Duncan Avenue; 5) That reductions to setbacks and perimeter
buffers to pavement and building are proposed as part of the proposal; 6) That proposed
Community Development 2006-11-21 9
setbacks exceed those listed in Table 2-704 for offices and retail sales and service uses,
requiring the proposal to be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 7)
That the setback reduction requested along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (to existing pavement) is a
product of the location of the West Marine building and the parking lot dimensional standards; 8)
That the setback reduction requested along Duncan Avenue (to existing pavement) is a product
of the functionality of the parking lot, the necessity to provide adequate truck maneuvering area
for the existing truck well on the south side of West Marine, the necessity to provide an
additional loading space for the office building and the provision of required foundation
landscaping; 9) That the proposal includes a request to reduce the required side setback along
the south property line from 10 feet to 5.1 feet for the proposed office building, which has been
modified since the October 17, 2006, CDB meeting to accurately meet Building Code
requirements and has completely changed the appearance of the southern façade of the office
building to be the same as the other three sides of the building; 10) That the proposal includes
an increase to the height for the proposed office building to 50 feet (to roof deck) (four stories);
11) That, while most surrounding commercial buildings along this stretch of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard are no greater than two stories in height, the proposed building height can be viewed
as setting a new standard for this area and along this commercial corridor that has undeveloped
potential; 12) That, based on the shared parking formula of Section 3-1405, required parking for
these two uses on this property is 167 parking spaces; 13) That the request includes a reduction
to required parking from 167 spaces to 104 spaces, representing the provision of only 62.3% of
the required amount of parking for both uses; 14) That a Parking Demand Study submitted
analyzed the existing West Marine parking characteristics, which demonstrated that parking
demand for the West Marine use is satisfied while also accommodating parking demand for the
proposed office building; 15) That staff concerns regarding the future use of the West Marine
building when West Marine ceases operation, where a new use may not have the same
operational characteristics as West Marine, can be limited through a development agreement or
similar agreement acceptable to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the office building; 16) That the proposal includes reductions to perimeter buffers and a
Comprehensive Landscape Program has been submitted, which is consistent with its criteria;
and 17) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Table 2-704 for offices and retail sales and services of the Community Development
Code; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section
2-704.C of the Community Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent
with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a 20,050 square-foot office building in addition to existing
retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.29 feet (to
existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing
pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 22.91 feet (to existing building)
and from 25 feet to 10.82 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback
from 10 feet to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10
feet to 6.48 feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to
Community Development 2006-11-21 10
5.1 feet (to proposed building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to existing pavement), a reduction
to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement), an increase to
building height from 25 feet to 50 feet (to roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from
193 spaces to 104 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard from 15 feet to 7.29 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter
landscape buffer along Duncan Avenue from 10 feet to 5.53 feet (to existing pavement) and a
reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the west from five feet to 4.77 feet (to existing
pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-
1202.G, for the property located at 1721 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, with the following 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, and be approved by staff; 2) That, prior to
the issuance of any permits, the ingress/egress easement along the north property line be
vacated; 3) That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the office building, a
development agreement or similar agreement between the City and the applicant be approved
limiting the future use of the West Marine building due to the reduction to required on-site
parking; 4) That a new Comprehensive Sign Program be submitted for revised signage on
Duncan Avenue and for attached signage, where all signage will need to be coordinated for sign
type, exterior materials and color; 5) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, plans be revised
to show required fire hydrants for fire fighting use; 6) That, prior to the issuance of any permits,
the landscape plan be amended to ensure the interior landscape area along the southern
property line west of the office building meets Code requirements for trees and other landscape
materials; 7) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, appropriate plans be revised to show
trees #9 and #58 and to meet the arborist’s recommendations for trees 1 – 11 and 58 – 63; 8)
That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the following be submitted or provided on revised
plans: a) copy of the SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit; b) soil
boring, percolation tests and seasonal high water table elevation with drainage calculation
analysis; c) two cross sections through the retention pond (east to west and north to south); d)
stage storage chart showing the pond can hold 12,250 cubic-feet of runoff with six-inches of
freeboard; and e) outline of the top of bank and toe of slope of the pond; and 9) That the traffic
signal box and loop detectors within the Duncan Avenue right-of-way be relocated at the
applicant’s expense.
See page 50 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 11
2. Case: FLD2006-06033 – 706 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner: Harborside Condominiums LLC.
Applicant: Mark Newkirk.
Representatives: Janice Sands Ash, President, Ash Engineering, Inc. (4902 Eisenhower
Boulevard, Suite 380, Tampa, FL 33634-6323; phone: 813-290-8899; fax: 813-290-
8891).
Location: 0.35 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300
feet west of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a multi-use dock for eight slips totaling 687
square-feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Multi-use docks of 687 square-feet for eight wet slips, in conjunction with a 15-
unit attached dwelling use (condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.35 acre is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300 feet
west of Gulf Boulevard. The site has approximately 135 feet of frontage on Bayway Boulevard
and formerly was developed with 16 attached dwellings (Demolition Permit #BCP2005-10528
issued November 23, 2005). On June 21, 2005, the CDB denied Case FLD2005-03031, a
proposal to permit 16 attached dwellings. Based on a determination that a new proposal with
greater setbacks, especially to the side and rear of the site, was a substantial change over that
previously denied, the CDB approved Case FLD2005-07070 with eight conditions on September
20, 2005, permitting 15 attached dwellings on this site. On February 21, 2006, the CDB
approved Case FLD2005-11110 with two conditions for the addition of a pool for the
condominiums. Building Permit #BCP2006-06045 has been submitted to construct the
condominium building and site improvements. A City police substation abuts the west side of
this site. There are attached dwellings (townhomes and condominiums) east and west of this
site on the north side of Bayway Boulevard. An existing overnight accommodation use
southwest across Bayway Boulevard at 678 S. Gulfview Boulevard has been approved to be
redeveloped as a mixed use (FLD2005-07071), while a shopping center (retail sales) is south
across Bayway Boulevard.
The development proposal consists of the construction of a 687 square-foot, eight wet
slip multi-use dock as an amenity to an approved 15-unit condominium development on the
upland portion of the subject property. The docks will be accessed via a sidewalk from the rear
of the building.
Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is
defined as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development,
condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development.
However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use
dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square-feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. As the
proposed dock exceeds this threshold (687 square-feet), the dock is treated as commercial and
is subject to the relevant review criteria.
Community Development 2006-11-21 12
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3-
601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code state that docks shall be located no closer to
any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to 10% of the width of
the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line is 120 feet; therefore the
proposed dock must be set back from the east and west property lines a minimum of 12 feet.
As proposed, the dock will be set back from the east and west property lines in excess of this
requirement with distances of 30 feet and 15 feet, respectively.
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line
or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 90 feet.
As proposed, the dock has a length of 59 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also
applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 90 feet. The dock has
a proposed width of 66 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. While not
consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent with newer
docks required to meet today’s Codes, wherein the length takes into account the water depth at
mean lot water.
Due to the design of the docks, slips 5 – 8 are oriented east/west requiring boats to
maneuver between the slips and the east property line where there are adjacent slips oriented
north/south. The City’s Harbormaster advises that the rule of thumb for adequate maneuvering
area is 1.5 times the length of the boat. Slip 5, however, can be entered either from the east or
west. With only a 30-foot setback from the east property line to the closest lift, this translates
into the maximum length of boats for slips 6 – 8 of 20 feet. The condominium homeowners’
documents should contain provisions regarding boat length restrictions for slips 6 – 8.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of August 3,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.35 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard,
approximately 300 feet west of Gulf Boulevard; 2) That the property was approved on
September 20, 2005, by the CDB for the development of the upland with 15 attached dwellings
(condominiums); 3) That on February 21, 2006, the CDB approved an amendment to the prior
approval for the addition of a pool for the condominiums; 4) That a building permit has been
submitted to construct the condominium building and site improvements; 5) That the proposal
consists of the construction of a 687 square-foot, eight wet slip multi-use dock as an amenity for
the 15-unit condominium development; 6) That due to the design and orientation of the docks,
for slips 6 – 8 the maximum length of boats is 20 feet; 7) That the proposed docks comply with
the setback, width and length standards of Section 3-601.C.3.h of the Community Development
Code; 8) That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding
area; and 9) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the
subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial
dock review criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code and 2) That
Community Development 2006-11-21 13
the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-
913.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a multi-use dock for eight slips totaling 687 square-feet,
under the provisions of Section 3-601, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats
moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the
condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 2)
That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity;
3) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection)
Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if
applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction;
and 4) That the maximum boat length for Slips 6 – 8 be 20 feet. Prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy, a copy of the condominium homeowners’ documents shall be
submitted to the Planning Department showing provisions restricting boat length for these slips.
See page 50 for motion of approval.
3. Level Two Application
Case: CU96-46 – 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
Owner: Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc.
Applicant: Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (CHIP) and City Of Clearwater.
Representative: Sidney Klein, City of Clearwater Police Chief (work: 562-4343).
Location: 1.3 acres located on the south side of Park Street and on the north side of
Pierce Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts.
Request: Amend a condition of approval requiring neighborhood meetings from not less than
quarterly to not less than bi-annually on a previous Conditional Use application permitting a
residential shelter and police substation (condition of approval adopted November 5, 1996, and
re-adopted July 15, 2003, by the Community Development Board).
Existing Use: Residential shelter, police substation and parking lot.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 1.3 acres is located on the south side of Park Street and on the north side of Pierce
Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The Society of St. Vincent
DePaul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc, owns the site and CHIP (Clearwater Homeless
Intervention Project) leases the land from them for $1/year. The Park Street frontage of the site
presently is developed with a soup kitchen, a residential shelter, and a police substation. The
soup kitchen is a permitted use at this location. The site also includes property on Pierce Street
that contains a single-family dwelling and a 24-space parking lot used by both the soup kitchen
and CHIP/police facilities. Commercial uses are located to the north fronting on Cleveland
Street and to the east along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Residential uses are located generally
south of Park Street and west of Evergreen Avenue.
Community Development 2006-11-21 14
On November 5, 1996, the former Planning and Zoning Board approved Conditional Use
CU96-46 with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit,
certificate of occupancy and occupational license within nine months from the date of this public
hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light
being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-
way, and additional lighting will be installed to better illuminate the perimeter of the site adjacent
to non-residential areas prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) A sidewalk
interconnection to Cleveland Street shall be constructed to reduce pedestrian traffic in
surrounding residential areas; 4) The residential shelter is only allowed while the police
substation and other referral services are provided at this location; 5) Approval shall be for a trial
period of three years from the date of this public hearing (November 5, 1996), after which a new
conditional use permit review will be required for the residential shelter use; 6) Efforts shall be
made on the part of the CHIP organizations to contact specified neighborhood representatives
to coordinate and communicate issues and information on a regular basis or as requested; and
7) Fencing to the maximum height allowed by city code shall be installed on both sides of the
property to control site access prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Compliance with Condition 3 did not occur within the three-year trial period, but when
brought to the City’s attention, scheduled a public hearing for July 15, 2003. After the public
hearing, the CDB on July 15, 2003, approved the re-review with the following conditions
(*Indicates prior applicable condition of approval adopted November 5, 1996, carried forward):
1) That the residential shelter only be permitted while the police substation and other referral
services are provided at this location;* 2) That other expansions to the CHIP campus be
reviewed by the Community Development Board; 3) That all site lighting continue to be
equipped with a 90-degree cut-off mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away
from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way, and additional lighting continue to
illuminate the perimeter of the site adjacent to non-residential areas;* 4) That CHIP
organizations meet with neighborhood representatives to coordinate and communicate issues
and information on a regular basis, not less than quarterly;* 5) That the existing six-foot high
fencing be maintained on both sides (north and south) of the property to control site access;* 6)
That wheel stops for the three parking spaces east of the eastern driveway on Park Street be
relocated to the approved locations of 90-degree design parking to comply with the original
approved site plan, within 30 days; and 7) That signs be re-erected along the sidewalk from
CHIP along the south side of Park Street and the west side of Evergreen Avenue, directing
pedestrians to utilize that route, within 60 days.
The proposal is to amend the frequency of neighborhood meetings required under
Condition 4 from at least quarterly to no less than bi-annually. The primary reason for this
request has been the lack of attendance at the meetings and the secondary reason is that the
CHIP Center has been operational for 10 years. Ed Brant, Executive Director of CHIP, has
detailed the issues related to the reason for this request.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.3 acres is located on the south side of Park Street and on
the north side of Pierce Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; 2) That
the property is located within the Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Districts and the Commercial General (CG) and Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use
Community Development 2006-11-21 15
Plan category; 3) That on November 5, 1996, the former Planning and Zoning Board approved
Conditional Use CU96-46 to permit a residential shelter and police substation in conjunction
with the existing, permitted soup kitchen with seven conditions; 4) That a re-review of the
original approval did not occur within the three year trial period, but did occur, once the City was
made aware of such noncompliance, on July 15, 2003; 5) That on July 15, 2003, the CDB
approved the re-review of the original request with seven conditions of approval; 6) That
Condition 4 required CHIP organizations meet with neighborhood representatives to coordinate
and communicate issues and information on a regular basis, not less than quarterly; 7) That
CHIP has held meetings in accordance with the condition of approval, but, over time
neighborhood attendance at such meetings has significantly dropped; 8) That the proposal is to
amend the time frame to hold such neighborhood meetings from at least quarterly to no less
than bi-annually in an effort to have better attendance; and 9) That there are no outstanding
Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as originally approved under the prior Land Development Code and as re-reviewed
under the transitional rules of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to amend a condition of approval requiring neighborhood meetings
from not less than quarterly to not less than bi-annually on a previous Conditional Use
application permitting a residential shelter and police substation (condition of approval adopted
November 5, 1996, and re-adopted July 15, 2003, by the CDB) with the following Conditions of
Approval: (*Indicates prior applicable condition of approval adopted November 5, 1996 that
were carried forward) (**Indicates condition of approval added in 2003): 1) That the residential
shelter only be permitted while the police substation and other referral services are provided at
this location;* 2) That other expansions to the CHIP campus be reviewed by the Community
Development Board; 3) That all site lighting continue to be equipped with a 90-degree cut-off
mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential
properties and street rights-of-way, and additional lighting continue to illuminate the perimeter of
the site adjacent to non-residential areas;* 4) That CHIP organizations meet with neighborhood
representatives to coordinate and communicate issues and information on a regular basis, not
less than bi-annually;* 5) That the existing six-foot high fencing be maintained on both sides
(north and south) of the property to control site access;* 6) That wheel stops for the three
parking spaces east of the eastern driveway on Park Street be relocated to the approved
locations of 90-degree design parking to comply with the original approved site plan, within 30
days;** and 7) That signs be re-erected along the sidewalk from CHIP along the south side of
Park Street and the west side of Evergreen Avenue, directing pedestrians to utilize that route,
within 60 days.**
See page 50 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 16
4. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-07068 – 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard
Owner: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Nikana
Holdings, LLC.
Applicant: Canterbury Property Management, Inc.
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: 1.994 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at
the intersection with Fifth Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Ed Armstrong, on behalf of Canterbury Property Management, Inc., Canterbury Oaks,
Inc. and Nikana Holdings, LLC, has written to request a one-year extension of time relative to
FLD2005-07068, a project located at 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard. The one-
year extension would expire on March 20, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments,
which would significantly affect the project.
See page 50 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 17
5. Level Two Application
Cases: 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: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Mixed-use of 112 attached dwellings (condominiums) and 78 overnight
accommodation rooms/units.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Ed Armstrong, on behalf of TW/Beach Residences – Clearwater, LLC, has written to
request a one-year extension of time relative to Cases: FLD2005-05047 and TDR2005-05022, a
project located at 430 South Gulfview Boulevard. A one-year extension would expire on
February 16, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments
which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the
intervening period subsequent to the original approval, the Code has been amended in the
following that affect this project: 1) The requirement for parking has been amended to two
parking spaces per dwelling unit. This project was originally approved with 196 parking spaces
for 112 attached dwelling units (overall parking provided of 274 spaces less the required parking
for 78 overnight accommodation rooms/units at one parking space per room/unit), at a parking
ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Minor Revision currently being reviewed
provides 185 parking spaces for 112 attached dwelling units (overall parking provided of 264
spaces less 79 spaces dedicated to the hotel, but including 13 guest spaces), at a parking ratio
of 1.65 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 2) Section 6-109.B was amended to not allow the
conversion of a nonconforming density to a different use. The approval of this project provided
for the conversion of nonconforming overnight accommodation density to dwelling unit density.
See page 50 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 18
6. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-05030 – 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 400 and 404 North Osceola Avenue;
410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue
Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC.
Representative: Thomas Coates, Triangle Development (305 North Fort Harrison
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-446-0020; fax: 727-446-0002; email:
thomas@triangledevelopment.com).
Location: 5.18 acres located west of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and
Georgia Streets.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D)
District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area
with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet non-residential floor
area).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828
Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767); North Greenwood Association, Inc. (Jonathan
Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates declared a conflict of interest.
The 5.18-acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort
Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and
Clearwater Harbor to the west. The subject property is currently vacant and bifurcated by North
Osceola Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east)
and Island View (west).
Density/F.A.R.: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the
maximum allowable density for attached dwellings for those properties greater than two acres in
size and located west of North Garden Avenue within the Old Bay character district is 50
dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowable F.A.R. within the same area is 0.5. It is noted
that a 0.2-acre portion of the site is located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use
category and does not yield any density; thus this portion of the site has not been included as
part of any density calculations.
Based upon the above, the remaining 4.98 acre subject property is permitted a
maximum of 249 dwelling units. However, the development proposal consists of 358 dwelling
units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area, which is 109 dwelling units and
13,235 square-feet more than is allowable. Therefore, the applicant has requested the use of
109 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan.
Community Development 2006-11-21 19
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan,
those parcels of land within the Old Bay character district located east of Osceola Avenue are
permitted a maximum building height of 40 feet, and those parcels of land within the Old Bay
character district located west of Osceola Avenue between Drew and Georgia Streets are
permitted a maximum building height of 150 feet.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the CDB may consider
granting an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the
developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity, and the increase in height
does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height or a minimum of ten feet. Based upon
the aforementioned maximum building heights permitted within the Old Bay character district of
40 feet and 150 feet, increases in building height may be granted up to 48 feet and 180 feet.
The development proposal has requested an increase in building height to 48 feet for the
Harrison Village component of the development, which is located between North Osceola
Avenue and North Fort Harrison Avenue. In addition, the development proposal includes a
request to increase building height to 180 feet for the Island View component of the
development, which is located between North Osceola Avenue and Clearwater Harbor. In order
to obtain this additional height permitted by the Plan, the development proposal will provide
major public amenities including: residential dwellings within the Plan area; a mixed-use project
furthering the Plan’s major redevelopment goals and character district vision; and substantial
contributions to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of the
above amenities, the requested increases in height to 48 feet (Harrison Village) and 180 feet
(Island View) are supportable.
As discussed below with regard to the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, the development
proposal will utilize one dwelling unit from the Pool during the first phase of the development
and one additional dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with
the balance to be drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units
from the Pool in the first and second phases is specifically to make available the additional
building height discussed above for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional
height and dwelling units being drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the
development proposal will provide certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases.
The specific improvements are outlined in a subsequent discussion regarding Project Phasing
and their implementation will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001)
associated with this proposal.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development
Code, within the Downtown (D) District off-street parking is required to be provided at a rate of
1.5 parking spaces per attached dwelling unit; and at 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of
gross floor area for retail sales and services. Therefore, the proposed 358 attached dwellings
(537) and the 13,235 square-feet of retail sales and services floor area (52.94) require a total of
590 parking spaces
Pursuant to Section 3-1405 of the Community Development Code, when any land,
building or area is used for two or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the
minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual
minimum parking requirements by the appropriate percentages. The development proposal
Community Development 2006-11-21 20
requires a minimum of 540 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 542 parking spaces will be
provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement.
It is noted that during the first and second phases of the development proposal, only a
portion of the total proposed parking is to be constructed. At the completion of the first phase, a
total of 116 dwelling units requiring 174 parking spaces will exist, and 214 total parking spaces
will have been constructed. At the completion of the second phase, a total of 225 dwelling units
requiring 338 parking spaces will have been built, and 439 total parking spaces will have been
constructed. Therefore, adequate off-street parking will exist throughout all phases of the
development proposal. The Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) associated with this
proposal governs the construction of adequate parking as per the above throughout each phase
of the development.
Solid Waste Containers and Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of
the Community Development Code, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas
and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets
and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation.
The development proposal consists of several refuse facilities for its individual
components. The primary refuse facility for the development, which is located on the south side
of Georgia Street west of Osceola Avenue, will be screened from view by a decorative concrete
block wall with integrated decorative gates on its north side. In addition to the above, each of
the three proposed towers will have a trash room located on the first level of the underground
parking level; the brownstones (the townhomes fronting on the west side of Osceola Avenue)
will have a trash area on the south end of the building; and Harrison Village will have two trash
rooms in each of the two buildings. The refuse from each of the individual areas within the
buildings will be transferred to the primary facility for pick-up.
It is noted that a detailed refuse enclosure detail has been provided with the architectural
plans that differs from the refuse enclosure detail provided with the civil drawings. As such, it is
attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the civil
drawings are revised to remove the conflicting refuse enclosure detail.
In addition to the various refuse facilities, development also locates several transformers
throughout the development. The majority of these transformers are proposed to be screened
from view by landscaping; however two transformers proposed adjacent to the northwest corner
of the southernmost Harrison Village building are not proposed with adequate landscaping or
fencing so as to screen them from view of the adjacent Osceola Avenue right-of-way.
Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the plans are revised so that all mechanical equipment is screened from view from
rights-of-way per the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code
and the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for
development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines
shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as
a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits a notation must be
added to the plans stating that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed,
are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
Community Development 2006-11-21 21
Signage: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development
proposal. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the
building.
Project Phasing: The complete development proposal will not be built simultaneously,
but instead within three phases over a period of approximately five years (by December 2011).
The first phase to be built consists of: 1) The southernmost of the Island View towers; 2)
The “brownstones” along the west side of North Osceola Avenue; 3) The five surface parking
spaces and access drive for the aforementioned tower; 4) A portion of the subterranean parking
garage (209 parking spaces); 5) The first swimming pool; 6) Streetscape improvements along
the west side of North Osceola Avenue; and 7) Streetscape improvements along the east side
of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and Georgia Streets.
The second phase would consist of: 1) The middle Island View tower; 2) The balance of
the subterranean parking garage; 3) The clubhouse and the second swimming pool; 4)
Streetscape improvements along the north side of Georgia Street; and 5) Streetscape
improvements within the intersection of Jones Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue.
The third and final phase would include: 1) The northernmost Island View tower; 2) The
entirety of Harrison Village including the parking garage located beneath; 3) Streetscape
improvements along the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Georgia and Jones
Streets; 4) Streetscape improvements along the east side of North Osceola Avenue, the south
side of Georgia Street, and the north side of Jones Street; and 5) Streetscape improvements
within the intersection of Georgia Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue.
Construction of the first phase is anticipated to begin in early 2007 and will take
approximately 16 to 18 months to complete. Construction of second phase would begin
immediately after completion of the first phase and would take approximately 20 to 24 months to
complete. The applicant has further indicated that the possibility exists that the first and second
phases could be built simultaneously if certain sales targets are met. The third and final phase
of the development is estimated at approximately 16 to 18 months. The specific improvements
to be constructed during the above phases, including the associated streetscape improvements,
will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) associated with this
proposal.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: The subject property is located within the
Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan identifies the Old Bay character district as a transitional area
between the Downtown Core and the low-density residential areas to the north. Further, the
Plan envisions the district to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown
employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses.
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
Community Development 2006-11-21 22
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 109
dwelling units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities
Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the request from
the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of 358 dwelling units (including those
requested from the Pool) within the Downtown Plan area, and substantial contributions to the
Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan along North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola
Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street as well as the their intersections, which is valued at
approximately $3.24 million. Further, the development proposal itself is a mixed-use project that
will further the Plan’s major redevelopment goals and character district vision, which is also an
eligible amenity from which to enable the use of the Pool. Based upon the provision of these
amenities, which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the
request for 109 dwelling units and 13,325 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the
Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported.
It is noted that while the overall development proposal includes 109 dwelling units and
13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Pool, the specific request will utilize
one dwelling unit from the Pool during the first phase of the development and one additional
dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with the balance to be
drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units from the Pool in
the first and second phases is to make available the additional building height permitted by the
Plan for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional height and dwelling units being
drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the development proposal will provide
certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases. The specific streetscape
improvements are outlined in the Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) associated with
this proposal which will govern their implementation.
Downtown Design Guidelines
: The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both
appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new
construction in the Downtown. A review of these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and
the following applicable items were identified: 1) Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown
Design Guidelines state that the existing street grid pattern shall be retained where it contributes
to an active pedestrian environment, and further that new vehicular and pedestrian
access/circulation that effectively serves the proposed development and vicinity shall be
provided if a vacation of right-of-way is requested. The development proposal includes the
vacation of that portion of the North Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the subject
property. The existing right-of-way is of substandard width and consists of two approximately
90-degree turns between Jones and Georgia Streets. The development proposal also includes
the dedication of a new 50-foot wide right-of-way for North Osceola Avenue that is
approximately 90 feet east of the present location of the right-of-way. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines; 2) Vehicular Circulation
/Access and Parking: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that residential uses along
Clearwater Harbor shall be designed with parking garages or parking areas internal to the
site/building and screened from Clearwater Harbor and abutting rights-of-way. Further, the
Guidelines state that parking garages shall be architecturally integrated with the design,
materials, finish and color of the balance of the building. The development proposal includes a
two-level parking garage, the majority of which is subterranean. Those portions of the garage
that are above grade (due to the natural slope of the property) are architecturally integrated into
the design of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with
Community Development 2006-11-21 23
the above Guidelines; 3) Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines state
that it is appropriate to provide pedestrian passageways that go through buildings, such as
arcades. The development proposal includes the provision of arcades along the east and west
elevations of the Harrison Village development component. The provision of these arcades,
which are interconnected through walkways internal to the building, will provide for improved
pedestrian circulation along the retail storefronts of the building. The Design Guidelines also
state that it is appropriate to provide alleys or courtyards that match or compliment either the
building or the primary street to which the alley connects with regard to materials, architecture,
color and street furniture (waste receptacles, benches, lighting, etc.). The two buildings that
make up Harrison Village are separated by a large courtyard/open space consisting of
substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large
fountain feature. This open space also serves to connect the sidewalks along North Fort
Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue; thus increasing pedestrian circulation and access.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines; 4)
Site Elements: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that open spaces shall be provided that
function as transitions between the public sidewalks/streets and the uses of the property, and
that formal/informal seating should also be provided in a manner consistent with the function of
the open space. The development proposal provides for an open space between the two
Harrison Village buildings consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor
seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the above Guideline; 5) Buffering and Screening: The Downtown
Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless communication facilities, loading
and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the site, located in the most unobtrusive
location possible and buffered and screened appropriately. As previously discussed, the
development proposal includes several refuse facilities and ground level mechanical equipment
throughout the site that are being screened appropriately as per the Code. It is also noted that
ground level mechanical equipment is proposed that is not screened adequately, to which a
condition of approval has been attached requiring such appropriate screening. Based upon the
above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guideline; 6) Orientation: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be oriented toward the street and that
the orientation of the front façade along the streetscape shall contribute to pedestrian interest in
the area. The Harrison Village development component is bounded on the north, south and
east by the Georgia Street, Jones Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue rights-of-way,
respectively, and has been designed with storefronts opening onto these rights-of-way with an
arcade providing shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue).
Harrison Village is also bounded on the west by the realigned North Osceola Avenue right-of-
way, which has been designed with access to living areas associated with residential dwelling
units in the development. In addition, the Island View development component has been
designed with townhomes (“brownstones”) oriented toward the North Osceola Avenue right-of-
way so as to contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. Based upon the above, the
development proposal complies with above applicable Guideline; 7) Scale and Height: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that the size and proportions of new development should be
related to the scale of nearby buildings and that new development should respect the vertical
height of existing or approved adjacent buildings and contribute to a pedestrian scale. The
Guidelines further state that the apparent height of a building/development can be influenced
and augmented by a combination of step backs, varying building heights and horizontal
features. The more notable building heights in the surrounding area include the Church of
Scientology’s Sandcastle, which is approximately 70 feet in height, the 60-foot tall Osceola Inn,
and the 70-foot tall Belvedere Apartments. The balance of the surrounding development ranges
Community Development 2006-11-21 24
in height between 15 and 35 feet. The buildings that comprise Harrison Village have a
proposed height of 48 feet (to top of parapet), which is consistent with the heights of the
surrounding buildings. The tower feature, which doubles as a mechanical equipment enclosure,
on the southern Harrison Village building has a height of approximately 60 feet (to midpoint of
roof), which will provide further visual interest and reinforce the Mediterranean Revival
architectural style of the development. With regard to the Island View component of the
development, the brownstones, which front along the west side of South Osceola Avenue, have
a height of approximately 33 feet (to top of parapet), which is consistent with the heights of
surrounding buildings and establishes the pedestrian scale for this half of the overall
development. The three towers, which comprise the balance of Island View, are taller than the
surrounding developments, but will compliment the balance of the proposed development and
surrounding properties through the use of stepbacks and various architectural features.
Specifically, the towers include stepbacks in the horizontal plane so as to narrow the buildings
as they move toward the water and toward Osceola Avenue. The vertical plane of the towers
thththth
includes stepbacks between the 9 and 10 levels and the 17 and 18 levels, which have been
emphasized through the use of broad cornices. The height is also mitigated as it is split
between three towers rather than a solitary monolithic structure. This creates extensive
negative and positive space on all sides of the buildings, thereby adding to the visual aesthetics.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable
Guidelines; 8) Rhythm/Spacing: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall
have a distinct “base”, “middle” and “cap”. With regard to Harrison Village, the arcade defines
the “base” and the “cap” is defined through the varying parapet roof styles. With regard to
Island View, the “brownstones” have a “base” defined by the raised/covered entries as well as a
water table and a “cap” defined by decorative parapets and tower features. The towers each
have a “base” defined by a decorative front entrance, ornate window treatments and a broad
cornice, and a “cap” defined by stepbacks in the horizontal and vertical planes and decorative
balconies/parapets. In addition to the above, the Guidelines state that low-rise buildings should
accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns or break-up the façade into a
greater number of smaller vertical masses. Both the Island View “brownstones” and Harrison
Village development components exemplify this. The Guidelines also state that with regard to
high-rise buildings, the building levels or step backs should be differentiated by architectural
features such as coping, cornice lines and material changes; and that there should be 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 towers consist of numerous
stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes differentiated by cornices of varying widths as
well as decorative balconies that not only create visual interest and mitigate the height of the
building, but also serve to further define the “base,” “middle,” and “cap” of the towers. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines;
9) Architecture: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that multiple buildings within a single
project shall relate architecturally to each other and the surrounding neighborhood. The
façades of the various buildings will complement and visually support each other as they
incorporate similar parapets, awnings, balconies, windows, and roof materials – all of which are
in keeping with the Mediterranean Revival architectural style. The Mediterranean Revival style
of the development is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines as it is complementary to the
fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the above applicable Guidelines; 10) Primary and Corner Façades: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary façade is to be the most highly designed
facade and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and recesses), architectural details, variety in
color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. As previously
Community Development 2006-11-21 25
stated, the façades of the Island View towers consist of numerous stepbacks and
vertical/horizontal plane changes that create visual interest. The elevations also consist of
architectural details, such as: decorative balconies, broad cornices, barrel tile roofs and stylized
windows. The “brownstones”, which provide a more pedestrian scale development between the
towers and the Osceola Avenue right-of-way, will consist of architectural detail including
raised/covered entries with and without barrel tile roofs, varying parapet styles, awnings and
decorative window patterns. The Harrison Village façades are architecturally consistent with
those of the towers and “brownstones” with the primary difference being the provision of retail
storefront along the north, south and east elevations. In addition to the above, the Guidelines
state that buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location through the use of
additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing
features. At the northeast and southeast corners of the Harrison Village block the development
will incorporate clock towers/balconies that will serve to set the development apart from
surrounding properties. The east façade is also heavily detailed and incorporates an arcade,
which provides the plane change envisioned within the Guidelines. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines; 11) Windows and
Doors: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that windows shall be provided along all streets;
that windows in commercial areas shall be appropriately sized to allow for display and views into
the building; and that bulkheads shall be provided below and transoms above display windows.
The buildings have been designed with appropriately sized windows along all streets, including
the provision of transoms and bulkheads above and below the storefront windows for Harrison
Village. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above
referenced Guidelines; 12) Roof Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roofs shall
be consistent with the style of the building utilizing elements such as cornice treatments,
overhangs with brackets, stepped parapets, richly textured materials and/or differently colored
materials. The roof proposed for the Island View towers is consistent with the style of the
building and consists of cornice treatments and overhangs with brackets consistent with the
above. The “brownstones” and Harrison Village also have roofs consistent with the building
style that utilize stepped parapets in addition to those same elements found on the Island View
towers. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guideline; 13) Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and
type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The
proposed building colors, which are consistent across the various buildings, are appropriate for
the architectural style of the buildings. The building walls are proposed with mixture of colors
including light brown (Rookwood Amber-SW2817), yellow (Classical Yellow-SW2865) and gold
(Classical Gold-SW2831). The building walls will be accented with orange (Tango-SW6649),
the cornices painted light beige (Roycroft Vellum-SW2833), the trim painted off-white (Cotton
White-SW7104) and the awnings will be red (Tanager-SW6601). Based upon the above, the
development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline.
A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies
following applicable were identified: 1) Vision:
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 uses, and streetscaping
consistent with the City’s Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan, as well as buildings located
along and oriented towards all abutting streets. As such, the project is consistent with the
above Vision; 2) Vision: Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as
Community Development 2006-11-21 26
pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core
Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban
residential uses as well as the streetscape improvements consistent with the City’s Master
Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with the above Vision;
3) Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The
development proposal exemplifies such design practice through building orientation, pedestrian
circulation and coverage. Harrison Village has been designed with storefronts opening onto the
North Fort Harrison Avenue, Georgia and Jones Streets rights-of-way with an arcade providing
shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue). The North
Osceola Avenue frontage of Harrison Village has been designed with access to living areas
associated with residential dwelling units in the development. Further, Island View has been
designed with townhomes (“brownstones”) oriented toward the North Osceola Avenue right-of-
way so as to contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. In addition to the above, the two
Harrison Village buildings are separated by a large courtyard/open space consisting of
substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large
fountain feature. This open space also serves to connect the sidewalks along North Fort
Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue; thus providing quality pedestrian circulation and
access. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above
Vision; 4) 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. This development proposal
will provide a density of 84.43 dwelling units per acre and is a pioneering mixed-use project for
downtown within the Old Bay character district. Based upon the above, the development
proposal will be consistent with the above Goal; 5) Objective 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 provides 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-
residential floor area as part of an attractive mixed-use development. Based upon the above,
the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective; 6) Objective 1E: 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 provides for 13,235 square-feet of new non-residential floor area, which
will further the provision of a stable employment center and additional employment
opportunities. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the
above Objective; 7) Objective 1H: The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage
Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate
Downtown. The Plan provides a pool of development potential from which projects may acquire
additional dwelling units and/or non-residential floor area. This development proposal includes
a request to utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from
the Pool to achieve the desired density/intensity for the site and thereby increasing the viability
and vibrancy of the project. The proposal includes approximately $3.24 million in streetscape
improvements for North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola Avenue, Jones Street and
Georgia Street rights-of-way, which will be consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the
above Objective; 8) Objective 1K: Downtown shall be a safe environment for both residents and
visitors by addressing real and perceived public safety issues. The immediate area, with some
notable exceptions, is characterized by low-quality, attached dwellings that in general are poorly
maintained and contribute to a real and perceived impression of a lack of safety. The
redevelopment of this site with attractive high-quality structures and the influx of additional
Community Development 2006-11-21 27
residents, patrons and pedestrians will improve the appearance of the area and contribute to a
safer environment. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the
above Objective; 9) Objective 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
grid system will be improved through the development proposal. The existing North Osceola
Avenue right-of-way that abuts the project will be vacated and a new right-of-way for North
Osceola Avenue with a standard width of 50 feet and a pavement width of 24 feet will be
dedicated approximately 90 feet to the east of its present location. The result will be the
elimination of one of the three existing 90-degree turns and greater spacing between the
remaining two 90-degree bends. Traffic for the development proposal will be dispersed across
multiple rights-of-way as the primary parking garage (beneath Island View) is located off
Georgia Street, and the secondary parking garage (beneath Harrison Village) is located off
Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the
above Objective; 10) Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and
contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal
includes the provision of streetscape improvements within the North Osceola Avenue, North
Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way that are consistent with
the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has
been achieved; 11) 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 set a new design standard within the
Old Bay character district while providing for an attractive streetscape through non-residential
uses, striking buildings, new streetscaping and landscaping. Through these improvements to
the built environment, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Goal; 12)
Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment
containing a variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown’s character and
heritage. The development proposal consists of buildings that will complement the existing
pattern of development along North Fort Harrison and North Osceola Avenues incorporating
arched elements, canopies, balconies and an extensive use of windows as part of a
Mediterranean Revival style of architecture. The stepbacks will give the appearance to
passersby of a building in harmony with other buildings in the area. Based upon the above, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective; 13) Policy 1: The Downtown
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 detail
rich Mediterranean Revival style architecture that utilizes high-quality materials, such as stucco
and terracotta barrel tile roofs. The proposed design also incorporates an extensive use of
stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes as well as a variety of architectural details such
as ornate balconies, decorative aluminum railings, decorative metal awnings, a covered arcade,
broad cornices and stepped parapets. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be
consistent with the above Policy; 14) 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 Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan envisions the Old Bay character district as a mixed-use
neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited
neighborhood commercial and office uses. Staff has worked diligently with the applicant to
create a development that is consistent with this vision. It is specifically noted that the Island
Community Development 2006-11-21 28
View development component is consistent with that portion of the character district vision,
which provides for an opportunity for higher-density residential uses along Clearwater Harbor
west of Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent
with the above Policy; 15) Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make
meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The
proposed design of the site and buildings contributes to the pedestrian environment by providing
an active streetscape consisting of paver sidewalks, formal/informal seating, landscaping,
pedestrian arcade, ground floor non-residential uses along North Fort Harrison Avenue, and a
large open space between the two Harrison Village buildings consisting of substantial
hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain
feature. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy; 16) 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 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 will
utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the pool. The
proposal includes approximately $3.24 million in streetscape and wayfinding improvements
within the North Osceola Avenue, North Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street
rights-of-way. These improvements will be consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy;
17) Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities
based upon the scale of the project. Amenities for the site include two swimming pools, a hot
tub, clubhouse, beach access and substantial on-site gardens and fountains. As such, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy; and 18) Policy 25: The City shall
give priority to sidewalk construction within Downtown that enhances pedestrian linkages and/or
completes a continuous sidewalk system on all streets. The development proposal includes
sidewalks along each of the adjacent rights-of-way, which will include interlocking pavers,
benches, shaded arcades (at North Fort Harrison Avenue), solid waste receptacles and
streetlights matching the City’s Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy.
Old Bay Character District Policies: The following applicable policies shall govern
development within the District, as well as City actions: 1) The Public Incentives Amenities Pool
shall not be available to any property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between
Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay character district. The subject
property is located south of Eldridge Street; therefore it is eligible for the Public Amenities
Incentive Pool from which the project proposes the use of 109 dwelling units and 13,235
square-feet of non-residential floor area; 2) City rights-of-way that dead-end at the harbor shall
be retained and improved for public access to the water. The development proposal includes
the retention of the existing Georgia Street right-of-way, which dead-ends at the harbor and
provides for a scenic outlook consisting of a paver brick walkway and landing, a decorative wall
and columns, benches and landscaping; 3) New development on North Fort Harrison Avenue
shall be oriented toward the street to encourage pedestrian activity and a dynamic street life.
The development proposal includes new development oriented towards all abutting streets
including North Fort Harrison Avenue. Non-residential uses are proposed to be located along
Community Development 2006-11-21 29
North Fort Harrison Avenue with residential uses facing all streets; 4) Mixed-use development
that has office and retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged
along North Fort Harrison Avenue. As stated above, the development proposal includes the
provision of non-residential floor area on the ground floor along North Fort Harrison Avenue with
residential uses above; and 5) Preferred housing styles east of Osceola Avenue are single-
family detached and townhouses. Attached dwellings in this area may be considered upon
assembly of at least one acre and preferably one city block. The development proposal
includes a land assemblage of just over five acres and more than 90% of a city block. As such,
the development proposal will be consistent with the intent of this Policy.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the
policies governing development within the Old Bay character district.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 5,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 5.18 acre subject property is generally located on the west
side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to
the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west; 2) That the property is located within the
Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future
Land Use Plan categories; 3) That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acre) located within
the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; 4) That the
development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located
within the Old Bay character district; 5) That the development proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6) That there are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the proposed use of 109 attached dwellings and 13,235
square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent
with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the proposed
increases in height via the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from 40 feet to 48 feet (Harrison
Village) and from 150 feet to 180 feet (Island View) are consistent with the provisions of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 3) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and
the East Gateway character district; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code; 6) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-903.B, 2-903.C
and 2-903.N of the Community Development Code; and 7) That the development proposal is
consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-
913 of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District
consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area with
increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code with the
Community Development 2006-11-21 30
following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the civil
drawings are revised to remove the conflicting refuse enclosure detail; 2) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits for vertical improvements, a Final Subdivision Plat must be
recorded; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire Department conditions
are addressed; 4) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all applicable open
space/recreation impact fees are paid; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building permits,
separate right-of-way permits must be acquired for any/all work within the rights-of-way of any of
the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the City; 6) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the plans are revised so that all mechanical equipment is screened from view from
rights-of-way per the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code
and the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 7) That prior to
the issuance of any building permits a notation must be added to the plans stating that all on-
site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part
of the redevelopment of the site; 8) That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a
condominium plat must be recorded; 9) That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant must comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule;
10) That Osceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the
street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the
proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the vacation ordinance, once approved; 11) That the final design and color of the
building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the
CDB, and be approved by staff; 12) That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure
modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or
wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at
their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the
installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire
Department requirements; 13) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed
concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened
from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 14)
That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally
integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as
part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any
permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the
same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality
materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building;
15) That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of the Community
Development Board approval (by November 21, 2007); 16) That this Flexible Development
approval is subject to the vacation of the existing Osceola Avenue right-of-way by the City
(Ordinance 7769-07); and 17) That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the
approval of the associated Development Agreement with the City (DVA2006-00001).
See page 34 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 31
7. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2006-00001 – 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 400 and 404 North Osceola Avenue;
410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue
Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC.
Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (911
Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-461-1818; fax 727-462-0365; email:
ed@jpfirm.com).
Location: 5.18 acres located west of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and
Georgia Streets.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and the City of Clearwater.
Proposed Use: Mixed-use (358 attached dwellings at 84.43 units/acre with 13,235 square-feet
of non-residential floor area at 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and heights of 48 feet on the Harrison
Village [east] portion of the site and 180 feet on the Island View [west] portion of the site).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828
Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767); North Greenwood Association, Inc. (Jonathan
Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates declared a conflict of interest.
At the request of the City’s Legal Department, the proposed Development Agreement
has been modified so as to include Section 6.1.3.5 and the associated Exhibit “H,” which
address the potential circumstance of the development not proceeding past the first phase.
The 5.18-acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort
Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and
Clearwater Harbor to the west. The subject property is currently vacant and bifurcated by North
Osceola Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east)
and Island View (west).
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application to
permit a mixed-use project consisting of 358 attached dwellings at 84.43 units/acre with 13,235
square-feet of non-residential floor area at 0.5 F.A.R. and heights of 48 feet on the Harrison
Village [east] portion of the site and 180 feet on the Island View [west] portion of the site.
The proposed Development Agreement sets forth public/private obligations. The City
recognizes the economic and aesthetic benefits that will result from private development. The
applicant recognizes the benefit of public improvements that directly affect the marketability of
the project and the character of the general area surrounding the project. The Development
Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed 10 years and includes the following main
provisions: 1) The property shall be developed in three phases as set forth in Exhibits “D-1,” “D-
2,” and “D-3.” The first phase of the development will commit the entire 5.18 acres of the
subject property and includes the construction of 116 dwelling units and draws one dwelling unit
Community Development 2006-11-21 32
from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The second phase includes the construction of 109
dwelling units and draws one dwelling unit from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The third
phase includes the construction of 133 dwelling units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential
floor area of which 109 dwelling units and the entirety of the non-residential floor area will be
drawn from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool [ref.: Sections 6.1.3.1 and 6.1.3.4]; 2) The
building height to the highest point of the finished flat roof surface of the three Island View
condominium towers shall not exceed 180 feet above the mean site elevation. Building height
to the top of parapet of the two buildings comprising Harrison Village shall not exceed 48 feet
above the mean site elevation for the Harrison Village site [ref.: Section 6.1.3.2]; 3) The parties
acknowledge that it is conceivable that the Project will not proceed to full completion of all
phases. Accordingly, the Developer agrees that the 2.0 acre parcel of land described on Exhibit
“H” hereto shall be dedicated to support the entitlements which comprise Phase 1, and shall
remain encumbered by the provisions of this Development Agreement notwithstanding the
amendment of the site plan for the balance of the property [ref.: Section 6.1.3.5]; 4) No
certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any phase until the streetscaping associated with
that phase has been substantially completed as set forth in Exhibits “E,” “E-1,” “E-2,” and “E-3”
[ref.: Section 6.1.3.6]; 5) The City shall consider the vacation of North Osceola Avenue and the
vacation of three drainage and utility easements and one ingress/egress easement as described
in the related vacation request (Ordinance 7769-07). The existing right-of-way shall be closed
only upon completion by the developer of the conditional requirements of the above referenced
ordinance vacating said right-of-way. These conditions include deeding property to the City for
the new 50 foot right-of-way for Osceola Avenue, the completion of a temporary road (parallel to
North Fort Harrison Avenue) for use by emergency vehicles, and submission to the City a
financial guarantee that all required construction and improvements to the relocated North
Osceola Avenue (including relocation of utilities) will be made within two years of the effective
date of the vacation ordinance [ref.: Sections 6.1.3.7 and 6.2.2]; 6) Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for the subject property, the development shall record a deed restriction
encumbering the property, which deed restriction shall be approved as to form by the City
Attorney and which will generally describe the development limitations of the Development
Agreement. The deed restriction shall be perpetual and may be amended or terminated only
with the consent of the City [ref.: Section 6.1.4]; and 7) The City will approve site and
construction plans for the subject property that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Concept Plan (Exhibit “B”) and that meet the requirements of the Code and that go through
any applicable approval process [ref.: Section 6.2.1].
The CDB has been provided with the most recently negotiated Development Agreement
dated November 14, 2006. The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to
encourage a stronger commitment on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure
the provision of adequate public facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of
resources, and to reduce the economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the
proposed Development Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 5,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 5.18 acre subject property is generally located on the west
side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to
the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west; 2) That the property is located within the
Community Development 2006-11-21 33
Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future
Land Use Plan categories; 3) That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acre) located within
the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; and 4) That the
development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located
within the Old Bay character district.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the
requirements for the construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site
plan proposal (FLD2006-05030); 2) That the Development Agreement complies with the
standards and criteria of Section 4-606 of the Community Development Code; 3) That the
Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) That the Development Agreement is consistent with
the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
and the Old Bay character district.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval and
recommendation to the City Council of a Development Agreement between Triangle Old Bay
Holdings, LLC and Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, and the City of Clearwater
for the sites at 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410
North Fort Harrison Avenue.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Case FLD2006-05030 on today’s Consent
Agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with
conditions of approval as listed and to recommend approval of Case DVA2006-00001 on
today’s Consent Agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the application and the
Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
motion
Report. The was duly seconded. Members Fritsch, Johnson, Tallman, Acting Member
carried
Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye”;’ Member Coates abstained. Motion .
Community Development 2006-11-21 34
8. Case: FLD2006-08047 – 19400 US Highway 19 North Level Two Application
Owner: Kenyon Dodge Inc.
Applicant: Autoway Dodge Clearwater.
Representatives: Glenn B. Giles, Arc Avenue, Inc. (2341 Hollywood Boulevard,
Hollywood, FL 33020; phone: 954-923-5838; fax: 954-923-3838).
Location: 13.17 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19 North approximately
150 feet north of Harn Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 309B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to redevelop an existing Vehicle Sales establishment,
in the Commercial District, with an increase to the maximum building height of an attached
entrance feature from 25 feet to 36.5 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to
15 feet (to pavement), reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5 feet (to pavement),
and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 5 feet (to pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-704.C. Also included is a reduction
to front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side (south)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer
from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Section 3-1202. G.
Proposed Use: Vehicle Sales.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
This 13.17-acre site is located on the west side of US Highway 19 North approximately
150 feet north of Harn Boulevard. The site consists of six parcels of land that make up a corner
lot. The five parcels fronting on US Highway 19 North are zoned Commercial and one small
parcel located in the center of the property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential. The
entire site is utilized for vehicle sales. Seven individual buildings are utilized to perform the
various tasks related to operating a vehicle sales establishment, such as administration, service,
sales office, and parts warehouse. The majority of the property consists of paved parking and
display areas that are minimally designated or striped. The expansive parking and display
areas lack landscaping or have a minimal amount at best. The surrounding area along US
Highway 19 North consists mostly of uses typically found along major arterials roads, such as
vehicle sales, retail sales and services, business and professional offices, and restaurants. The
surrounding area to the rear of the property consist of single family and multi family residential,
as well as a Progress Energy overhead utility line.
The redevelopment consists of two components. The first component is the updating
and re-imaging of the existing sales/show room building, which includes the demolition of a
portion of the sales/show room building. The existing building was designed to have the
appearance of a futuristic dashboard. The architecture of the proposed façade is a good
integration of surrounding architecture through the demolition of a small portion of the building
and the utilization an entrance archway. The proposed increase in building height for the
entrance archway to 36.5 feet from the allowable 25 feet is in keeping with the adjacent two
story vehicle sales establishments.
The second component consists of site improvements including the parking,
landscaping, and signage. The proposed parking improvements include increasing the front
setback to pavement along US Highway 19 North from zero feet to 15 feet. This improvement
Community Development 2006-11-21 35
will allow the introduction of landscaping and trees along the front perimeter of the property,
greatly improving the appearance of the property along US Highway 19 North. Additionally, the
proposed parking is organized, with designated customer, employee, service, display,
administrative office, and storage (inventory) parking areas in the vicinity of where those
functions will take place. The inventory and display areas utilize bullpen parking, or double and
triple stacking, to minimize asphalt parking area and to allow additional landscaped areas. The
landscaping improvements include updating interior islands to meet minimum landscape
requirements. The updating of previously paved perimeter landscape areas will not only assist
with stormwater attenuation and runoff, but also provide shade to the existing vast areas of
asphalt.
The development proposal is estimated at $750,000, which exceeds 25% of the
valuation of the buildings according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser and therefore
triggers parking and landscaping to comply with current Code requirements.
The development proposal will retain 63,405 square-feet of the combined size of the
Autoway Dodge buildings, while a small portion of the main building (approximately 2,000
square-feet) will be demolished. The existing improvements are apart of re-imaging campaign
that includes upgrading the existing façade of the main Autoway Dodge sales/show room.
The proposal also includes a request for two deviations from the landscape code. The
first deviation is a reduction to the front (north) landscape buffer along Tropic Hills Drive from
ten feet to five feet to allow existing drive aisles to remain as a part of the onsite vehicle
circulation system. The second deviation is a reduction to the side (south) landscape buffer
separating two vehicle sales establishments from five feet to zero feet for a distance of
approximately 240 feet to allow existing parking and drive aisles to remain that cannot otherwise
be revised to meet the parking and landscape codes concurrently. The proposal compensates
for this area by doubling the landscape buffer further west in the vehicle storage/inventory area
of the property. The signage on the site exceeds minimum code and will be updated
conditionally as a part of this redevelopment effort.
Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.S.2. of the
Community Development Code for a Vehicle Sales use: The parcel proposed for development
is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas. The
existing development is inconsistent with this criterion, it has historically operated as a vehicle
sales establishment adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.S.3. of the Community
Development Code for a Vehicle Sales use: The display of vehicles for sale shall be located
within an enclosed building. The existing development is inconsistent with this criterion, as
historically this use has primarily displayed vehicles for sale outdoors, with a small percentage
being inside the main sales building.
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.S.4. of the Community
Development Code for a Vehicle Sales use: The use of the parcel proposed for development
fronts on but will not involve direct access to a major arterial street. The existing development is
inconsistent with this criterion as it fronts on and involves direct access to a major arterial street,
US Highway 19 North.
Community Development 2006-11-21 36
These inconsistencies related to the flexibility criteria for vehicle sales uses located in
the Commercial district, exist and the proposal as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, with improved landscaping, parking, and signage components demonstrates an
improvement over the existing development and is compatible with the surrounding area. The
proposal will enhance other redevelopment effort in the immediate area and Clearwater as a
whole.
F.A.R.: Pursuant to Section 2-701 of the Community Development Code, the F.A.R. for
properties located within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use designation is 0.55.
The development proposal complies with an F.A.R. of 0.11.
I.S.R.: Pursuant to Section 2-701 of the Community Development Code, the I.S.R for
properties located within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use designation is 0.95.
The development proposal complies with an I.S.R. of 0.79.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Section 2-704.C. of the Community Development Code,
vehicle sales uses are required to provide a front setback of 15-25 feet and a side setback of
10-20 feet. The subject property consists of two front setbacks (north and east) and three side
setbacks (south, north, and west). The development proposal has provided a setback of at
least 25 feet to the building from all property lines. However, a reduction to the front (north)
setback from 25 feet to 5 feet (to pavement) has been requested to accommodate an existing
parking area and drive aisle. A reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to
pavement) is requested to accommodate a required 15-foot perimeter landscape buffer. The
existing pavement (display area) exists at a zero setback for the majority of the eastern property
line and the proposed reduction will be in compliance with the setback and landscape
requirements. A reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) is
required. The reduction to the setback is to accommodate an existing parking area and drive
aisle that are severely limited due to the existing placement of the main sales/service building.
The south setback exists at a zero setback for the entire length of the property and a portion
about one quarter of the length of the property line will remain at an existing zero setback. A
reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) is required. The
reduction to the setback is to accommodate an existing inventory/storage area and drive aisle.
The west setback exists at a zero setback for the entire length of the property and a portion
about one third of the length of the property line will remain at an existing zero setback.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Section 2-704.C. of the Community Development
Code, the maximum building height for a vehicle sales use is 25 feet. The six existing, single
story buildings on the subject parcel are in compliance with this requirement. However, the
proposal does include a request to allow a building entrance archway feature with a height of
36.5 feet, which can be supported. The adjacent vehicle sales establishments both feature two-
story sales/show rooms that are consistent with this proposal.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Section 2-704.C. of the Community
Development Code, parking is required to be provided at a rate of 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000
square-feet of vehicle display area. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the
parking code, 632 parking spaces provided where 125 are required.
Design Standards for Parking Lots and Parking Garages: Pursuant to Section 3-1402.B
of the Community Development Code, there shall be no more than one entrance and one exit or
Community Development 2006-11-21 37
one combined entrance and exit per property along any street unless otherwise determined
necessary by the traffic engineer to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow. The Traffic
Engineer agrees has determined that the applicant’s request will alleviate congestion and
improve traffic flow patterns through the improvements to the site. Currently all entrances are
being used for the intended use and are to remain.
Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, a
10-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the front (north) property line. The applicant has
requested a reduction to this landscape buffer at five feet in order to accommodate an existing
parking area and drive aisle. The proposal has supplemented additional landscaping at the
corner of Tropic Hills Drive and US Highway 19 North to balance this reduction, which can be
supported.
A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the side (south) property line. The
south landscape buffer currently does not exist for the entire length of the subject property. The
applicant has requested a reduction to this landscape buffer in order to accommodate an
existing parking area and drive aisle that are severely limited in width due to the placement of
the existing main sales/service building and this portion about one quarter of the length of the
property line will remain un-landscaped.
A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the side (west) property line. The west
landscape buffer does not exist for the entire length of the property. The applicant has
requested a reduction to this landscape buffer in order to accommodate an existing
ingress/egress easement with the property to the south and an inventory/storage area. The
portion in the ingress/egress easement is about one third of the length of the west property line
and will remain un-landscaped.
The remaining proposed landscape buffers are in compliance pursuant to Section 3-
1202.D.1. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the
Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can
be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program
satisfying certain criteria. The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found
to be consistent with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the
perimeters of the proposed non-residential off-street parking lot retains numerous existing
mature trees and proposes to plant additional trees in excess of the minimum requirements.
Further, ample groundcovers/shrubs are proposed along these perimeters consistent with the
requirements of Code.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-1102.A.8 of the Community Development Code, the
landscape plan shall include the location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all
existing landscape materials. The most recent submittal of the proposed landscape plan does
not include this information. It has been attached as a condition of approval that a revised
landscape plan including this information (also a plant schedule/table) must be provided prior to
the issuance of a Development Order.
Solid Waste: The development proposal will utilize the existing solid waste facilities on
site. These solid waste facilities have been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Community Development 2006-11-21 38
Signage: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development
proposal. It is noted that pursuant to Section 6-104 of the Community Development Code, in the
event a building permit is required for the redevelopment of a principal use/structure
nonconforming signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance.
The most recent submittal does not include this information. Without a sign inventory of existing
signs located on the subject property it cannot be determined whether this Code is met. It has
been attached as a condition of approval that all existing and future signage must meet the
requirements of Code.
Lighting: The development proposal includes updating the parking lot lighting. The
proposed light fixtures are “cut-off” type luminaries and will be located so that objects or land
which are located beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land are not illuminated to an extent of
producing more than a diffuse shadow.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 5,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 13.17-acre subject property is located on the west side of
the major arterial, US Highway 19 North approximately 150 feet north of Harn Boulevard; 2)
That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District and Commercial General (CG) and Residential Urban (RU) Future
Land Use Plan categories; 3) That the proposed redevelopment exceeds 25% of the value of
the buildings on the property and therefore parking and landscaping on-site must be improve to
meet code; 4) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will
enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement
issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as per Sections 2-701 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-704.C and 2-
704.S of the Community Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent
with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to redevelop an existing Vehicle Sales establishment, in the
Commercial District, with an increase to the maximum building height of an attached entrance
feature from 25 feet to 36.5 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet
(to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), and
a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-704.C. Also included is a reduction
to front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side (south)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer
Community Development 2006-11-21 39
from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Section 3-1202.G. with
the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, all
plan sheets are revised to show the canopies of all trees to remain; 2) That prior to the issuance
of a Development Order, a revised landscape plan including a plant schedule/table be
submitted; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a recorded declaration of Unity
of Title for the six parcels of land is submitted to the Planning Department; 4) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the sight visibility triangle restriction note regarding acceptable
vertical height criteria for objects located in the sight visibility triangles shall be revised to state:
To minimize traffic hazards at street or driveway intersections, no structure or landscaping may
be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet
above grade within the sight distance triangle; 5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance; 6)
That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations
submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 7) That the exterior building
renovations need to be coordinated to create architectural uniformity (i.e.: painted and trimmed
in similar colors) with the other buildings on the property; 8) That the proposed light fixtures are
located so that objects or land which are located beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land
are not illuminated to an extent of producing more than a diffuse shadow; 9) That if the
proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity
and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be
completed by the applicant and at their expense and that if underground water mains and
hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to
construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements; 10) That any/all wireless
communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the
subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which
they are attached, as applicable; 11) That all existing and any future signage must meet the
requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with
regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and
approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 12) That the first building permit must be
applied for within one year of the Community Development Board approval (by November 21,
2007); and 13) That the final Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained within two years of
issuance of the first building permit.
See page 50 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 40
9. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: ANX2006-04013 – 1432 S. Belcher Road Level Three Application
Owner: Kenneth & Sandra St. John (1681 Sherbrook Road, Clearwater, FL 33764;
Telephone 727-539-6190).
Location: A 0.310-acre parcel of land and abutting Catalina Drive right-of-way located on
the northwest corner of S. Belcher Road and Catalina Drive.
Atlas Page: 316B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.310-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) and Residential / Office
General (R/OG) Categories (County) to Residential Urban (RU) and Residential / Office General
(R/OG) Categories (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential and P-1, General Professional Office
Districts (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Office (O) Districts (City of
Clearwater).
Existing Use: Animal Hospital.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to accept Cky Ready as an expert witness in the fields
of environmental planning, comprehensive planning, industrial development, historic
motion
preservation, growth management, and MainStreet revitalization. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Planner Cky Ready reviewed the request. This annexation involves a 0.310-acre
property consisting of two parcels and located on the northwest corner of Catalina Drive and S.
Belcher Road. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north, south
and east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-
63 with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the abutting Catalina Drive right-of-
way not currently within the city limits also be annexed. The applicant is requesting this
annexation in order to receive solid waste and sanitary sewer service from the City. It is
proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Urban (RU) & Residential / Office General (R/OG) and a zoning category of Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) & Office (O).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.310-acre parcel and 0.120-acre of abutting Catalina Drive right-of-way to the
City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Urban (RU) & Residential / Office General (R/OG) Future
Land Use Plan classifications; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) & Office (O)
zoning classifications pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
One person spoke in opposition to the annexation.
Community Development 2006-11-21 41
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case ANX2006-04013 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
motion carried
Report. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
10. Case: ANX2006-08027 – 1300 Highfield Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Jeff Kauck (1300 Highfield Drive, Clearwater, FL 33764; Telephone 727-688-
5624).
Location: A 0.217-acre parcel of land located on the southwest corner of Lakeview Road
and Highfield Drive.
Atlas Page: 308A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.217-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).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.217-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
southwest corner of Highfield Drive and Lakeview Road. The property is contiguous with the
existing City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the
City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.217-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 42
11. Case: ANX2006-08028 – 2031 N. Betty Lane Level Three Application
Owner: Kristi Dodson (2031 N. Betty Lane, Clearwater, FL 33755; Telephone 727-442-
4814).
Location: A 0.116-acre parcel of land located on the east side of Betty and Highfield
Drive.
Atlas Page: 251B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.116-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to
Residential Urban (RU) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-4, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.116-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
east side of N Betty Lane, approximately 75 feet south of Idlewild Drive. The property is
contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the west; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The
applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is
proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.116-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land
Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 43
12. Case: ANX2006-08030 – 1216 Claire Drive Level Three Application
Owner: James L. Waters (2451 Bond Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-
580-3595).
Location: A 0.156-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Claire Drive
approximately 160 feet east of Stevenson's Drive and 185 feet west of Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.156-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.158-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Claire Drive, approximately 160 feet east of Stevenson’s Drive and 185 feet west
of Stockton Drive. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north and
west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63
with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to
receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.158-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 44
13. Case: ANX2006-09032 – 1240 Carol Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Arthur & Dorothy Benjamin (1240 Carol Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755; Telephone
727-443-2063).
Location: A 0.185-acre parcel of land and abutting right-of-way located on the north side
of Claire Drive approximately 160 feet east of Stevenson's Drive and 185 feet west of
Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.185-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.184-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
northwest corner of N. Betty Lane and Carol Drive. The property is contiguous with the existing
City boundaries to the north and east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the
abutting N Betty Lane right-of-way, not currently within the City limits, also be annexed. The
applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is
proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low
(RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.184-acre of property and 0.31-acre of abutting right-of-way to the City of
Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community
Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 45
14. Case: ANX2006-09033 – 1232 Claire Drive Level Three Application
Owner: James L. Waters (2451 Bond Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-
580-3595).
Location: A 0.156-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Claire Drive
approximately 177 feet west of N. Betty Lane and 400 feet east of Stevenson’s Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.156-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.157-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Claire Drive, approximately 177 feet west of North Betty Lane and 400 feet east of
Stevenson’s Drive. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with
regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land
Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.157-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 46
15. Case: ANX2006-09034 – 1824 Diane Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Patrice Dukes (19201 Vista Lane Apt. C4, Indian Shores, FL 33785; Telephone
727-536-2420).
Location: A 0.185-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Claire Drive
approximately 160 feet east of Stevenson's Drive and 185 feet west of Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.18-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.18-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
west side of Diane Drive, approximately 310 feet north of Morningside 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 its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.18-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and 3) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-11-21 47
16. Case: ANX2006-06024 - 2295 McMullen-Booth Road Level Three Application
Owner: Northwood Community Church Inc. (2295 McMullen-Booth Road, Clearwater, FL
33759; Telephone 727-791-4171).
Representative: Ken Vogel (1436 Normandy Lane, Palm Harbor, FL 34683; Telephone
727-434-7447
Location: A 2.12-acre parcel of land and .38-acre of abutting right-of-way located on the
west side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 165 feet north of Renaissance Drive
and 500 feet south of Marlo Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 245A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 2.12-acres of property and .38-acre of abutting right-of-way to the City of
Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Suburban (RS) Category (County)
to Institutional (I) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from A-E, Agricultural Estate Residential District (County) to Institutional (I)
District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Place of Worship.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 2.12-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
west side of McMullen Booth Road, approximately 165 feet north of Renaissance Drive and 500
feet south of Marlo Boulevard. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to
the north, west and south; the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
Ordinance 00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this
annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. A
companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of this site from
Residential Suburban (RS) to Institutional (I), and to rezone it from A-E, Agricultural Estate
Residential District (County) to the (I), Institutional District is being processed concurrently with
this annexation request in LUZ2006-08005.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation
of 2.12 acres to the City of Clearwater.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval
Community Development 2006-11-21 48
17. Case: LUZ2006-08005 – 2295 McMullen-Booth Road Level Three Application
Owner: Northwood Community Church Inc. (2295 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, FL
33759; Telephone 727-791-4171).
Representative: Ken Vogel (1436 Normandy Lane, Palm Harbor, FL 34683; Telephone
727-434-7447
Location: A 2.12-acre parcel of land and .38-acre of abutting right-of-way located on the
west side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 165 feet north of Renaissance Drive
and 500 feet south of Marlo Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 245A.
Request:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Category
(County) to the Institutional (I) Category (City of Clearwater) and
(b) Rezoning from A-E, Agricultural Estate Residential District (County) to Institutional (I)
District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Place of Worship.
Type of Amendment: Small Scale.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758.
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one
parcel of land, approximately 2.12 acres in area located on the west side of McMullen-Booth
Road approximately 165 feet north of Renaissance Drive and 500 feet south of Marlo
Boulevard. The site currently is occupied by Northwood Community Church. The site has a
FLUP designation of Residential Suburban (RS) and is within the Agricultural Estate Residential
(A-E) Zoning District. The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to
the Institutional (I) classification and to rezone it to the Institutional (I) District in which places of
worship are a permitted use.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Suburban (RS) category to the
Institutional (I) category and a rezoning from the Agricultural Estate (A-E) District to the
Institutional (I) District for the subject site is requested. This 2.12-acre site exceeds the
minimum requirements for the Institutional District and the proposed future land use plan
amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood, which consists of
single-family residential dwellings to the north, south, east and west. The proposed changes
are in conformance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request based on
the recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law: 1) approval of the
Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification to the
Institutional (I) Classification and 2) approval of the rezoning from the Agricultural Estate
Residential (A-E) District to the Institutional (I) District.
See page 50 for motion to recommend approval
Community Development 2006-11-21 49
18. Case: ANX2006-08029 – 1504 Country Lane West Level Three Application
Owner: James W. Nelson (1223 N. Saturn Avenue; Telephone 727-461-5020).
Location: A 0.596-acre parcel of land located approximately 500 feet south of the
intersection of SR 590 and Country Lane West.
Atlas Page: 273B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.596-acre of property into the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
The subject property is located on the south side of Country Lane West, approximately
500 feet south of the intersection of SR 590 and Country Lane West. 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. The subject site is approximately 0.596 acre in area and is occupied by a
single family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use
Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of 0.596 acre of property 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.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Cases FLD2006-07044; FLD2006-06033;
CU96-46; FLD2005-07068; FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022; and FLD2006-08047 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on the evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff
Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Reports, with conditions of approval as listed, and recommend to approve Cases ANX2006-
08027; ANX2006-08028; ANX2006-08030; ANX2006-09032; ANX2006-09033; ANX2006-
09034; ANX2006-06024; LUZ2006-08005; ANX2006-08029 on today’s Consent Agenda based
on the evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby
motion
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously.
F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1):
Community Development 2006-11-21 50
1. Case: LUZ2006-08004 – 1980 Kings Highway Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: New Zion Missionary Baptist Church.
Representative: Bernard K. Reichel, Jr. (1957 Freedom Drive; Telephone 727-638-
9062).
Location: 2.21 acres located approximately 110 feet south from the intersection of
Woodlawn Terrace and Kings Highway.
Atlas Page: 251B
Request:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (INS) Category to the Residential
High (RH) Category; and
(b) Rezoning from the Institutional (I) District to High Density Residential (HDR) District
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Type of Amendment: Large Scale.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758.
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to accept Mike Reynolds as an expert witness in the
motion
fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
Senior Planner Mike Reynolds reviewed the request. This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP)
amendment and rezoning application involves property comprising approximately 2.21 acres in
area located on the west side of Kings Highway, approximately 110 feet south of the
intersection of Woodlawn Terrace and Kings Highway. This property has a FLUP classification
of Institutional (INS) and a zoning designation of Institutional (I). The applicant is requesting to
amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential High (RH) classification and to
rezone the property to the High Density Residential (HDR) District in order to develop 30
attached dwelling units with swimming pool and recreation amenities.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
Consistency with City’s comprehensive Plan [Section 4-603.F.1] - Recommended
Findings of Fact - Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated: 1)
2.1 Objective –The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development
and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is
consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment; 2) 2.2.1 Policy - On a continuing
basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in
promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible; 3) 3.0 Goal – A
sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to accommodate
public demand and promote infill development; 4) 5.1.1 Policy - No new development or
redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (traffic circulation,
recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, and drainage) to fall
below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise
Community Development 2006-11-21 51
modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to
be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. Recommended Conclusions of Law
- The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The
development of 30 attached residential units at this location will be compatible with the
surrounding environment and will not significantly impact levels of City services.
Consistency with Countywide Plan - Recommended Findings of Fact - The purpose of
the proposed Residential High (RH) category, as specified in Section 2.3.3.3.1 of the
Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or
appropriate to be developed, in a highly intensive residential manner; and to recognize such
areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban and
intensive qualities, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas.
The site is located in close proximity to an existing church to the immediate south. To the north
and east, is single family residential land use. Attached dwellings are located to the north and
west. Institutional, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, and High
Density Residential Zoning District designations surround the site. The proposed use of the
property, attached dwelling units, is not consistent with the purposes of the Residential High
(RH) Future Land Use category. Neighboring properties are not high density residential in
nature. Further, the applicant is proposing 30 attached condominium dwellings on 2.21 acres of
land. The Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use category allows for 15 dwelling units per
acre in the Medium Density Residential District (MDR). RM Future Land Use and MDR zoning
are more appropriate considering the proposed development of the property. Recommended
Conclusions of Law - The proposed plan amendment is not consistent with the purpose and
locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is not
consistent with the Countywide Plan.
Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood [Section
4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3] - Recommended Findings of Fact - Residential land use characterizes
the immediate areas to the north, west, and east. A church occupies property to the immediate
south. Further south is the intersection of Kings Highway and Sunset Point Road.
Recommended Conclusions of Law - The proposed FLUP designation and rezoning are not in
character with the overall FLUP and zoning designations in the area. They are not compatible
with surrounding uses and not consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area
and neighborhood.
Community Development 2006-11-21 52
Sufficiency of Public Facilities - Recommended Findings of Fact - As stated earlier, the
MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC
Net
Current 1 Proposed Net New
Existing Plan
Dwelling Net Increase
Increase
Daily PM Peak
Situation 2 Trips
Sunset Point Road; Betty Lane to Kings HighwayPlan
Usesunits/Square of Average
of PM
TripsTrips
N/A139404265
Maximum Daily Added Potential TripsFootageDaily Trips
Peak
Trips
3
N/A133825
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips
Existing Zoning (I) /Future Land Use Plan (I)
VolumeofSunsetPointRoad:BetweenBettyLaneand
12,69212,83113,096265
Church (9.11 trips per
Kings Highway
62,573
1,000 sq. ft)
570N/A88N/A
LOSofSunsetPointRoad:BetweenBettyLaneandKings
CCCC
square feet
6.97
Highway
Proposed Zoning (HDR) /Future Land Use Plan (RH)
N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service
63
30
1 = Based on PPC calculations of trips per acre per day for the Institutional Future Land Use Category.
High Rise Condominium
125-44511-77
dwelling units
40.67
183
2 = Based on PPC calculations of trips per acre per day for the Residential High General Future Land Use Category.
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
0.095
Source: “The Rules” of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
overall subject site is approximately 2.21 acres in area and is vacant. Based on a maximum
permitted development potential in the proposed Residential High category, 66 dwelling units
could potentially be constructed on this site. Roadways - The accepted methodology for
reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan amendments is based on the Pinellas
Planning Council’s (PPC) traffic generation guidelines. The PPC’s traffic generation rates have
been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and proposed FLUP categories and
are included in the next table. Based on the 2005 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) Level of Service Report, the segment of Sunset Point Road, Betty Lane to
Kings Highway, has a LOS (Level of Service) of C. This segment is within close proximity to the
site. The proposed FLUP category will generate less PM Peak Hour traffic on this segment of
Sunset Point Road by 77 less trips. Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts
have also been analyzed for the level of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Manual. The proposed plan amendment and rezoning will
not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road network. Mass Transit
- The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The
total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is not located on any mass
transit route. Neighboring mass transit routes are located on Sunset Point Road, Betty Lane,
and Highland Avenue. Water - The current FLUP category could use up to 250 gallons per day
for one residential dwelling unit. Under the proposed FLUP category, water demand, based on
the proposed number of residential units could approach approximately 7,500 gallons per day.
Wastewater - The current FLUP category could produce up to 200 gallons per day for one
residential dwelling unit. Under the proposed FLUP category, based on the proposed number of
residential units, sewer demand could approach approximately 6,000 gallons per day. Solid
Waste - The current FLUP category would result in the production of 2.53 tons of solid waste
per year for one residential dwelling unit. Under the proposed FLUP category, the development
of 30 residential dwelling units could generate 76 tons of solid waste per year. Recreation and
Open Space - The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations will permit the
development of up to 66 attached dwelling units. Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation
Facility impact fees will be required when the property is developed with residential uses. The
amount and timing of this fee is dependent on the number of developed units and will be
addressed and paid during the site plan review process. Recommended Conclusions of Law -
Community Development 2006-11-21 53
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan
amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road
network or to the operational efficiency of the signalized intersection. Further, there is a minimal
impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service. Open space and recreation facilities and
mass transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan and zoning designations.
Impact on Natural Environment [Section 4-603.F.5.] - Recommended of Findings of Fact
- No wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. This property is wooded to some extent.
In the event that development is proposed which does not meet the minimum development
standards of the Community Development Code, site plan review may be required. Prior to
development of the subject property, site plan approval will be required. At that time, the
stormwater management system will be required to meet all City and Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria. Water quantity and quality
will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Recommended
Conclusions of Law - Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the
subject site. The site is wooded. There is minimal impact to the City of Clearwater by the
proposed use.
Location of district boundaries [Section 4-602 .F.6.] - Recommended Findings of Fact -
The location of the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) District boundaries is consistent
with the boundaries of the subject site. However, the proposed boundaries are not logical as
the site is abutting to one existing HDR zoning district to the northeast, but lower intensity
zoning districts elsewhere. Recommended Conclusions of Law - The district boundaries are
appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing
improvements and the natural environment. However, the proposed zoning district is not
appropriate as it is not in character with the overall zoning designations in the area.
Consistency of development with Community Development code and City regulations
[Sections 2-502 & 4-602.F.1. and .2.] - Recommended Findings of Fact - The existing INS
Future Land Use Plan category and I zoning district permit detached dwellings at a maximum
density of 12.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed land use is attached dwelling units. The
subject site proposed for rezoning has a lot width of approximately 300 feet and a lot area of
2.21 acres (96,267 square-feet). The High Density Residential zoning district minimum lot width
requirement is 150 feet and the minimum lot area requirement is 15,000 square-feet.
Recommended Conclusions of Law - The proposed use of the subject site is consistent with the
uses allowed in the High Density Residential zoning district and the site meets the minimum lot
width and area requirements of the District.
Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not
guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be
met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested.
Summary and recommendations: An amendment of the FLUP from the Institutional
(INS) category to the Residential High (RH) category and a rezoning from the Institutional (I)
District to the High Density Residential (HDR) District for the subject site is requested. The site
proposed to be developed is 2.21 acres (96,267 square-feet) and exceeds the minimum lot size
requirement for the development of 30 attached residential units within the High Density
Residential Zoning District. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of single family
Community Development 2006-11-21 54
residential detached dwellings, a church, and attached residential dwellings. The proposed
future land use plan amendment and rezoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan classification and High
Density Residential (HDR) zoning district are not consistent with the City and the Countywide
Comprehensive Plans, and is not compatible with the overall surrounding area. A Residential
Medium (RM) Future Land Use Plan classification and a Medium Density Residential (MDR)
zoning district are consistent with the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, and
would be compatible with the overall surrounding area.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on
the request: a) Denial of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (I)
Classification to the Residential High (RH) General Classification; b) Denial of the rezoning from
the Institutional (I) District to the High Density Residential (HDR) District; c) Approval of the
Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (I) Classification to the Residential
Medium (RM) General Classification subject to concurrence of the applicant; and d) Approval of
the rezoning from the Institutional (I) District to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
subject to concurrence of the applicant.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed typos and staff recommendations. Representative Bernard
Reichel accepted staff’s recommendations.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Case: LUZ2006-08004 as recommended in the staff
report i.e. a) Deny the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (I) Classification
to the Residential High (RH) General Classification; b) Deny the rezoning from the Institutional
(I) District to the High Density Residential (HDR) District; c) Approve the Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Institutional (I) Classification to the Residential Medium (RM) General
Classification subject to concurrence of the applicant; and d) Approve the rezoning from the
Institutional (I) District to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District, based on the evidence
and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
motion carried
approval as listed. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Community Development 2006-11-21 55
.
.
.
G. DIRECTOR'S ITEM (1):
1. Holiday donations to Community Pride.
Planning Director Michael Delk said a packet of information was distributed regarding
voluntary holiday donations to Community Pride. The Holiday luncheon is at Outback
Restaurant on December 19, 2006, at 11 :30 p.m. The December CDB meeting will follow at
2:00 p.m.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1 :42 p.m.
Attest:
Community Development 2006-11-21
56
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
-s-
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
COUNTY
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, 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-
sure 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
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special plivate 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 assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 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.
*
*
*
*
*
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.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
"'!!!
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will 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 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 fileit 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, I'h 0 V"Ul..~
&t1J:lA.
, hereby disclose that on ----.N 9-"V I ~ I
,20~:
(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,
\/' inured to the special gain or loss of \f'"" ~ ~ 1).e <I d o~ l L. t... , 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
.
~ Q<f) ~
.;2.OtO G?
01 fJ~a.. ~b.
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
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, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. .
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000
PAGE 2
~
)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 21, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1 ):
1.Case: FLD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Con7d from October 17. 20(6)
Yes no
Time Extensions (Item 1-2):
1. Time ExtenSioy FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes no
2. Time Extension -lD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
Yes no
Level Two ADDlications(Items 1-5)
1. Cases: FLD2006-05030 Case: DVA2006-00001 - 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola
Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Level III Case.
+Yes
no
2. Case: FLD2006-08047 - 19400 US Highway 19 North
~Yes no
3. Case: FLD2006-06033 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
-X- Y es
no
4. Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
~es
no
..
~
5. Case: CU96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
Yes --i-- no
Level Three Application lItem 1-11)
1. Case: ANX2006-04013 - 1432 s. Belcher Road
Yes K no
2. Case: ANX2006-08027 - 1300 Highfield Drive
Yes ~no
3. Case: ANX2006-08028 - 2031 N. Betty Lane
Yes K no
4. Case: ANX2006-08030 - 1216 Claire Drive
Yes X no
( .
5. Case: ANX2006-09032 - 1240 Carol Drive
Yes '>\ no
6. Case: ANX2006-09033 - 1232 Claire Drive
Yes \- no
7. Case: ANX200~09034 - 1824 Diane Drive
Yes no
8. Case: ANX2006-06024-2295 McMullen Booth Road
Yes K no
9. _ 9ase: LUZ2006-08005 - 2295 McMullen Booth Road
~Yes no
10. Case: ANX2001(8029 - 1504 Country Lane West
Yes no
11. fase: LUZ2006-08004 - 1980 Kings Highway
Yes no
Date: H .1.l-0lP
\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc
Signature: \
S:\Planning Departm t
2
.
J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 21, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1 ):
1.Case: FLD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Continued from October 17, 2006)
Yes
no
Time Extensions (Item 1-2):
Time Extension 7FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes ;/ no
1.
2. Time Extension - FU5'2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
Yes AI' no
Level Two Applications(Items 1-5)
1. Cases: FLD2006-05030 Case: DVA2006-00001- 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola
Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Level III Case.
/Yes
no
2. Ca~FLD2006-08047 - 19400 US Highway 19 North
~Yes no
3. Case: FLD2006-06033 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
Yes / no
4. Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
/no
Yes
5. Case: CU96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
Yes
no
Level Three ADDlication (Item 1-11)
1. Case: ANX2006-04013 - 1432 S. Belcher Road
/no
Yes
2. Case: ANX2006-08027 - 1300 Highfield Drive
,.//
Yes
no
3. Case: ANX2006-0ft028 - 2031 N. Betty Lane
Yes ./ no
4. Case: ANX2006-08030 - 1216 Claire Drive
Yes J no
5. Case: ANX2006-09032 - 1240 Carol Drive
Yes / no
6. Case: ANX2006-09033 - 1232 Claire Drive
Yes .../ no
7. Case: ANX2006-0.9034 - 1824 Diane Drive
Yes v' no
8. C4N'e: ANX2006-06024-2295 McMullen Booth Road
./' Yes no
9. ca.xtf: LUZ2006-08005 - 2295 McMullen Booth Road
/Yes no
10. Case: ANX2006-0ft029 - 1504 Country Lane West
Yes ^J no
11. Case: LUZ200.6-0Q~4 - 1980 Kings Highway
Yes.,7~~
Date: J I /;"0/ Of,
property investigation check Iist.dot I
2
..
~ '
'#
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 21,2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.Case: FLD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
aZ"tinue from October 17, 2006)
Yes no
Time Extensions (Item 1-2):
1. T~ Extension - FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard.
V."Yes no
2. T~Extension - FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
.J../'--Yes no
Level Two Applications(Items 1-5)
1. Cases: FLD2006-05030 Case: DVA2006-00001 - 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola
Ave~; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Level III Case.
V Yes no
2. Ca~ FLD2006-08047 - 19400 US Highway 19 North
~Yes no
3. tas : FLD2006-06033 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
Yes no
4. cas~D2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
/' Yes no
"
.
5. Case:;,Y96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street /1344 Pierce Street
V Yes no
Level Three Application (Item 1-11)
1. Case: ANX2006-04013 - 1432 S. Belcher Road
~
no
2. Case: ANX2006-08027 - 1300 Highfield Drive
, ~s
v
no
3. Cas~NX2006-08028 - 2031 N. Betty Lane
----LLY es no
4. Ca~ANX2006-08030 - 1216 Claire Drive
~Yes no
5. Ca~4X2006-09032 - 1240 Carol Drive
~e:" no
6. C-~NX2006-09033 - 1232 Claire Drive
~~esn no
7. Case: ANX2006-09034 :,1~~4J)ane Dr~~
Yes no U~ 14fJ---
8. Ca~ ANX2006-06024-2295 McMullen Booth Road
~Yes no
9. C~: LUZ2006-08005 - 2295 McMullen Booth Road
V Yes no
10. Ca.~NX2006-08029 - 1504 Country Lane West
~Yes . no
1 1. Cas~Z2006-08004 - 1980 Kings Highway
---t.,.L"Yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning
Date: /I-/Lf-db
t\ D B\CDB, property investigation eheek fist.doc'
2
.
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 21, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.Case: FLD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Continue9om October 17, 2006)
./Yes no
Time Extensions (Item 1-2):
1. Tim4'xtension - FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard.
7;r~ no
2. Ti.0xtension - FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
Yes no
Level Two ApDlicationsCltems 1-5)
1. Cases: FLD2006-05030 Case: DVA2006-00001- 302, 303,304,308 and 309 North Osceola
A7; 410 Jones Street; ond 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Level III Cose.
Yes no
2. Cq/e: FLD2006-08047 - 19400 US Highway 19 North
-.L--Yes no
3. caseyFLD2006-06033 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
~Yes no
4. 7 FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lokeview Rood
Yes no
t
5.casXU96-46 -1339.1341,1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
Yes no
Level Three Application (Item 1-11)
1. Case: ANX2006-04013 - 1432 s. Belcher Road
1Yes
no
], ;:: ANX2006-08027 - 1300 Highfield Drive
Yes no
3. Cjse: ANX2006-08028 - 2031 N. Betty Lane
-+-Yes no
4. C~e: ANX2006-08030 - 1216 Claire Drive
--L- Y es no
5. Case: ANX2006-09032 - 1240 Carol Drive
/ Yes no
-
6. ere: ANX2006-09033 - 1232 Claire Drive
Yes no
7. fase: ANX2006-09034 - 1824 Diane Drive
+--Yes no
8. 9Use: ANX2006-06024-2295 McMullen Booth Road
./ Yes no
9. 7se: LUZ2006-08005 - 2295 McMullen Booth Road
Yes no
10. C(j6e: ANX2006-08029 - 1504 Country Lane West
/ Yes no
11. Cute: LUZ2006-08004 - 1980 Kings Highway
7-yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning
L 7 Date: II//?/V~
CDB, property investigation check list.dJc I
2
,
..
..
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 21, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1 ):
1.Case: FLD2006-07044 - 1721 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Continued from October 17, 2006)
\(' Yes
no
Time Extension's (Item 1- 2):
Tjme Extension - FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard.
V Yes no
1.
2. Ti,me Extension - FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 - 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
V Yes no
Level Two ApplicationsCltems 1-5)
1. Cases: FLD2006-05030 Case: DVA2006-00001- 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola
Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Level III Case.
/ Yes
no
2. eye: FLD2006-08047 - 19400 US Highway 19 North
Yes no
3. Case: FLD2006-06033 - 706 Bayway Boulevard
/ Yes no
4. Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
LYes
no
.
t
.
-
5. Cl7~e. CU96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
Yes no
Level Three Application (Item 1-11)
1. Case: ANX2006-04013 - 1432 S. Belcher Road
Yes 2no
2. Case: ANX2006jP8027 - 1300 Highfield Drive
Yes (no
3. Case: ANX20~08028 - 2031 N. Betty Lane
Yes no
4. Case: ANX2006A>8030 - 1216 Claire Drive
Yes V no
5. Case: ANX2006..((9032 - 1240 Carol Drive
Yes 7~' no
6. Case: ANX20r9033 - 1232 Claire Drive
Yes no
7. Case: ANX20r09034 - 1824 Diane Drive
Yes no
8. Case: ANX20~06024-2295 McMullen Booth Road
Yes no
9. Case: LUZ200d08005 - 2295 McMullen Booth Road
Yes 7-' no
10. Case: ANX2006..68029 - 1504 Country Lane West
Yes 7-- no
11. Case: LUZ2006.J~004 - 1980 Kings Highway
Yes 7"" no
te: ~O /UW Ob
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc
2