Loading...
09/20/2005 . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER September 20, 2005 Present: David Gildersleeve Alex Pliska Kathy Milam J. B. Johnson Dana K. Tallman Nicholas C. Fritsch Daniel Dennehy Absent: Thomas Coates Also Present: Gina Grimes Leslie Dougall-Sides Michael L. Delk Gina Clayton Neil Thompson Patricia O. Sullivan Brenda Moses Chair Vice-Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member Board Member Attorney for the Board Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Planning Manager Board Reporter - departed 12:01 p.m. Board Reporter - arrived 12:34 p.m. The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.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: August 16, 2005 Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 16, 2005, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D - DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (!tem 1) 1. Expert Witness List Addition Staff presented the resume of Planner Franklin Cky Ready. Member Johnson moved to accept Franklin Cky Ready as an expert witness in the areas of Environmental Planning, Comprehensive Planning, Industrial Development, Historic Preservation, Growth Management, and Mainstreet Revitalization: The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2005-09-20 1 . . . E - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1 Level Three Application Case: DV A2004-00002A - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive Owner/Applicant: Crystai Beach Capital, LLC Representative: Stepehn J. Szabo, III, Foley & Lardner, LLP (100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700, Tampa, FL 33601; phone: 813-229-2300; fax: 813-221-4210; email: sszabo@foley.com). Location: 1.63 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T). Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DV A2004-00002 by City Council on December 2, 2004). Approved Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached dwellings (11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director Alternate Member Dennehy moved to continue Item E1 to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carr:ed ~nanimously. F - CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 1 - 16) 1 Case: FLD2005-05043 - 651 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owners: Ardent International, LLC and P. Vasiloudes Applicant: M3B Development, LLC. Representative: Robert Szasz (1860 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-467-0730; fGx: 727-467-0732; email: rbszasz@aol.com). Location: 0.491 acre located at the southeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue. Atlas Page: 258A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 14 attached dwellings with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 59 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 3.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to seven feet (to pool deck) and from 20 feet to 11 feet (to pool), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: djw@gte.net); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727 -443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com). Community Development 2005-09-20 2 . . . Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The OA9-acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bay Esplanade, Poinsettia Avenue, and Royal Way. The subject property has a zoning designation of Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The property also is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District." According to the City's occupational license records, the subject property currently is developed with five overnight accommodation units, although it appears that additional units exist. The subject property includes three two-story buildings, one single-story building, an accessory swimming pool and back out parking encroaching into the Bay Esplanade right-of- way. The immediate vicinity is comprised almost entirely of attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) with single-family dwellings farther to the north and the structures vary in height between one and three. stories. . Within the immediate vicinity are four approved condominium developments: La Risa I (650 Bay Esplanade) at 69.5 feet in height, La Risa II (669 Bay Esplanade) at 52 feet in he!ght, Nepenthe (665 Bay Esplanade) at 59 feet in height, and Poinsettia Place (605 Poinsettia Avenue) at 37 feet in height. The development proposal consists of five habitable floors over a level of parking (59 feet from BFE (Base Flood Elevation) to roof deck), with floors two through four containing three dwelling units each and floors five and six containing two dwelling units each. An elevator and two stairwells will be centrally located along the north fayade of the building to provide access to the units. The existing back-out parking within the Bay Esplanade right-of-way will be removed and replaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line. It is noted that no sidewalk presently exists adjacent to the subject property. The development proposal also includes the provision of a swimming pool/spa with deck at the southeast corner of the site. Parking and a solid waste staging area will be located on the ground floor. No signage is proposed for the development at this time. The subject property is located within the RFH FLUP category, which permits a maximum density of 30 attached dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the OA9-acre subject property is permitted a maximum of 14 attached dwelling units, and 14 attached dwelling units are proposed with this request. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Code and the FLUP limitations with regard to density. Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings are required to provide a front setback of 0-15 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback of 10-20 feet. The subject property consists of a front setback along Bay Esplanade (north), a second front setback along Royal Way (south), a side setback (east), and a rear setback (south) along Mandalay Channel. As proposed, the development will require a reduction to the front (south, abutting Royal Way) setback from 15 feet to 11 feet (to building/pavement); however the balance of the building will conform to required setbacks. Additionally, a reduction to the rear (south, abutting Mandalay Channel) setback from 20 feet to 6 feet (to pool deck) and 11 feet (to pool) will be required. Based upon the atypical configuration of the lot, the building's approximate rear setback of 27 feet, and that the pool/deck covers only roughly 40% of the rear yard, the reduced setbacks can be supported. Community Development 2005-09-20 3 . Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwelling units require the provision of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 14 attached dwelling units require a total of 21 parking spaces and thedeve!opment proposal includes the provision of 27 parking spaces on the ground level. Based upon the above, compliance with the requirements of Section 2-803 as they pertain to off-street parking has been achieved. The development proposal includes the provision of a 10-foot by 13-foot refuse staging area along the south side of the building adjacent to the proposed driveway at Royal Way. In 1997 and 1998, a Plan was prepared for the City entitled "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization." This Plan was prepared after an extensive public process, directive surveys and input from the City Council and City administration. The purpose of Beach by Design, adopted by the City Council in 2001, is to implement the recommendations of that Plan and regulate development within certain areas of the beach. The subject property !s located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach by Design special area redevelopment plan and is defined as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia (Street)." In order to implement this vision, Beach by Design states that building heights should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code. While "mid-rise" is not specifically defined within the Code, based upon the height standards set forth in the Medium Density Residential (MDR), TOUiist (T), and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts, the Planning Department has interpreted "mid-rise" development as having a maximum height of 50 feet. . The proposed height of the building (59 feet to roof deck) is adjudged to be inconsistent with the above definition of mid-rise development. However, at its meeting of September 1, 2005, the City Council discussed a new policy direction with regard to the "Old Florida District." This policy direction calls for limiting the height of buildings on those properties north of Somerset Street to 35 feet; limiting the height of buildings on the first 60 feet south of Somerset Street to 50 feet; and limiting the height of buildings in the balance of the District to 65 feet. In addition, the Council gave direction for increased site design performance by the way of larger setbacks and/or building step backs. The proposed building includes 27-foot step backs along its sides at approximately 47 feet in height. Also, as the building has been designed with the front running parallel to Bay Esplanade, the building has a natural curve along the front; thus when viewed directly from Bay Esplanade the building will have the appearance of additional step backs. These step backs, along with the provision of a rear setback in excess of the required minimum (to building), would seem sufficient justification to support the requested building height of 59 feet, based upon the new policy direction set forth by the City Council. . The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit 14 attached dwellings in the Tourist District, an increase to height from 35 feet to 59 feet (to roof deck), an increase to the height of a parapet wall from 30 inches to 42 inches, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feetto 11 feet (to building/pavement) and reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 6 feet (to pool deck) and 11 feet (to pool), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the Community Development 2005-09-20 4 . . . provisions of Section 2-803.C., based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law with the following conditions of approval: Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) The 0.49 acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) The subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District"; 3) According to the City's occupational license records, the subject property is currently developed with 5 overnight accommodation units; 4) The subject property is permitted a maximum of 14 attached dwelling units (30 du/ac); 5) The development proposal is consistent with the Community Development Code and the Future Land Use Plan category with regard to the maximum allowable density; 6) Adjacent properties are zoned Tourist (T) District, and developed with attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single- family dwellings with heights varying between one and three stories, with the surrounding area consisting of a mixture of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations; 7) The proposed building height is 59 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck; 8) There are no pending Code Enforcement issues with the site; 9) Staff finds that the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as set forth in Section 3-913.A; and 10) Staff finds that the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria as set forth in Section 2-803.C. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the existing water main within the Bay Esplanade right- of-way is upgraded to the satisfaction of the Fire Department in order to ensure adequate water supply for firefighting purposes, and that said upgrades are depicted on a revised Grading, Drainage & Utilities Site Plan (sheet 4 of 5) prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 2) That the handicap accessible parking space (#8) is provided unobstructed access to the associated access panel prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 3) That handicap parking stall and sign details t::()mpliant with City standards are provided prior to the issuance of any building permits; 4) That any/all required Parks and Recreation fees are paid prior to the issuance of a building permit; 5) That any/all required Transportation Impact Fees are paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 6) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the COB (Community Development Board), and be approved by Staff; 7) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. That conduit for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 8) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: 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; 11) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 12) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by September 20, 2006) of COB approval; 13) That the final Community Development 2005-09-20 5 . Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; and 14) That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as app!icable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. See page 48 for motion of approval. . 2 Case: FLD2005-05042 - 1254 Grove Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Patricia A. Bilotta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOPA, LLC. Representative: Patricia A. Bilotta Location: 0.172 acre located at the northwest corner of Grove Street and South Betty Lane. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit three attached dwellings with a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 23 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 14 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to building) and a reduction to the required number of parking spaces from 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (5 spaces) to 1.33 spaces per dwelling units (4 spaces), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north side from 10 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Association: Ciearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The 0.172-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of Grove Street and South Betty Lane, and contains a two-story building with three attached dwelling units. As it presently exists, the building is set back zero feet from the side (north) property line, 24 feet from the front (south) property line, 14.5 feet from the front (east) property line, and 30 feet from the side (west) property line. The site is accessed via an unimproved driveway along Grove Street and has no existing parking. The development proposal consists of the enclosure of an existing 200 square-foot covered porch along the east building elevation, the extension of the existing landing/deck at the second floor staircase to a size of approximately 80 square-feet, and the installation of a four- space parking lot with access from Grove Street. The proposed enclosure of the covered porch will occupy the existing footprint of the porch and encroach no further into the front (east) setback than does the balance of the building. However, the enclosure does result in the necessity to have the required setback reduced from 25 feet to 14.5 feet. The proposed landing/deck extension at the second floor staircase will be located along the side (north) property line even w!th the existing north edge of the building. A reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 0 feet will be required to accommodate this expansion. The proposed four space parking jot will be set back approximately 23 feetfrom the front (south) property line; thus requiring a reduction to the required front setback from 25 feet. . Community Development 2005-09-20 6 . . . The requested reductions to the minimum setbacks will not result in any greater encroachments by the building than occur presently. Further, the requests are consistent with the Flexibility Criteria for Residentiallnfill Projects as set forth in Section 2-404.F. Based upon the above, positive findings of fact and conclusions of law can be made with regard to the requested setback reductions. Pursuant to Section 2-404, attached dwellings shall require the provision of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the three existing attached dwelling units require a total of five parking spaces and presently none exists. The development proposal includes the provision of a four-space parking lot with access from Grove Street. The proposed parking lot will not meet the requirements of Section 2-404; however its provision will result in a substantial reduction to the existing parking nonconformity. It is further noted that as Residentiallnfill Project, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced to a ratio of one space per dwelling unit [ref. Section 2-404]. .As proposed, parking will be provided for the three attached dwelling units at a rate of 1.33 per dwelling unit. Based upon the above, positive findings of fact and conclusions of law can be made with regard to the requested reduction to the parking requirement. The development proposal also includes a request through the submittal of a Comprehensive Landscape Program to reduce a portion of the required side (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 0 feel. The requested reduction will occur along that portion of the landscape buffer beneath the proposed landing/deck extension, and the full width of the landscape buffer will be provided along the balance of the north property line. In comparison to what landscaping exists on site, the development proposal will be a substantial improvement. The landscape plan indicates that the existing live oak tree between the southeast corner of the building and Grove Street will be retaineq, and additional landscape materials will be provided that include: crape myrtle, dahoon holly, elm, and red maple trees as well as ivy, hibiscus, liriope, aztec grass, indian hawthorn, bird of paradise and jasmine. The area beneath the aforementioned landing/deck extension will consist of sod and a mulch utility path in order to maintain access to existing utility connections located on the building's west elevation beneath the existing staircase. The only issue with regard to the landscape plan is that the proposed landing/deck extension is not depicted consistently with the site plan. Accordingly, the landscape plan will need to be revised for consistency with the site plan prior to the issuance of any permits. Subject to this issue being addressed, positive finding of fact and conclusions of law can be made with regard to the Comprehensive Landscape Program [Section 3-1202.G.]. Solid waste services are currently accommodated through "black barrel" service and will not change as a result of this development proposal. There is an outstanding enforcement case associated with this site regarding the provision of adequate groundcover to meet the requirements of Section 3-.1502.H.2. The site ilas been the subject of several Code violations in the past having to do with adequate property maintenance. However, it is noted that the outstanding Code enforcement case will be resolved through this development proposal. The subject property is located within the East Gateway District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Plan recognizes that this area is generally characterized Community Development 2005-09-20 7 . . . by a mixed land use pattern of residential housing interspersed with pockets of poorly maintained rental properties and outdated commercial strips. The Plan envisions that the District will be a vibrant, stable, diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural base and mixed land uses. The Plan further recommends that this area continue to be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported by neighborhood commercial and professional offices concentrated along major corridors and that lhE: existing residential areas retain their scale and deveiopment patterns and that any infill development in this area should reflect the existing low-rise pattern. This strategy has been identified as a way to stimulate the redevelopment of property in the area and to reposition the Downtown as a viable economic entity in the region. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 30, 2005, and. determined that subject to conditions the application was sufficient to proceed to the COB. The 3pplicant has consistently worked with Staff to provide an attractive, wel!-designed development that will serve to enhance the local area and City as a whole. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character of the area and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown. The development proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for Residential Infill Projects along with all other applicable standards of the Community Development Code, and further is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to reduce the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 23 feet (to pavement), to reduce the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 14 feet (to building), to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 0 feet (to building), and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (5 spaces) to 1.33 spaces per dwelling units (4 spaces) as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F., and to reduce a portion of the required s:de (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 0 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G., with the following recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval: FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject property totals 7,488 square-feet (0.172 acre) and is approximately 93 feet wide; 2) The subject property is zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and a FUlur"8 LCind Use Plan category of Residential High (RH); 3) The subject property is located within the East Gateway District of the Clear#ater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 4) The subject property currently is nonconforming with regard to minimum lot area and lot width requirements; 5) The existing building currently is nonconforming with regard to minimum setback requirements; 6) The relief from the setback requirements sought by the development proposal is permissible as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; 7) The relief from the parking requirement sought by the development proposal is permissible as a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404; and 8) The reiief from the landscape requirements sought by the development proposal is permissible as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Conclusions of Law: 1) The development proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project as per Section 2-404.F.; 2) The development proposal complies with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria as per Section 3-913; 3) The dev.elopment proposal complies with the Visions, Goals, Community Development 2005-09-20 8 . . . Objectives and Policies' of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the East Gateway District; 4) The development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) The development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the 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 all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That the landscape plan is revised for consistency with the site plan with regard to the depiction of the landing/deck extension prior to the issuance of any permits; 5) That the landing/deck extension is constructed in accordance with the techniques for zero lot line construction; and 6) That a maintenance easement is obtained from the adjoining property owner to the north for the purpose of providing maintenance to all improvements abutting the north property line. See page 48 for motion of approval. 3 Case: FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Coates 1, Inc. Representative: Keith Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email: keith@keithzayac.com). Location: 0.37 acre located along the east side of Bay Esplanade and west of Cypress Avenue. Atlas Page: 258A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (18 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 13 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of 11 dwelling units would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 13 attached dwellings with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 53.25 feet (to roof deck) with an additional nine feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 22 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The 0.37-acre subject property is located along the east side of Bay Esplanade east of the northern terminus of Cypress Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The property is also located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by DGsign, as part of the "Old Florida District." According to the City's records, the subject property currently is developed with 18 overnight accommodation units. The subject property consists of a two-story building with an Community Development 2005-09-20 9 . . . accessory swimming pool and back-out parking encroaching into the Bay Esplanade right-of- way. The immediate vicinity is comprised of a mixture of overnight accommodations, attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and single-family dwellings, and the structures vary in height between one and three stories. Within the immediate vicinity are four approved condominium developments: La Risa I (650 Bay Esplanade) at 69.5 feet in height, La Risa II (669 Bay Esplanade) at 52 feet in height, Nepenthe (665 Bay Esplanade) at 59 feet in height, and Poinsettia Place (605 Poinsettia Avenue) at 37 feet in height. The development proposal consists of five habitable floors over a level of parking (53.25 feet from BFE to roof deck), with a total of 13 dwelling units ranging in size from a two-bedroom 1,682 square-foot single-level unit to a four-bedroom 4,220 square-foot two-level unit. An elevator and two stairwells will hI'! located along the west fayade of the building, providing access to the individual units. The existing back-out parking within the Bay Esplanade right-of-way will be removed and replaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line. It is noted that no sidewalk presently exists adjacent to the subject property. The development proposal also includes the provision of a swimming pool with sundeck at the south side of the building's fourth floor. Parking and a solid waste staging area will be located on the ground floor. No signage is proposed for the development at this time. The development proposal includes a request to reduce the front (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to reduce the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (to building). The reduction to the front (west) setback can be supported, as it is to allow for a 10- foot by 5-foot refuse staging area and a five-foot wide walkway connecting the stairway egress to the public sidewalk. The reduction to the rear (east) setback can be supported, as it will allow a larger area for development as the subject property becomes wider at the rear as compared to the front (west); thus resuiting in the ability to produce- a better development product. Further, the development has compensated for the rear (east) setback reduction by providing building setbacks in excess of the minimum along the north and south sides of the property. The development proposal includes a request for termination of status of nonconformity to permit 13 of the 18 existing dwelling units to remain where 11 attached dwelling units would otherwise be permitted. As previously noted, the subject property has been developed with 18 .- overnight accommodation units. The applicant desires to retain 13 existing dwelling units on the site. The termination of status of nonconformity criteria as per Section 6-109, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off- street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. In 1997 and 1998, a Plan was prepared for the City entitled "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization." This Plan was prepared after an extensive public process, directive surveys and input from the City Council and City administration. The purpose of Beach by Design, which was adopted by the City Council in 2001, is to implement the recommendations of that Plan and regulate development within certain areas of the beach. The subject property is located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach by Design special area redevelopment plan and is defined as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia (Street)." In Community Development 2005-09-20 10 . order to implement this vision, Beach by Design identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the prefeiit~d fOi"ii, of development within the "Old Florida District." Further, BGach by Design states that densities within the District should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code. While "mid-rise" is not specifically defined within the Community Development Code, based upon the height standards set forth in the Medium Density Residential (MDR), Tourist (T), and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts, the Planning Department has interpreted "mid-rise" development as having a maximum height of 50 feet. Development within the immediate vicinity of the subject property consists of attached dwellings, small motels, and condominiums between one and three stories in height with building styles generally resembling architecture from the 1950s. Based upon the above, the type of development proposed (condominium) is inconsistent with the preferred development types in the "Old Florida District." The existing development.has a density of 48.64 dwelling units per acre, whereas the proposed development would have a density of 35.13 dwelling units per acre. This represents a decrease of approximately 28% upon the existing density, which would be consistent with Beach by Design with regard to limiting density to that of existing improvements. Further, the proposed height of the building (53.3 feet to roof deck), while slightly in excess of the interpreted 50-foot "mid-rise" threshold, is generally consistent with Beach by Design. . Based upon the above, despite the development proposals deviation from the preferred development type, the project is found to be predominantly consistent with "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. Therefore the development proposal can be supported. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit 13 attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District, with an increase to height from 35 feet to 53.25 feet (as measured from BFE-to the roof deck) with an additional 9 feet for perimeter parapets (as measured from roof deck) and an additional 22 feet for architectural embellishments (as measured from roof deck), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (to building), and a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., and a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity (18 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 13 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of 11 dwelling units would be permitted under current Code) under the provisions of Section 6-109, based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law and with the following conditions of approval: . Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.37 acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District"; 3) That the development proposal does not comply with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design, which identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development; 4) That the development proposal complies with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design, which states that densities within the District should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements arid that building Community Development 2005-09-20 11 . . . height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code; 5) That the subject property currently is developed with 18 overnight accommodation units; 6) That the subject property is permitted a maximum of 11 attached dwelling units (30 du/ac); 7) That the adjacent properties are zoned Tourist (T) District, and developed with attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) and overnight accommodations with heights varying between one and three stories, with the surrounding area consisting of a mixture of attached dwellings, overnight accommodations and detached dwellings; 8) That the height of the proposed building is 53.3 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck; 9) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 10) That the development proposal meets the requirements for a termination of status of nonconformity as per Section 6-109 to permit 13 dwelling units where 11 units would otherwise be allowed; 11) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria of Section 3-913.A; and 12) That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria of Section 2-803.C. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the existing water main within the Bay Esplanade right- uf-way is upgraded to the satisfaction of the Fire Department in order to ensure adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes, and that said upgrades are depicted on a revised Grading, Drainage & Utilities Site Plan (sheet 4 of 5) prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 2) That fire flow calculations are provided by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure adequate water supply; 3) That any/all required Parks and Recreation fees are paid prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) That any/all required Transportation Impact Fees are paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 6) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 7) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. That conduit for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size -and numberof conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 8) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and 3pproved 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; 11) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 12) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by September 20, 2006) of CDB approval; 13) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; 14) That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 15) That the site plan is revised to depict the location of facilities to accommodate recyclables; arid 16) 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. Community Development 2005-09-20 12 . See page 48 for motion of approval. . 4 Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade Properties, LLC. Representative: Keith Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email: keith@keithzayac.com). Location: 0.55 acre located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Cypress Avenue. Atlas Page: 258A Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (15 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 13 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of eight dwelling units would be permitted under current Code) at 64 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 21 attached dwellings within the Tourist (T) District with an increase to height from 35 feet to 52 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 11 feet fer perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 19 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), and a reduction to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) as part of a Comprehensive infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@.aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The 0.55-acre subject property, located at the northwest corner of Bay Esplanade and Cypress Avenue, has a zoning designation of Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The property is also located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District." According to City records, the subject property presently consists of two separate developments: 1) the Cavalier Motel, located at 64 Bay Esplanade, which consists of 18 overnight accommodation units within a two-story building with an accessory swimming pool and back-out parking into the Bay Esplanade and Cypress Avenue rights-of-way and 2) a 3-unit motel, located at 566 Bay Esplanade, which consists of a one-story motel with an accessory swimming pool and back-out parking into the Bay Esplanade right-of-way. The immediate vicinity is predominantly comprised of overnight accommodations and detached dwellings, which vary in height between one and three stories. It is noted that the immediate vicinity has seen one recent condominium development approval; the 37 foot high Poinsettia Place, which is located at 605 Poinsettia Avenue. . The development pr('lrOB~1 consists of the demolition of the existing improvements on site and the construction of a 52-foot high building (as measured from BFE to roof deck) containing 21 condominium units that range in size from a 1,800 square-foot two-bedroom unit to a 2,933 square-foot three-bedroom unit. Community Development 2005-09-20 13 . . . The existing back-out parking within the Bay Esplanade and Cypress Avenue rights-of- way will be removed and repiaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line. It is noted that no sidewalk presently exists adjacent to the subject property. The development proposal also includes the provision of a roof top swimming pool and sundeck on the west side of the building. Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings are required to provide a front setback of 0-15 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback of 10-20 feet. The subject property consists of three front setbacks (south, east and west) and one side setback (north), and the development proposal complies with all setback requirements will the lone exception of the front (east) setback where a request has been made to reduce the required setback from 15 feet to zero feet to accommodate the dumpster staging area. Based upon the nature of the request, the reduction can be supported. Therefore, compliance with Section 2-803, with regard to setback requirements has been achieved. Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings units require the provision of 1.5 parking ::;paces per unit. Therefore, the proposed 21 attached dwelling units require a total of 32 parking spaces and the development proposal includes the provision of a 33 space parking area on the ground level of the building. Based upon the above, compliance with the requirements of Section 2-803 as they pertain to off-street parking has been achieved. In addition, it is noted that the ingress/egress .point to the ground level parking area is proposed to be gated. However, the applicant has not proposed any means by which guests to the development can obtain access to the parking area (i.e. call box). The failure to provide any means of guest access to the off-street parking area ultimately will result in the stacking of vehicles into the Bay Esplanade right-of-way and/or the parking of vehicles in the Bay Esplanade and Cypress Avenue rights-of-way. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the proposed gated access is eliminated or that the plans are revised to provide some means by which guests can gain access to the off-street parking area to the satisfaction of Traffic Engineering and Planning Department staff. The development proposal includes the provision of a trash holding area at the northeast corner of the building. A 30-foot by 15-foot concrete slab will be provided between the northeast corner of the building and the edge of pavement for Bay Esplanade and will serve as the dumpster staging area iorthe development. However, the proposed width (15 feet) of the dumpster staging area is excessive and it is recommended that it be reduced by half. The development proposal includes a request for termination of status of nonconformity to permit 13 of the 18 existing dwelling units located at 64 Bay Esplanade to remain, where only eight attached dwelling units would otherwise be permitted. As previously noted, the subject property presently consists of two separate developments: the 18-unit Cavalier Motel at 64 Bay Esplanade, which is nonconforming with regard to density (66.7 du/ac), and the 3 rental units at 566 Bay Esplanade, which conform to allowable density (10.52 du/ac). The applicant desires to terminate the status of nonconformity for 13 of the 18 existing dwelling units at 64 Bay Esplanade and redevelop 566 Bay Esplanade to its maximum allowable density (8 dwelling units). This will enable the development of 21 attached dwelling units on the combined subject properties. The termination of status of nonconformity criteria as per Section Community Development 2005-09-20 14 . . . 6-109, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. In 1997 and 1998, a Plan was prepared for the City entitled "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization." This Plan was prepared after an extensive public process, directive surveys and input from the City Council and City administration. The purpose of Beach by Design, adopted by the City Council in 2001, is to implement the recommendations of that Plan and regulate development within certain areas of the beach. The subject property is located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach by Design special area redevelopment plan and is defined as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia (Street)." In order to implement this vision, Beach by Design identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development within the "Old Florida District." Further, Beach by Design states that densities within the District should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code. While "mid-rise" is not specifically defined within the Community Development Code, based upon the height standards set forth in the Medium Density Residential (MDR), Tourist (T), and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts, the Planning Department has interpreted "mid-rise" development as having a maximum height of 50 feet. Beach by Design identifies single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development within the "Old Florida District." However, the development proposal is inconsistent with this preference as it is for a condominium. The existing developments have a combined density of 38.18 dwelling units per acre, which will be replicated by the proposed development and is therefore consistent with Beach by Design with regard to limiting density to that of existing improvements. Further, the proposed height of the building (52 feet to roof deck), while slightly in excess of the interpreted 50-foot "mid-rise" threshold, is generally consistent with Beach by Design. Based upon the above and despite the development proposal's deviation from the preferred development type, the project is found to be predominantly consistent with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. Therefore, the development proposal can be supported. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit 21 attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District, with an increase to height from 35 feet to 52 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 11 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 19 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), and a reduction to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., and a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity (18 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 13 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of eight dwelling units would otherwise be permitted under current Code) under the provisions of Section 6-109, based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law and with the following conditions of approval: FindinQs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.55 acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) Community Development 2005-09-20 15 . . . That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Fiorida District"; 3) That the development proposal does not comply with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design, which identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development; 4) That the development proposal complies with the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design, which states that densities within the District should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code; 5) That the subject property currently is developed with 18 overnight accommodation units at 64 Bay Esplanade and 3 overnight accommodation units at 566 Bay Esplanade; 6) That the subject property is permitted a maximum of 16 attached dwelling units (30 du/ac); 7) That the adjacent piOperties are zoned Tourist (T) District, and developed with overnight accommodations and detached dwellings with heights varying between one and three stories, with the surrounding area consisting of a mixture of attached dwellings, overnight accommodations and detached dwellings; 8) That the height of the proposed building is 52 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck; 9) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with the subject property; 10),That th8 development proposal meets the requirements for a termination of status of nonconformity ciS lJer Section 6-109 to permit 13 dwelling units where eight units would otherwise be allowed at 64 Bay Esplanade; 11) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria of Section 3-913.A; and 12) That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria of Section 2-803.C. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the existing water main within the Bay Esplanade right- of-way is upgraded to the satlsf3ction of the Fire Department in order to ensure adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes, and that said upgrades are depicted on a revised Grading, Drainage & Utilities Site Plan (sheet 4 of 5) prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 2) That fire flow calculations are provided by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ,ensure adequate water supply; 3) That any/all required Parks and Recreation fees are paid prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) That any/all required Transportation Impact Fees are paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 5) 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; 6) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. That conduit for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with allatfected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 8) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 10) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 11) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by September 20, 2006) of CDB approval; 12) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; 13) That all utility equipment Community Development 2005-09-20 16 . . . including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 14) That the proposed gated access is eliminated or thtit the pitins are revised to provide some means by which guests can g:::1n access to the off-street parking area to the satisfaction of Traffic Engineering and Planning Department staff; 15) That the site plan is revised to depict the location of facilities to accommodate recyclables; and 16) That the width of the dumpster staging area is reduced to a size of approximately 7.5 feet. See page 48 for motion of approval. 5 Case: FLD2005-06053...:... 1242 Cleveland Street Level Two Application Owners: Raim Tzekas. Applicant/Representative: A Very Important Pet, Jaycee Roth (330 Duncan Loop Building 27, #207, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-459-4400; fax: none;email: jaycee5552002@yahoo.com). Location: 0.48 acre located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cleveland Street and North Lincoln Avenue. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning District: Downtown (D) District (East Gateway Subdistrict). Request: Flexible Deve!opment approval to allow pet grooming and outdoor dog training in conjunction with a pet supply store and to permit a six-foot tall fence located in front of the building (approximately five feet back from the North Lincoln Avenue frontage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: Pet Grooming/Outdoor Training Facility. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: djw@gte.net). Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I. The 0.48 acre-site is located at the north-west corner of the intersection of Cleveland Street and Lincoln Avenue. It is a corner lot with frontage along Cleveland Street and Lincoln Avenue (south and east, respectively) and has been developed with a 3,200 square-foot, one- story building constructed in 1948 and a 28-space parking lot. Two driveways currently provide access to the site along the front (south) of the site along Cleveland Street and back-out parking exists along the front (east) of the site along Lincoln Street. The existing building was renovated and painted in 2001 and will remain unchanged with regards to the exterior. The parking lot will be completely redeveloped with this proposal. ' '. . The Flexible Development approval is to allow grooming, and outdoor dog training in conjunction with a pet supply store. The request includes a six-fact tall fence to be located in front of the building approximately five feet back from the North Lincoln Avenue frontage, per Sections 2-903.C. The proposed "A Very Important Pet" center primarily is designed to support the needs of citizens of Clearwater that own canines (dogs). The proposed business estimates that the center will offer the owners of the 58,000 dogs located in the City limits of Clearwater a much needed range of services tailored to their pets needs. The proposal includes a mixed-use development including a 300 square-foot area for retail sales of pet supplies, a 1,000 square-foot doggie daycare area, a 550 square-foot animal grooming area, a 400 square-foot area for the baking of animal biscuits to be sold in the store, Community Development 2005-09-20 17 . . . and an approximately 6,500 square-foot outdoor training area. The majority of the business is retail-like operation and primar!!y will take place within the building. The retail sales, pet daycare, and baking facilities were approved at the August 4th, 2005 Development Review Committee meeting, under FLS2005-06045. The proposed hours of operation for the entire facility are 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and, in addition, all pets will be required to be inside the building by 7:30 p.m. A six-foot white PVC fence will enclose the outdoor training area and landscaping is to be installed to assist in reducing any noise caused during the training sessions. The existing parking lot will be reduced in size and reconfigured to allow for the proposed 6,500 square-foot outdoor training area and will create a parking area and driveways that are functionally integrated into the design of the proposed development as much as possible without the complete removal of the building. The existing 28 parking spaces wi!1 be reduced to 15 spaces; this exceeds the retail sales/service use requirement of two to four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The existing eastern driveway located along Cleveland Street will be removed with this proposal and one, two-way driveway will be located from Cleveland Street to provide access to the site and building, as well as from Lincoln Avenue. This will limit the number of curb cuts to the interior of the site and still provide adequate access to the site. The site landscaping has been found to be acceptable with regards to the design layout. Specific plant materials and irrigation will be conditioned to the development order for further staff review and approval at the time of building/construction permit. Solid waste services will be provided via a rollout dumpster at the east side of the site along Lincoln Avenue. The City's Traffic Engineer has found that the submitted site plan improves the traffic flow compared to the originally approved plan. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting" materials on August 4,2005. The applicant has diligently worked with staff over the past month to provide an attractive, well- designed development that will enhance the local area and City as a whole. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character of the area. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to allow grooming, and outdoor dog training in conjunction with a pet supply store. The request inciudes a six-foot tall fence to be located in front of the building approximately five feet back from the North Lincoln Avenue frontage, per Sections 2-903.C. with the following recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and conditions of approval: Findinqsof Fact "j) TI-It: subject property totals 20,889 square':'feet (0.48 acres) and is approximately 169 feet wide; 2) The subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) future land use plan classification; 3) The development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the East Gateway character district; 4) The proposed development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas; and 5) The proposed development's hours of operation will be limited to 7:30 p.m. for outdoor animal uses. Conclusions of Law: 1) The development proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-903.C; 2) The development proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development proposal is in compliance Community Development 2005-09-20 18 . . . with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the East Gateway character district; 4) The development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 5) The" development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the 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 all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That a final landscape be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; and 5) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and attached signs be limited to canopies or attached directly to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building. See page 48 for motion of approval. Community Development 2005-09-20 19 . . . 6 Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-06057/TDR2005-07023 - 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner: Seawake Motel, Ltd. Applicant: Enchantment, 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: 1.459 acres located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning Districts: Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (110 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 82 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 40 dwelling units are permitted under current Code); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 90 attached dwellings with :-cductions to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to seven feet (to entry sidewalk) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from .10 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 15.7 feet ( to sidewalk) and from 20 feet to 14 feet (to cantilevered balconies), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 150 feet (to roof deck), a deviation to allow a building within visibility triangles and a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-07023) of three dwelling units from 125 Brightwater Drive, four dWelling units from 161 Brightwater Drive, and one dwelling unit from 321 Coronado Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Point 1 Beach House 16 (845 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-535-2424); Clearwater Point 3 Marina House 17 (868 Bayway Blvd #212, Clearwater, FI 33767); Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1 (895 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-530-4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-447-0290); Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Blvd, ClearWater, FI 33767; phone: 727-441-8212; e-mail: cpoint7@knology.net); Clearwater Point 8 Shipmaster, Sail (800 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-442-0664; e-mail: c1wpt8@tampabay.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater. FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 1.459 total acre site is located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf Boulevard, and includes 1.359 acres zoned Tourist District and 0.100 acre zoned Open Space/Recreation District. The site has 241 feet of frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard. The site currently is developed with the six-story, 11 O-room Best Western Sea Wake Inn overnight accommodation use. The existing building is located toward the rear of the site, oriented east/west, with parking on the north and west sides of the building. Property tothe east presently is developed with overnight accommodation use, but has been approved by the COB to be redeveloped with two 150-foot tall residential towers with 149 Community Development 2005-09-20 20 . . . attached dwelling units (condominiums) (Cases FLD2005-01 016/TDR2005-01 017/PL T2005- 00002, approved April'19, 2005). The parcel to the west is developed with an attached dwelling building of 12 stories (Continental Towers). The property at 645-655 South Gulfview Boulevard west of Continental Towers is on today's COB agenda to redevelop that property with 68 ;:)ttached dwellings in a building 99.5 feet in height. Properties to the north, between South Gulfview Boulevard and Bayway Boulevard, are retail sales uses oriented toward tourists and a time-share development (overnight accommodation use). An application has been filed, but not yet reviewed by the DRC to redevelop the majority of the site presently developed with the time- share use as a mixed-use of retail and restaurant uses and condominiums. Properties north of Bayway Boulevard have been redeveloped, or have been approved to be redeveloped, as attached dwellings. The proposal includes the complete demolition of all existing site improvements for the six-story, 11 O-room/unit Best Western Sea Wake Inn and the construction of a new 16-story residential building of 90 dwelling units. The new building is designed to have a distinctive Art Nuevo appearance within classical proportions and articulation. The residential building is situated on a podium two to three stories in height providing garage parking for the dwellings. The lower residential levels of the building are oriented generally on a north/south basis, but when connected beginning at the eighth level, forms an east/west orientation. The existing decks south of the seawall and south property line will be removed. The proposal includes a request to Terminate the Status of the Nonconformity for the nonconforming density for the existing 11 O-room/unit overnight accommodation use on the property. Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30 units/rooms per acre for dwellings, the overall subject site may be iedeveloped with a maximum of 40 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to terminate the nonconforming density in order to demolish the existing overnight accommodation use, converting this overnight accommodation density on a 40:30 conversion factor to 82 dwelling unit (plus an additional eight dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights (TORs) for a total of 90 dwelling units. Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the TouristDistrict; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing improvements and is providing parking that exceeds Code provisions in the three levels of the parking garage; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns. outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary. The Code provisions of Sections 6-109.B and C require Level Two approval of the Termination of Status of Nonconformity and reconstructio~ complying with all other Code requirements. The proposal is to demolish the existing overnight accOmmodation use and construct a residential building with 14 living floors over garage level parking (there are two levels of parking within the podium of the building, with a third level on the west side of the building). The site has been designed with the building meeting the required front (north - 15 feet), side (east and west - 10 feet) and rear (20 feet) setbacks. The proposal includes reductions to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to seven feet (to entry sidewalk) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side Community Development 2005-09-20 21 . . . (west) setback from 10 feet to threeJeet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to i 5.7 feet (to sidewalk) and from 20 feet to 14 feet (to cantilevered balconies). With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building will have refuse collection rooms on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. The proposal includes a side (west) setback reduction to three feet for the trash staging area, which is adjacent to covered parking at the Continental Towers development to the west. In concert with the formal front stairs to the second level podium with its sculpture garden, fountain and waterfall, the proposal includes a grand entry sidewalk from South Gulfview Boulevard at a minimum of seven feet at its closest edge near an elevator lobby. The majority of the front setback is being lushly landscaped, including a fountain between the angled portions of the entry sidewalk. A sidewalk along the western edge of the building, providing pedestrian access from the front to the rear of the site meets the requ!!'"ed s!de (west) setback of 10 feet. With regard to the rear (south) setback reductions, a stair cascades from the third level pool area down the rear of the building to allow residents access to the beach area. A five-foot wide sidewalk provides access from a garage stairwell at the southeast corner of the building to the sidewalk along the west side of the building. The setback reduction to 15.7 feet is to allow this rear sidewalk to go around this cascading stair. The building meets the required 20-foot rear setback at the southeast corner of the building from the zoning boundary line (there is a property extension approximately 60 feet wide in the southeast corner zoned Open Space/Recreation District). The building is located 34 fest from the rear property line at the southwest corner. Levels 3 - 12 have been designed with a cantilevered terrace for the rear units at a 14-foot setback on the east side. The reduction at this location will not be perceptible due to the balconies starting at the third level, the additional property zoned OS/R and their location to a small beach. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks to primarily non-building structures are justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and to the City as a whole for both buildings and landscaping. The front and side areas of this proposal will be lushly landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers.A fountain is planned between the entry sidewalk to the formal stairs to the second level podium and South Gulfview Boulevard. The landscape plan provides royal palms, Christmas palms, foxtail palms, date palms, Washington palms, sabal palms and oleander trees grouped between the building and property lines. Medjool palms are planned within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, which will need to be coordinated with the City's BeachWalk improvement plans. Shrubs and groundcover of petite pink oleander, . 3rbaricola, bougainvillea, xanadu, silver buttonwood, dwarf blue lily of nile and parsonii juniper will otherwise fill these setback areas. The rear area is planned as an extension of the beach with white sand. The proposal is to construct a new building of 16-stories at a height of 150 feet to the highest roof deck. This height complies with the Tourist District, the Transfer of Development Rights provisions and Beach by Design. The Continental Towers Condominiums to the west is a 12-floor building oriented east/west, at a height of 94.7 feet from BFE. The Sunspree project to the east at 715 South Gulfview Boulevard has been approved by the CDB with two residential buildings, each at a height of 150 feet. The tops of the elevator towers are proposed 16 feet above the roof deck (the maximum permitted by Code). Section 4:'1403.C authorizes building height increases up to 1.5 times the maximum height otherwise permitted (maximum of 100 feet Community Development 2005-09-20 22 . . . permitted in the Tourist District; 1.5 times produces a height of 150 feet, which is the proposal). Since the Sunspree project already has been approved with a building height of 150 feet, no portion of the proposed buildinQ above 100 feet can be closer than 100 feet to the Sunspree building. The design of this building is stepped on the east side at a maximum height of 100 feet to accomplish this separation requirement. There will be no more than two buildings exceeding 100 feet in height within 500 feet of each other. There is also a reasonable relationship between the number of units transferred and the increased building height. This unique building has been designed with view corridors through the incorporation of a center "arch" 68 feet high in the center of the project, allowing views through the lower levels of the building. The scale and mass of the building has been reduced through rounded edges of the building and the step backs from the parking level podiums and on various levels of the building. The proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, consistent in use with the existing attached dwellings to the west and with the proposed attached dwellings to the east and in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties. The proposed building is designed with Art Nuevo architecture. The two and three story podium provides access to building lobbies, a sculpture garden, a private dining club, spa and pool area. The pool area is located on a half level (2.5) at the rear of the building. A waterfall on the northern edge of the pool level provides visual interest to passersby via the formal stairs from ground level. Many edges of the proposed building are curved, reducing the real and perceived mass of the building. The residential "tower" portions of the building are set back a minimum of 35 feet from the front property line and have step backs at higher levels. There are four dwellings, ranging in size from 1,971 to 3,219 square-feet in area, on the third level on the eastern portion of the building. The area above the second level parking will provide terraces for the units on Level 3. Leveis 4 and 5 are designed with a totai oj nine dwellings, ranging in size from 1,100 to 3,219 square-feet in area. There are a total of eight dwellings on Levels 6 and 7, ranging in size from 1,971 to 3,219 square-feet in area. Levels 8 - 10 are designed with a total of nine dwellings, ranging in size from 1,971 to 3,219 square-feet, with units bridging between the lower levels of the building forming the arch below. There are seven dwellings on Level 11 , with units ranging from 2,322 to 3,219 square-feet in area. Levels 12 and 13 are designed with five dwellings ranging in size from 2,173 to 3,129 square-feet in area. Level 14 is designed with four dwellings ranging in size from 2,173 to 3,129 square-feet in area. Levels 14 and 15 embrace a two-story townhouse with a total of 3,920 square-feet. There are two dwellings on Level 15, one of 3,461 square-feet and the other of 4,792 square-feet. Level 16 only has a 3,675 square-foot dwelling on the east side of the building. This proposal provides parking on three levels with a total of 180 parking spaces (two spaces per unit). Ninety parking spaces are provided on the ground level under the building. There are 57 parking spaces on Level 2, wrapping around the east, west and south edges of the building. Thirty-three parking spaces are provided on Level 3 on the west side of the building only. A small portion of the parking garage building is located within the sight visibility triangle on the eastern side of the driveway, but is not anticipated to cause driver issues with vehicular or pedestrian visibility when exiting the site. The criteria for attached dwellings prohibit direct access to an arterial street. South Gulfview Boulevard is an arterial street. The site has no other means of street access and the proposal provides driveway access to it, much as the existing overnight accommodat:cn use presently has driveway access to this site. The application has been advertised with a Transfer of Development Rights of three dwelling units from 125 Brightwater Drive, four dwelling units from 161 Brightwater Drive, and Community Development 2005-09-20 23 . . . one dwelling unit from 321 Coronado Drive. The number of units being transferred to this site represents the maximum of 20% of the permitted number of dwelling units based on 30 units per acre (40 dwellings). The proposal is in compliance with the criteria of Section 4-1403 for the Transfer of Development Rights. There is a reasonable relationship between the additional height above 100 feet and the number of units above 100 feet. A new sidewalk 10 feei in width will be constructed within the right-of-way along South Gulfview Boulevard. This sidewalk should be constructed consistent with the standards developed for the BeachWalk improvements in terms of design and landscaping. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property. Future signage will need t6 meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria :ncluding, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 1.459 total acres (1.359 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.100 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located within the "Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a 11 O-room hotel (which is nonconforming to current density maximums of 54 rooms or 40 dwelling units); 3) The proposal includes the demolition of the existing hotel building and all existing site improvements; 4) The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity to allow the conversion of 110 overnight accommodation units/rooms to 82 dwelling units; 5) The applicant is requesting the Transfer of Development Rights of eight dwelling units to this site; for a total proposed number of dwellings of 90 units; 6) The proposed building meets the required setbacks. Setback reductions are primar!ly to non-building structures; 7) The proposed building height of 150 feet for the residential tower bears a reasonable relationship between the number of units being transferred through the Transfer of Development Rights and the proposed height; 8) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, and will enhance the character of the immediate vicinity; and 9) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexibie Deveiopment criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Transfer of Development Rights per Section 3- 1403; 5) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 6) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (110 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 82 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 40 dwelling units are permitted under current Code); (2) Flexible Development application to permit 90 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to seven feet (to entry sidewalk) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to trash Community Development 2005-09-20 24 . . . staging area), reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 15.7 feet ( to sidewalk) and from 20 feet to 14 feet (to cantilevered balconies), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 150 feet (to roof deck), a deviation to allow a building within visibility triangles and a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 07023) of three dwelling units from 125 Brightwater Drive, four dwelling units from 161 Srightwater Drive and one dwelling unit from 321 Coronado Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402, for the site at 691 South Gulfview Boulevard with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density per Section 6-109; 2) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 3) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 4) The proposal complies with the Transfer of Development Rights per Section 3-1403; 5) The proposal complies with Beach by Design; and .. 6) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Unity of Title be recorded in the public recc;>rds; 3) That application for a building permit shall be made within two years of Flexible Development approval (September 20, 2007) and all required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of thebullding permit; 4) That a special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 125 Brightwater Drive, 161 Brightwater Drive and 321 Coronado Drive and being iransferred to this site, be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 125 Brightwater Drive, 161 Brightwater Drive and 321 Coronado Drive due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (125 Brightwater Drive, 161 Brightwater Drive and 321 Coronado Drive) shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits; 5) That the spa and private dining club be accessory uses for the exclusive use of residents and their guests; 6) That all appropriate civil and landscape plans be amended prior to the issuance of any permits to indicate the formal, wide stairs at the front of the building and that architectural plans provide adequate documentation to provide a minimum eight-foot, two-inch clearance at these formal, wide stairs in the garage area, prior to the issuance of the building permit; 7) That a 1 O-foot wide sidewalk within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way be designed and constructed for the site frontage in accordance with BeachWalk design specifications. The developer and City may agree on an alternate construction schedule or the provision of payment in lieu of construction; 8) That future signage meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 9) That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 10) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 11) That the storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all FEMA rules and guidelines. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Community Development 2005-09-20 25 . . . first Certificate of Occupancy; 12) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building; 13) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 14) That a tree relocation plan for all trees rated #4 or greater be provided prior to the issuance of any permits; 15) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be assessed and paid; 16) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 17) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; and 18) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits. Carolyn Cormey requested party status. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to grant Carolyn Cormey party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ed Armstrong, representative, stated the applicant meets all criteria for approval. Richard Gillette, architect, said this project was designed to be a landmark building. He said the project meets all setbacks, etc., and takes advantage of view corridors. He reviewed the project's open space and attractive design. He said the project respects the streetscape and pedestrian views and provides focal points. Ethyl Hammer, representative, said this property is between a 100-foot project and a 150-foot project. She said proposed landscaping is a vast improvement over current conditions. She said the project reduces the impervious surface ratio onsite. She reviewed proposed parking, which will improve on-site traffic congestion. She said the project is compatible with nearby approved projects and will benefit Clearwater beach. Party Status Holder Carolyn Cormey said she does not oppose development but expressed concern that these types of projects are listed on the Conse-rit Agenda, that luxury developments; unaffordable for families, are replacing moderately priced beach hotels, and that the COB protects developers and property owners who want to sell. Four persons spoke in fc1vor of the application. It was remarked this project features a stunning, award-winning design. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F6, Case FLD2005- 06057fTDR2005-07023 for 691 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2005-09-20 26 . . . 7 . . Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-07072 - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard. Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Grande Development, LLC Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; . email: nestech@mindspring.com). Location: 1.437 acres located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (91 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 68 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 43 dwelling units permitted under current Code) and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 68 attached dwellings with a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 6.3 feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 6.8 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 17.6 feet (to open stairs) and from 20 feet to 8.8 feet (to pool deck), an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 99.5 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 11.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16.67 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a deviation to allow the building within the sight visibility triangles and a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. . . Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Point 1 Beach House 16 (845 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-535-2424); Clearwater Point 3 Marina House 17 (868 Bayway Blvd #212, Clearwater, FI 33767); Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1(895 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-530-4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-447-0290); Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Bivd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-441-8212; e-mail: cpoint7@knology.net); Clearwater Point 8 Shipmaster, Sail (800 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-442-0664; e-mail: c1wpt8@tampabay.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 1.437 acres is located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. The site has 248 feet of frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard. The site currently is developed with the five-story, 91- room Quality Inn overnight accommodation use. The existing building is located on the east side of the site and is oriented north/south. Parking presently is located over the western two- thirds of the property. Properties to the west are developed with overnight accommodation uses. The parcel to the east is developed with an attached dwelling building of 12 stories. Properties to the north between South Gulfview Boulevard and Bayway Boulevard are commercial uses oriented toward tourists. Properties north of Bayway Boulevard are, or have been approved for attached dwellings. Community Development 2005-09-20 27 . On March 22, 2005, the COB approved Case FLD2004-12088 with 11 conditions for this site, which included the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density for the existing 91- room/unit hotel on the property for the construction of a new overnight accommodation use of 91 rooms/units (Clearwater Grande Hotel). The proposal includes the complete demolition of all existing site improvements for the five-story, 91-room/unit Quality Inn and the construction of a new 11-story residential building of 68 dwelling units. The new building proposes an east/west orientation with limited parking outside of the building. All proposed parking is structured within the first two floors of the building. The existing deck and dock south of the seawall are proposed to be removed. . The proposal includes a request to Terminate the Status of the Nonconformity for the nonconforming density for the existing 91-room/unit overnight ~ccommodation use on the property. Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30 units/rooms per acre for dwellings, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 43 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to terminate the nonconforming density in order to demolish the existing overnight accommodation use and build a new residential building with 68 dwelling units, based on a 40:30 cOiiVeislon factor. Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity piOvisions, there are four required improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing improvements and is providing parking that exceeds Code provisions in the two levels of the parking garage; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns, outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Progi"arn is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary. The Code provisions of Sections 6-109.B and C require Level Two approval of the Termination of Status of Nonconformity and reconstruction complying with all other Code requirements. The proposal is to demolish the existing overnight accommodation use and construct a residential building with 10 living floors over ground level parking (there is some parking provided on the first level). The site has been designed with the building meeting the required front (north -15 feet) and side (e'ast and west ':"'10 feet) setbacks. The proposal includes a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 6.3 feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 6.8 feet (to sidewalk) and reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 17.6 feet (to open stairs) and from 20 feet to 8.8 feet (to pool deck). With regard to the side setback reduction along the east and west sides for sidewalks, by Building Code requirements, the egress stairs near the east and west sides of the building must be provided with a sidewalk out to the sidewalk within the South Gulfview 30ulevard right-of-way. These sidewalks do not extend the entire distance along the east and west sides of the building, and therefore provide adequate planting area for landscaping. . With regard to rear setback reductions proposed along the south property line, the reduction for the building is to two corners of the building on the west side of the site. The majority of the building greatly exceeds the required 20-foot rear setback requirement, due to the orientation of the building ('In the site and the triangulation of the south property line. The proposed rear setback to the building meets the Building Code setback requirement of at least 18 feet from the seawall. While the rear setback reduction for the open stairs to 17.6 feet has Community Development 2005-09-20 28 . . . been advertised, technically these stairs meet Code requirements. Section 3-908.C allows open stairs to project no more than three feet (or in this case to a minimum of 17 feet) into a required setback. The final rear setback reduction requested deals with the proposed pool, with the pool deck at a rear setback of 8.8 feet. The actual pool is proposed at a rear setback of 18 feet, which complies with the 8uilding Code requirement of 18 feet (due to the location of the dead men for the seawall). The existing overnight accommodation pool and pool deck is located in the same location as this proposed pool and pool deck. Existing wood decks on this property, at a zero setback, are proposed to be removed. Current development practices generally place the pool area at the rear of the property, which is the most private area, with the pool deck at, or close to, a zero setback. This proposed pool area is consistent in location and setback with the adjacent pool to the east at Continental Towers. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks are justified by the benefits of an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and to the City as a whole for both buildings and landscaping. The proposal includes the provision of a minimum of 15 feet of landscaped area along South Gulfview Boulevard, meeting the setback requirements. A water feature is proposed between the ramp and the front property line near the highest point of the ramp to provide visual interest, as well as berming toward the south driveway. The landscape plan does not properly indicate this water feature next to the ramp, nor the berm. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan will need to be amended to show this water feature and berm, as well as correcting the number of plants indicated in various areas on the landscape plan. The site will be heavily landscaped within the front and side setback areas. Landscaping between the ramp and front property line will need to be coordinated with proposed utilities, with the landscape plan being amended prior to the issuance of any permits. The building will have four refuse collection rooms on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on col!oct:on d~ys. The trash staging area is located adjacent to the northern driveway and the building, next to the entrance to the ground level parking garage. The proposal is to construct a new building of 11-stories at a height of 99.5 feet to the roof deck. This height complies with the Tourist District and Beach by Design. The Continental Towers Condominiums to the east is a 12-floor building also oriented east/west, at approximately the same height as this proposal. The Econo Lodge overnight accommodation use to the west is five floors. The Sunspree project at 715 South Gulfview Boulevard to the east has been approved by the CD3 with two residential buildings, each at a height of 150 feet. The proposal includes an additional 11.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16.67 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck). The tops of the elevator towers are proposed 16 feet above the roof deck (the maximum permitted by Code). The increased parapets are in the center of the building on the north and south sides of the building, do not extend to the east and west ends of the building and are to provide visual interest to the building. The proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, consistent in use with the attached dwellings to the east and in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties. . . The proposed building is designed with Mediterranean architecture. The location of the building "tower" on the ~ite is similar to that previously approved under FLD2004-12088 in March 2005. This proposal includes two wings projecting from the north side of the building toward South Gulfview Boulevard on the east and west ends. These wings are six stories in height (over ground level parking). The building is also stepped back on the ninth residential floer (over ground level parking) from the east and west building edges. The main lobby, Community Development 2005-09-20 29 . . . meeting room, fitness center, resident climate controlled storage units, condominium party and game lounge are planned on the first floor, as well as four dwellings of generally 2,100 or 2,400 square-feet in area. Floors 2 - 6 will have eight dwellings per floor, with units 2,300, 2,400 or 2,600 square-feet in area. Floors 7 - 8 will have six dwellings per floor, with units 2,300, 2,400 or 4,300 square-feet in area (the end units are larger). Floors 9 - 10 will have six dwellings per . floor, with units 2,300, 2,400 or 2,555 square-feet in area. All dwellings will have three bedrooms (some may be shown as studies or media rooms), with the exception of the larger units on Floors 7 and 8 having four bedrooms. Dwellings will be accessed from private elevators. The north side of the building (viewable from South Gulfview Boulevard) is designed with egress balconies, providing access to four stairwells. All dwellings will have balconies on the south side of the building facing the water. The site today is nonconforming to the required number of parking spaces, as well as a number of these parking spaces are narrower less than Code width. This proposal provides parking on the ground and first floors. The proposal will provide a total of 108 parking spaces (1.588 spaces per unit). Eighty-four parking spaces are provided on the ground level under the building. A ramp from the northern driveway provides access to 24 parking spaces on the first floor. A driveway on the south side of the site is shown as an egress-only driveway, but is wide enough for two-way traffic flow. A triangular portion of the parking garage building north of the southern driveway is located within the sight visibility triangle, but is not anticipated to cause driver issues with vehicular or pedestrian visibility when exiting the site. The criteria for attached dwellings prohibit direct access to an arterial street. South Gulfview Boulevard is an arterial street. The site has no other means of street access and the proposal provides driveway access to it, much as the existing overnight accommodation use presently has a driveway to access this site. A new sidewalk, 10 feet in width, will be constructed within the right-of-way along South Gulfview Boulevard. This sidewalk should be constructed consistent with the standards developed for the BeachWalk improvements in terms of design and I~ndscaping. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property. Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 1.437 acres is located within the "Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a 91-room hotel (which is nonconforming to current density maximums of 57 rooms or 43 dweliing units); 3) The proposal includes the demolition of the existing hotel building and all existing site improvements; 4) The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity to allow the conversion of the 91 overnight accommodation units/rooms to 68 dwelling units; 5) The reduction to the rear setback to the building is for two corners of the building on the west side of the site. The majority of the building greatly exceeds the required 20-foot rear setback requirement, due to the orientation of the building on the site and the triangulation of the south property line; 6) Setback reductions otherwise are to non-building structures (sidewalks and pool deck); 7) The proposed building height of 99.5 feet is consistent with the height of the Continental Towers building to the east; 8) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, and will Community Development 2005-09-20 30 . enhance the character of the immediate vicinity; and 9) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 5) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. . The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (91 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 68 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 43 dwelling units permitted under current Code); and (2) Flexible Development application to permit 68 attached dwellings with a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 6.3 feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 6.8 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the rear (south) setback froIT: 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 17.6 feet (to open stairs) and from 20 feet to 8.8 feet (to pool deck), an increase to the building heightfrom 35 feet to 99.5 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 11.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16.67 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a deviation to allow the building within the sight visibility triangles and a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 645-655 South Gulfview Boulevard with the foiiowing bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 4 )The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a 1 O-foot wide sidewalk within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way be designed and constructed for the site frontage in accordance with BeachWalk design specifications. The developer and the City may agree on an alternate construction schedule or the provision of payment in lieu of construction; 3) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 4) That any future signage meet the requirements of Code and any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materia is and color of the building; 5} That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 6) That the storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in Community Development 2005-09-20 31 . . . compliance with all FEMA rules and guidelines. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 7) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; 8) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan be amended to indicate the water feature adjacent to the ramp to the first level and berming toward the south driveway, coordinate landscaping with utilities between the ramp and front property line and to correct the number of plants in various areas of the landscape plan; 9) That all applicablf! requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 10) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 11) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be assessed and paid; and '12) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Carolyn Cormey requested party status. Member Fritsch moved to grant Carolyn Cormey party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ed Armstrong, representative, said the applicant requests this change after he determined there is no market for the previously planned overnight accommodation. He said the applicant is not transferring density. He said the proposed project uses almost the same footprint as the existing building. Jeff Mendenhall, architect, said this project steps back farther from the beach than the existing building and there will be less mass at the base of the building. Ethyl Hammer, representative, said the project is consistent with other projects in the area with respect to scale, height, and design. She said Beach by Design encourages projects that stimulate development. She said this project greatly exceeds what currently exists with respect to beautification, vehicul.ar sight lines, and amenities. She said the project is consistent with the development pattern in the area and will be a positive benefit to the area. Party Status Holder Carolyn Cormey expressed concern regarding the ease of which condominium conversions are approved and felt the area needs to remain family-friendly. Mr. Armstrong s~id thf! (:nndohotel project is not viable and the new project meets Code. Member Johnson moved to approve Item F7, Case FLD2005-07072 for 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on the Staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases for approval, and conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2005~09-20 32 . . . 8 Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard. Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Boldog, Trustee for M & J Trust. 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: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (127 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 95 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 54 dwelling units are permitted under current Code) and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 100 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (west along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to 5.45 feet (to building), from 15 feet to zero feet (to decorative architectural pavement pedestrian plaza) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging area), a reduction to the front (north along Fifth Street) setback from 15 feet to 3.63 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east along Coronado Drive) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (to building) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 8.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); 440 West, Inc. Condominium (Fred White, 440 South Gulfview Boulevard, #203, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-2885; fax: 727-442-6628; email: et440@juno.com); Continental Towers (675 South Gulfview Boulevard, #1002, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-449-9189; email: fandjnassif@webtv.net); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest. Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 1.994 acres is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at the intersection with Fifth Street. The site is triple fronted with 359 feet of frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard (west), 458 feet of frontage on Coronado Drive (east), and 211 feet of frontage on 5th Street (north). The site currently is developed with a five-story, 54-room Travelodge overnight accommodation use on the north side (401 South Gulfview Boulevard), a 1,500 square-foot retail store at 411 South Gulfview Boulevard, and a 73-room Red Roof Inn on the south (421 South Gulfview Boulevard). The Travelodge building is located on the north and west sides of the site, with parking accessed off Coronado Drive. The Red Roof Inn is situated between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive, with parking to the south of the building within that extension of property along Coronado Drive. The Community Development 2005-09-20 33 . . . retail sales building is oriented toward South Gulfview Boulevard, located between the two overnight accommodation uses. Properties to the north of 5th Street are developed with an overnight accommodation use and restaurants. Properties to the east are developed with overnight accommodation uses, as well are properties to the south. The beach is to the west, with the existing/former Adams Mark overnight accommodation use to the southwest. Properties to the west of the southern "finger" of the subject property are developed with a restaurant and retaii sales uses. The proposal includes the complete demolition of all existing site improvements for all three buildings and the construction of a new 11-story residential building of 100 dwelling units. The residential portion of the new building is located on the northern rectangular portion of the property, with a six-story parking garage located on the southern "finger" portion of the property extending along Coronado Drive. There also is proposed parking under the residential portion of the building. The proposal includes a request to Terminate the Status of the Nonconformity for the nonconforming density for the existing 127 -room/unit overnight accommodation uses on the property. Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 40 units/rooms per acre for overnight accommodations or 30 dwelling units per acre for dwelling units, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 79 rooms/units for overnight accommodations or 59 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to terminate the nonconforming density in order to demolish the existing overnight accommodation uses and rather now build 95 attached dwelling units, based on a 40:30 conversion factor (the retail sales parcel that is part of this proposal produces five dwelling units at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre). Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing improvements and is providing parking that exceeds Code provisions either under the residential portion of the building or in the six levels of the parking garage on the south side adjacent to Coronado Drive; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns. outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) !Jse of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary. The Code provisions of Sections 6-"i09.B and C require Level Two approval of the Termination of Siatus of Nonconformity and reconstruction complying with all other Code requirements. The proposal includes reductions to the front (west along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to 5.45 feet (to building), from 15 feet to zero feet (to decorative architectural pavement pedestrian plaza) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging area), a reduction to the front (north along Fifth Street) setback from 15 feet to 3.63 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east along Coronado Drive) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (to building). The building has been designed to meet the required 15-foot front setback along Coronado Drive. Traffic Engineering has required the installation of a deceleration lane along Coronado Drive beginning north of the northern driveway and running southward to the southern driveway. This City requirement produces a zero front setback to pavement, which required its inclusion in the advertisement of this request as a reduction to the front (east) setback. This requirement for Community Development 2005-09-20 34 . . . the deceleration lane also pushed the seven-foot wide public sidewalk onto the property, which will require the recording of an easement prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Trash staging areas also were pushed farther back onto the property due to the deceleration lane. The building and required egress sidewalks from stairs meet the required 10- foot side (south) setback, both for that portion adjacent to South Gulfview Boulevard and that portion adjacent to Coronado Drive. The proposed building design along South Gulfview Boulevard undulates, with the building at its closest point at a front (west) setback of 5.45 feet. Other portions of the building meet the required 15-foot front setback. Those portions closest to the front property line are the shortest portions of the building, including the pool area at the intersection of South Gulfview Boulevard and 5th Street and town homes south of the pool. Plans for the City's BeachWalk project will reconfigure South Gulfview Boulevard adjacent to this project shifting the roadway farther west of the subject project's property line. A pedestrian promenade of distinctive design is proposed between the new roadway location and this property's west property line, with wide landscaped areas. Therefore, while a portion of the building is proposed at a reduced setback, pedestrians on the promenade will be in excess of 40 feet away from the building. This request includes a reduction to the front (west along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to decorative architectural pavement pedestrian plaza and to dumpster staging area). This project is matching and extending a design feature of BeachWalk onto this property near the southern property line on South Gulfview Boulevard, providing a gated resident entry at this location. This decorative architectural pavement should connect with a covered arcade access to this project's lobby and dub. With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building will have refuse collection rooms on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks are justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and to the City as a whole for both buildings and landscaping. Except for the area designed for the deceleration lane and public sidewalk on the subject property along Coronado Drive, the proposal includes the provision of a minimum of 15 feet of landscaped area. Landscape areas between the proposed building and property lines will be planted with southern wax privet cabbage palm and Chinese fan palm trees and red firecracker, sea grape, salt meadow ccrdgrass, schillinas holly, Italian cypress and Indian hawthorn shrubs. On the west side of the building there is a deep indentation of the building that is indicated on the architectural plans as a lushly landscaped courtyard. The landscape plan does not indicate the landscape materials for this courtyard. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan will need to show the plan and materials for this courtyard. The tree removal data on the demolition plan is inconsistent with the tree removal data on the Landscape Plan. Plans also are not clear regarding which trees are to be preserved. These inconsistencies need to be addressed prior to the issuance of any permits. The building will have refuse collection rooms on the ground floor within the residential portion of the building. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging areas on collection days. The trash staging areas are iocated near the southern edge of the site on South Gulfview Boulevard and in two locations adjacent to the northern driveway on Coronado Drive. The proposal is to construct a building of 11-stories at a height of 100 feet to the highest roof deck with an additional 8.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck). The building has been designed with Community Development 2005-09-20 35 . . . varying heights along Coronado Drive. The parking garage on the southern portion of the site is six-stories in height, but parapets fluctuate giving an appearance of a non-flat building. The height of the residential portion of the building is dependent upon the number of floors at any particular point along the fac;:ade. A pool is proposed on Level 2 at the northwest corner of the building at the intersection of South Gulfview Boulevard and 5th Street. Three townhomes, two- stories in height above the under-building parking level, are proposed south of the pool facing South Gulfview Boulevard, reducing the scale of the project when viewed from the west. The taller portions of the building are set back, and/or stepped back, behind the townhome units. The proposed building height complies with the Tourist District and Beach by Design. To the southwest of the subject site on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard the COB has approved the demolition or the existing Adams Mark hotel for the construction of a 78 room/unit overnight accommodation tower at 100 feet in height and a 112-unit residential tower of 150 feet in height. The 440 West residential development south of the Adams Mark property consists of two residential towers each 157 feet in height. Southeast of the subject site at 445 Harnden Drive the COB approved the conversion of an existing six-story overnight accommodation use to attached dwellings, including the demolition of the existing southern building for the construction of a new residential building 100 feet in height. The proposal includes an additional 8.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck). The increased parapet height and architectural embellishments are related to their location on a particular portion of the building and are to provide visual interest to the building. The tops of the elevator towers are proposed 16 feet above the roof deck (the maximum permitted by Code). The proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses and in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties. The proposed building is designed with Mediterranean architecture. The building design includes variation in height and scale of the building. significant breaks and steps in the fac;:ade and utilizes overhangs, arcades, balconies, architectural detailing and varying parapets heights to reduce the scale and mass of the building. All three sides of the fa9Clde of the parking garage portion of the building are designed to resemble the residential portion of the building. The east elevation does not articulate the northern motor court and northern ground level entrance to the under building parking area. This oversight will need to be shown on architectural plans prior to the issuance of the building permit. The resident clubhouse and 11 dwellings are planned on the first living floor, with unit sizes ranging from 1,306 to 2,695 square-feet in area. Floors 3 - 6 will have 10 dwellings per floor, with units ranging from 1,367 to 2,695 square-feet in area. Floors 7 - 10 will have 11 dwellings per floor, with units ranging from 1,367 to 3,375 square-feet in area. Floor 11 will have five dwellings, with units ranging from 2,515 to 4,180 square-feet in area. The town home units facing South Gulfview Boulevard are all planned as one-bedroom units. Units on Floors 2 - 5 will have one or two bedrooms, whereas units on Floors 6 - 10 will have one, two or three bedrooms. Units on the top floor will have three or four bedrooms. Dwellings will be accessed from private elevators. Parking for the site today is primarily along Coronado Drive. This proposal provides parking under the residential portion of the building on the north side or in the six-story parking garage on the south side of the site. The proposal will provide a total of 206 parking spaces (2.06 spaces per unit). Vehicular access will be solely from Coronado Drive. The northern driveway provides access to 38 parking spaces under the residential building. The southern driveway provides access to the parking garage with 28 parking spaces per floor, with the floors of the garage accessed by a concentric opposed plane.helical ramp.. It is noted that the criteria for attached dwellings prohibi!direct access to an arterial street. . South Gulfview Boulevard is Community Development 2005-09-20 36 . . . designated by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street. Due to the improvements proposad imder the City's BeachWalk project and the changed function of Sc.uth Gulfview Boulevard, the Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended in the future to switch the arterial designation to Coronado Drive, which is where all of the major redevelopment projects, including this proposal, are taking access. An existing five-foot wide sidewalk easement on the property needs to be vacated to provide for the development of the property as proposed. The vacation of this easement needs to occur prior to the issuance of any permits. A number of other easements in the name of Florida Power Corp. (Progress energy) are located on the property. Written permission to build in these easements needs to be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property. Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria . . . including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. Findinqs of FacJ: 1) The subject 1.994 acres is located within the "Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of 1.827 acres of the site is for a total of 127- room hotels (which is nonconforming to current density maximums of 73 rooms or 54 dwelling units); 3) The current use of 0.167 acres of the site is for retail sales; 4) The proposal includes the demolition of the existing hotel buildings, the retail sales building and all existing site improvements; 5) The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity to allow the conversion of the 127 overnight accommodation units/rooms to 95 dwelling units; 6) The proposal is to construct 100 dwelling units (five dwellings are derived from the retail sales portion of the site); 7) The proposed residential and parking garage portions of the building meet the required 15-foot front setback along Coronado Drive and 5th Street; 8) The proposed residential and parking garage portions of the building meet the required 10-foot side setback along the south sides of the property; 9) The reduction to the front setback to the building from 5th Street is only for the one-story pool portion of the building; 10) The impact of the reduction to the front setback to the building along South Gulfview Boulevard is mitigated by the shifting of the roadway for South Gulfview Boulevard farther westward and the construction of a pedestrian promenade with wide landscaped areas under the City's BeachWalk project, and by the location of townhomes of two-storias (over ground level parking) adjacent to South Gulfview Boulevard; 11) Setback reductions otherwise are to non-building structures (pavement, sidewalks and trash staging areas). The reduction to pavement along Coronado Drive is due to the requirement to install a deceleration lane; 12) The proposed building height of 1 00 feet is consistent with the height of existing or approved projects within close proximity to this site (Adams Mark - 100-foot and 150-foot towers; 440 West -157 feet; 445 Hamden -100 feet); 13) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, and will enhance the character of the immediate vicinity; and 14) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the Community Development 2005-09-20 37 . . . General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 5) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department rec.ommends approval for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (127 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 95 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 54 dwelling units are permitted under current Code); and (2) Flexible Development application to permit 100 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (west along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to 5.45 feet (to building), from 15 feet to zero feet (to decorative architectural pavement pedestrian plaza) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging area), a reduction to the front (north along Fifth Street) setback from 15 feet to 3.63 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east along Coronado Drive) setback from 15 feet to .leru reel (Lo pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (to building) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 8.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redeveiopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a U.nity of Title be recorded in the public records; 3) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building), as well as the existing overhead electric for streetlights within Coronado Drive, be placed underground. The Ut:!ity Plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That any future signage meet the requirements of Code and any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5) That the LandsGape Plan be amended prior to the issuance of any permits to indicate landscape materials and design for the courtyard area off South Gulfview Boulevard; 6) That the storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all FEMA rules and guidelines. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 7) That approval of this request is subject to the vacation by the City of an existing five-foot wide sidewalk easement on the property. Evidence of such vacation of this easement, as well as written permission to build in the Florida Power Corp. (Progress Energy) easements, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any permits; 8) That plans indicate the connection of the decorative architectural pavement to the arcade off South Gulfview Boulevard, prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That inconsistencies between the tree removal data on the demolition plan and the tree removal data on the Landscape Plan be addressed, as well as clearly indicating trees to be preserved, prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the east elevation drawing of the architectural plans be Community Development 2005-09-20 38 . . . amended to show the northern motor court and northern ground level entrance to the under building parking area; t 1) That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy an easement be recorded for the public sidewalk located on the subject property along Coronado Drive; 12) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 13) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 14) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be assessed and paid; and 15) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F8, Case FLD2005-07068 for 401, 411, and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Milam, Johnson, Tallman, Fritsch, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Aye"; Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried. 9 Case: FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive Level Two Application Owner: Sunrise on the Beach, Inc. Applicant: Mark International, LLC Representative: Keith Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email: keith@keithzayac.com). Location: 0.454 acre located on the north side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and Hamden Diive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (22 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 16 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 13 dwelling units permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 16 attached dwellings with reductions to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet along Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 53.5 feet (to midpoint of roof) and to allow the building within the sight visibility triangles, under the provisions of Section 2-803.B. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. The 0.454-acre property is located on the north side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive. The site is a triple-fronted lot with 90 feet of frontage along Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive and 220 feet of frontage along Third Street. The site currently is developed with a motel of 22 rooms/units. Parking for the current development is located partially within and backs into the right-of-way. The existing building is two-stories in height with a pool at the corner of Hamden Drive and Third Street. All existing improvements are proposed to be demolished. Community Development 2005-09-20 39 . The site is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design, which is a distinctive area of mixed uses including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels and commercial uses. Beach By Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater beach. A restaurant and overnight accommodation use exists to the south across Third Street. Other existing overnight accommodation uses are to the north of this site. Two resort hotels to the west and northwest of this site were approved with an attached dwel!ing component. Directly west, the Hyatt project is' under construction. The Patel project is to the northwest of this site (and north of the Hyatt project). Detached dwellings exist to the east, along Devon Drive. . The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the nonconforming density of 22 overnight accommodation rooms/units. Based on current Land Use Category density iimitations oj 30 dwelling units per acre for residential uses, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 13 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to terminate the nonconforming density in order to redevelop the site with 16 new attached dwellings. Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing improvements and is providing parking that meets Code provisions; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns. outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing improvements. 'Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary. . The proposal is to demolish the existing motel and construct a residential building with four living floors over ground level parking. The site has been designed with the building meeting the required front (south, east and west - 15 feet) and side (north - 10 feet) setbacks. Cantilevered balconies extend two feet from the fa<;:ade of the building, which is the maximum amount allowable within iequired setbacks. The request includes reductions to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet along Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive. This site is a triple-fronted lot, where the lot width is applied to each street frontage. With 220 feet of frontage along Third Street, the building has been Ol'"!ented toward Third Street. Even being short by 10 feet on the lot width north to south, the proposal has been designed to comply with required setbacks to the building and pavement. The requested reductions to the minimum lot width requirement is minimal, in light of the site design where the applicant has been able to provide a majority of site improvements meeting Code requirements. The reduction in lot width along Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive will not result in a building, which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. . The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk). With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash Community Development 2005-09-20 40 . . . staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. With regard to the side setback reduction along the north side for. sidewalks, by Building Code requirements, the egress stairs at the northwest corner of the building and east of midpoint of the building must be provided with a sidewalk out to the sidewalk within the Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive rights-of-way. These siclewalks do not extend the entire distance along the north side of the building, and therefore provides adequate planting area for landscaping. Parking spaces for the current site improvements straddle the front property lines along Third Street, Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive (partially on-site and partially within the right- of-way). The proposal will eliminate all parking within the right-of-way and will provide 24 parking spaces on-site (Code minimum requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit or 24 spaces for 16 dwellings). Parking will be prov!ded at ground level under the building. Parking is proposed to be accessed by one-way driveways on Third Street. The driveway location on Third Street is preferable to Coronado Drive, as Coronado Drive is being rebuilt under BeachWalk to be the arterial street for this portion of South Beach. This driveway location also is preferred to Hamden Drive, due to existing detached dwellings on Devon Drive. As such, the site design minimizes traffic congestion. The applicant is proposing to fully enclose the parking level to screen views of the vehicles from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. A portion of the building is located within the sight visibility triangles at the entrance and exit driveways. Due to the building meeting the required 15-foot front setback, the issues of visibility at these driveways has been determined to have minimal impacts on vehicular and pedestrian safety. Sidewalks will be constructed in the rights-of-way where none exists today, increasing pedestrian safety. The proposal inCludes constructing 16 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building of "coastal" architecture with four living floors over ground-level parking. The proposal includes four dwellings per floor, two on each side of a central elevator located along the northern portion of the building. This building design incorporates an "indentation" of the south building fac;ade, centered around the one-way driveways, a ground-level pool and the elevator. The parking level will be painted a dark sand color, with the living levels painted a light sand, and the metal roof will be patina green in color. The roof is pitched, but will have level areas on either side of the elevator for rooftop air conditioning units (which will be screened by parapets). The proposal includes an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 53.5 feet (to midpoint of roof) from the BFE. The Hyatt project directly west of this site will have a building height of 150 feet. This proposed height is viewed as transitioning height within this area from projects facing the beach between Coronado Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard at 150 feet to detached dwellings along Devon Drive east of Hamden Drive. As such, this proposal will be compatible and consistent with, and in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of, adjacent properties and properties in the vicinity. A pool is proposed between the one-way driveways and wil! be screened/enclosed by a four-foot high fence. Site drainage is proposed within retention areas, adjacent to the east and west ends of the building along Hamden Drive and Coronado Drive. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property. Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited Community Development 2005-09-20 41 . to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and attached dwelling criteria (Section 2-803.B) have been met. Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.454 acre is zoned Tourist District and is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for 22 overnight accommodation rooms/units, which is nonconforming to current density maximum (18 rooms/units for overnight accommodation uses or 13 dwelling units); 3) The applicant is deriving the proposed 16 attached dwelling units through the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the existing 22 attached dwelling units, converted on a 40:30 ratio; 4) The applicant proposes to redevelop the entire site in a residential building 53.5 feet tall (to midpoint of the pitched roof); 5) The proposal complies with the required front and side setback requirements to building, pavement and pool deck: 6) Setback reductions are for the trash staging area (front) and for required egress sidewalks from the building stairs (side - north); 7) The proposal eliminates all existing parking within the rights-of-way and will construct sidewalks in the rights-of-way where. none exists today, increasing pedestrian safety; 8) The proposal will construct parking under the building at the minimum amount required by Code for the proposed number of dwellings; 9) The proposed height is compatible with surrounding developments, transitioning height from the resort hotels to the west between Coronado Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard and detached dwellings to the east along Devon Drive; and 10) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. . Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2- 803.B; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 5) Based on the above findings, Staff , recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4,2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (22 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 16 attached dwellings units, where a maximum of 13 dwelling units permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109; and (2) Flexible Development application to permit 16 attached dwellings with reductions to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet along Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk), an increase to building height frorn 35 feet to 53.5 feet (to midpoint of roof) and to allow the building within the sight visibility triangles, under the provisions of Section 2-803.B, for the site at 229 Coronado Drive with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a Unity of Title Community Development 2005-09-20 42 . . . be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That any future storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all FEMA rules' and guidelines. Should such storage units be proposed and approved by Staff as a Minor Revision to this approval, evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building; 5) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 6) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; and 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits. See page 48 for motion of approval. 10 Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application Case: LUZ2005-05009 - 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/Applicant: Aubrey and Caroline Wilkes. Representative: Denise Giarratano, Charles Rutenberg Realty. Location: 0.4121 acre on the west side of South Highland Avenue, beginning at 700 feet north of the intersect!on of Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. Atlas Page: 315A Request: a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL).Category to the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Category (1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue) and b) Rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Office (0) District (1532 South Highland Avenue only). Proposed Use: Offices. Type of Amendment: Small Scale. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. This Future Land U:;e Pian (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves property comprising approximately 0.4121 acre in area located on ihe west side of Highland Avenue, 700 feet north of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. This property has a FLUP classification of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential Office General (R/OG) classification and to rezone part of the property (0.329 acre) 1532 South Highland Avenue to the Office (0) District in order to construct offices. A small portion of the site (0.0831 acre), part of 1536 South Highland Avenue, has an existing zoning designation of Office, but has a FLUP classification of RL. Community Development 2005-09-20 43 . 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 Commi..l~ity Affairs is not required. An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Low (RL) category to the Residential/Office General (R10G) category and a rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Office (0) District for the subject site is requested. The site proposed to be developed is .3297 acre (14,361 square-feet) and exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for office use within the Office Zoning District. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of single-family residential detached dwellings, offices, a nursery, vacant land, and a large grocery store as part of a retail strip center. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed Residential/Office General (R10G) Future Land Use Plan classification and Office (0) zoning district is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. Further, the proposed Residential/Office General (R10G) Future Land Use Plan classification for a portion of 1536 South Highland Avenue, known as "Lot 7," provides a correct underlying future land use for property that has an existing Office (0) zoning district classification. . Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval: 1) of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Classification to the Residential/Office General Classification (1532 South Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 South Highland Avenue) and 2) of the rezoning property with the address of 1532 South Highland Avenue from the Residential Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District to the Office (0) District. - - - - Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reported the person who originally objected to the application no longer opposes the project. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to recommend approval of Item F10, Case LUZ2005-05009 for 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue, based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . Community Development 2005-09-20 44 . . . 11 Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Level Three Application Owner: Rottlund Homes. Representative: Robert Pergolizzi, 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727~524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090. Location: 4.86-acre property consisting of four parcels, located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, between 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. Atlas Page: 244A. Request: a) Annexation of 4.86-acres of property and abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. rights-of- way to the City of Clearwater; . b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Categories (County) to the Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Categories (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the RR, Rural Residential District (County) to the Low Density Residential (LOR) and Preservation (P) Districts (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: New Sing!e-Family Dwellings. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net). Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director. The COB reviewed and recommended approval of this application on July 19, 2005. However, after the first City Council public hearing on August 15, 2005, it was noted that the Future Land Use Plan designation was listed incorrectly in the ordinance as Residential Single instead of Residential Suburban. This error has been corrected in the ordinance and the request has been re-advertised for COB and City Council review. This annexation involves a 4.86-acre property consisting of four parcels located on the east side of Chautauqu.a Avenue; between 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. The property is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. !t is proposed that the abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. rights-of-way not currently within the City limits also be annexed. . The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive water, sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designations of Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P), and a zoning category of Low Density Residential (LOR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. One of the parcels already receives water service from the City of Clearwater. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinel!as County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the annexation of 4.86 acre and 0.64 acre of abutting 2nd Avenue S. and 3rd Avenue S. right-of-way to the City of Ciearwater; b) the Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan classifications; and c) Community Development 2005-09-20 45 . . . the Low Density Residential (LOR) and Preservation (P) zoning classifications pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See page 48 for motion of approval. 12 Case: ANX2005-06020 - 3137 San Jose Street Level Three Application Owner: Adam Saldana. Location: 0.22-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the south side of San Jose Street, between Madera Avenue and McMullen-Booth Road. Atlas Page: 283A. Request: a) Annexation of 0.22-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to the Residential Urban (RU)) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R-3, Residential District (County) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clea:.....'~tcr, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.22-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the south side of San Jose Street, approximately 113 feet west of Madera Avenue. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries on the east, south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.. . . Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the annexation of 0.22-acre to the City of Clearwater; b) Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and c) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See page 48 for motion of approval. Community Development 2005-09-20 46 _ _ J . . . 13 Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Leve! T.f'Jree Application Owner: City of Clearwater; Location: 0.36-acre of property consisting of one parcel, located on the south side of Flagler Drive, between N. Keene Road and Hercules Avenue. Atlas Page: 262A. Request: a) Annexation of 0.36-acre of property and abutting N. Keene right-of-way (0.06-acre) to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Category (County) to the Industrial Limited (IL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the M-1, Manufacturing and Industry District (County) to the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Existing Public Service Facility. Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.36-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the east side of Keene Road, approximately 35 feet south of CSX Transportation rail lines. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing City boundaries to the south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. It also is proposed that the abutting Keene Road right-of- way not currently within the City limits be annexed. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to provide vehicular access to a City facility. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use.Plan designation of Industrial Limited (IL) and zoning category of Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including 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 Pine lias County Ord!!1::!!1ce #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the annexation of 0.36-acre along with the 0.06-acre of abutting Keene Road right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; b) the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and c) the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See page 48 for metier. ef approval. Community Development 2005-09-20 47 . . . 14 Case: ANX2005-06023 - 1932 Summit Drive Level Three Application Owner: Corinne Davis. Representative: Judy Lehan, 204 S. Jupiter Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727- 423-5875. Location: 0.17 -acre of property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Summit Drive, between W. Skyline Drive and Ridgemont Drive. Atlas Page: 254B. Request: a) Annexation of 0: 17-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to the Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R-3, Residential District (County) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.17 -acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Summit Drive, approximately 175 feet north of Raymont Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to the north and west; therefore the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designations of Residential Low (RL) and zoning categories 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: a) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification and b) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-05043 for 651 Bay Esplanade, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as listed; Item F2, FLD2005-05042 for 1254 Grove Street, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclus:on:; of !~w, and conditions of approval as listed; Item F3, Case: FLD2005-07064 for 621 Bay Esplanade, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as listed; Item F4, Case: FLD2005-07065 for 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as listed; Item F5, Case: FLD2005-06058 for 1242 Cleveland Street, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as listed; Item F9, Case: FLD2005-07061 for 229 Coronado Drive, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, bases of approval, and conditions of approval as listed; and recommend approval of Item F~ 1, based on the staff report, findings of fact, and conclusions of Community Development 2005-09-20 48 . law; Item F12, based on the staff report, findings of fact, and conclusions of law; Item F13, based on the staff report, findings of fact, and conclusions of law; and Item F14 based on the staff report, findings of fact. and conclusions of law. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 15 Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application . Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMullen-Booth Road Owner: Gus DiGiovanni, Renaissance Oaks, LLC. Representative: Rona!d Letize, 1928 Valencia Way, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727- 433-1143; fax: 727-447-6811. Location: 20 acres of property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, between Crest Drive and Marlo Boulevard. Atlas Page: 245A. Request: a) Annexation of 20 acres of property to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Category (County) to the Residential Suburban (RS) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R-1, Residential District (County) to the Low Density Residential (LOR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling. . Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net). and Oakbrook Estates of Pineiias HOA (Kathy Rampolla, 3036 Oakbrook Circle, Clearwater, Florida 33759; phone: 727-712-1271; email: GRAMPOLLA@tampabay.rr.com). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner Ii. Member Tallman declared a conflict of interest. Planner Cky Ready reviewed the request. This annexation involves a 20-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 180 feet north of Crest Drive. The property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pine lias County Ordinance #00-63 with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive water and sanitary sewer service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designations of Residential Suburban (RS) and zoning categories of Low Density Residential (LOR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the annexation of 20 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential Suburban (RS) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) the Low Density Residential (LOR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Deve!opment Code. One person spoke in opposition to the application. . Community Development 2005-09-20 49 . In response to a resident's concern, Ms. Clayton said a pending application will plat the subdivision and she will confirm that ingress/egress will be limited to McMullen-Booth Road. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to recommend approval of Item F15, Case ANX2005-07024 for 2275 McMullen-Booth Road based on findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the staff report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Milam, Johnson, and Fritsch, and Alternate Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Aye." Member Tallman abstained. Motion carried. 16 Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application . Case: FLD2005-07063 - 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. Representative: Lafferty Architecture Group, LLC/Stephen B. Lafferty, AlA (11414 Seminole Boulevard, Suite 5, Largo, Florida 33778) Location: 0.43 acre located on the northwest side of the intersection of Betty Lane and Otis C. Greene Street. Atlas Page: 269B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit the redevelopment and expansion of an existing residential shelter' (including the expansion of the kitchen and dining area), in the Commercial District, to maintain the existing front, side and rear setbacks with the exception of a front (south) setback of 4 feet (to dumpster enclosure), and to permit off site parking, as a Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Residential shelter of 18 units. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III Chair Gildersleeve declared a conflict of interest. Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed the request. The 0.43-acre overall site is located on the northwest side of the intersection of North Betty Lane and Otis C. Greene Street. On site, there is an existing 8,750 square-foot emergency shelter with 18 dwelling units. There are 2,020 square-feet of kitchen and dining area. What is proposed is an expansion of the kitchen and dining area to 4,003 square-feet, new roofing, painting the building's exterior, landscaping, and re-allocation/designation of some parking spaces. Existing front, 'side, and rear setbacks will be maintained, with the exception of a front (south) setback to a dumpster enclosure. Off-site parking will be provided. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department rE:coinmends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit the redevelopment and expansion of an existing residential shelter (including the expansion of the kitchen and dining area), in the Commercial District, to maintain the existing front, side and rear setbacks with the exception of a front (south) setback of 4 feet (to dumpster enclosure), and to permit off site parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the . Community Development 2005-09-20 50 . . . provisions of Section 3-1202. G. for the site at 1200 North Betty Lane, based upon the recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as follows: Findinqs of Fact: 1) Subject property is 18,730'square-feet (0.43 acre), approximately 125 feet wide; 2) The site is within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan classification; 3) Applicant seeks to redevelop and expand an existing residential shelter, including the expansion of the kitchen and dining area, maintaining the existing front, side, and rear setbacks with the exception of the front (south) setback of four feet (to dumpster enclosure) and to permit off-site parking as a Comprehensive Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the pro'visions of Section 3-1202.G.; Other improvements include the provision of a loading space and handicap parking space at the front of the building, landscaping, new roofing, exterior painting, and bicycle parking; and 4) No other changes are proposed for the site or building. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the General Purposes of the Code per Sections 1-103.A, B.2, E.9 and E.12; 2) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the Flexible Development criteriCl r~r Section 2-704.C; 3) Staff finds the proposal compliant with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2- 704.C and General Applicability Standards per Section 3-913; and 4) Staff recommends Board approval of FLD2005-05038 based on the recommended findings of fact and conditions as stated. Conditions of Approval: 1) That all signage meet Code, including the removal/redesign of any existing nonconforming signs, through building permits prior tc the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the applicable site; 2) All Fire Departlllentcomments are to be met prior to any building permit issuance; 3) That a right-of-way utilization permit be obtained prior to building permit issuance; 4) That prior to building permit issuance, the site plan be revised, to the satisfaction of City staff, to show parallel parking spaces that are 23 feet in length; and 5) That the applicant make payment in lieu for stormwater attenuation prior to building permit issuance. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F16, Case: FLD2005-07063 for .1200 North Betty Lane based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Milam, Johnson, Tallman, and Fritsch, and Alternate Member Dennehy voted "Aye." Chair Gildersleeve abstained. Motion carried. G - RECONSIDERED ITEM: (Item 1) Community Development 2005-09-20 51 . . . 1 Case: FLD2005-01004 -1874 North Highland Avenue Level Two Application Requester: City of Clearwater. Owner: Mexico Grande, Inc. Applicant: Amscot Financial. Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 North, Clearwater, FL 33761; tel: 727-726-8683; fax: 727-669-8114; email: pressinc@aol.com). Location: 0.39-acres located on the west side of North Highland Avenue, approximately 250 feet south of Sunset Point Road. Atlas Page: 261A. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Reconsideration of the attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program application contained within the Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application that approved a problematic use for Amscot Financial in this location. Proposed Use: Problematic Use (Amscot). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net); Fountain Square Condo Association (1799 Highland Ave, #147 Q, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 442- 7335). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Planner Robert G. Tefft reviewed the request. On July 19, 2005, the CDB approved the establishment of a problematic use (Amscot) at the subject property as a Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Project. In addition, the CDB approved a Comprehensive Landscape Program and Comprehensive Sign Program associated with the development proposal. These approvals were subject to conditions, among which was the condition that the freestanding sign base is modified and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits so that the sign base does not exceed 50% of the permitted area of the sign face. At the board's subsequent meeting of August 16, 2005, the City requested that the CDB reconsider its action on the attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The Board discussed the merits and circumstances surrounding the request and elected to hear the reconsideration on September 20, 2005. It is noted at the August 16, 2005 meeting, the applicant introduced a revised rendering of the awning/signage, which "cuts-out" the sign copy from the awning. The appiicant has requested that the Board consider this revision to their Comprehensive Sign Program application. The 0.39-acre subject property, which is located on the west side of North Highland Avenue approximately 250 feet,south of Sunset Point Road, has a zoning designation of Commercial (C) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Commercial General (CG). The subject property consists of a 1,976 square-foot, single-story building, which was constructed in 1977 and was utilized until recently as a restaurant. The item before the Board is the reconsideration of the attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program which consists of the removal of the existing freestanding sign on the subject property, the installation of a 120 square-foot freestanding sign and the installation of a 37.7 square.;foot attached sign for Amscot. It is noted that the square footage denoted on the applicant's revision (39.7) does not correlate to dimensions provided. Community Development 2005-09-20 52 . . . The City recognizes that in many circumstances innovative arid creative alternatives to minimum standard signage are desirable and attractive and will enhance community character and individual property values. The purpose of the Comprehensive Sign Program is to provide an alternative to minimum standard signage subject to flexibility criteria, which ensure that alternative signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life in the City of Clearwater. As proposed in the application, the freestanding sign measures 4 feet by 12 feet (48 square-feet) with a sign structure measuring 6.5 feet by 11 feet (71.5 square-feet). The sign structure, as it exceeds 50% of the permitted area of the sign face, is considered to be part of the sign and therefore the freestanding sign is deemed to have a size of 120 square-feet [ref. Section 8-102]. It is noted that the applicant previously has agreed to reduce the width of the base so as not to exceed the 50% threshold, and the Board did attach a condition of approval to this effect on July 19, 2005. It is noted that the submitted revision has not modified the freestanding sign as previously agreed by the applicant and approved by the Board. As such, should the Board desire to approve the Comprehensive Sign Program, it is recommended that this condition be reattached. Pursuant to Section 3-1807.C.4.i, the maximum area permitted for attached signage shall range from 1 % up to a maximum of 6% of the building fac;ade to which the sign is to be attached. The subject building fac;ade measures 696.66 square-feet (18.33 feet by 38 feet); thus the acceptable range of an attached sign, based upon the above, is 6.96 square-feet to 41.79 square-feet. Based upon the revision submitted by the applicant, the proposed attached sign is 37.7 square-feet (7.71 feet by 4.88 feet), which constitutes 5.41 % of the building fac;ade. It is noted that while the revision depicts a modification to the proposed awning to provide the "cut-out" feature and provides for a wall-mounted sign, no information has been provided that would indicate how far the proposed attached sign projects from the wall. Additionally, no information was' provided that would indicate the sign materials or whether the attached sign will be illuminated or not. Based upon the previous submittal where the entire awning (including signage) was illuminated, it is presumed that the proposed attached sign will be either internally or externally illuminated and that the awning will continue to be illuminated. It also is presumed that :n crder tc provide maximum visibility of the attached signage, the proposed sign will project 2 feet from the building to be flush with the awning. Further, the awning and the attached sign have been designed in such a fashion that they are clearly intended to operate seamlessly with one another and act as one. Therefore, the proposal will result in an awning that, while technically separate from the attached sign, will effectively operate as a part of the attached sign and give the appearance of a 324 square-foot sign constituting 46.5% of the building fac;ade, which far exceeds the maximum area permitted for attached signage. These criteria shall apply to all applications for the Comprehensive Sign Program: 1) Architectural Theme: a) The signs proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for devefopment and shall be constructed of materials and colors which reflect an integrated architectural vocabulary for the parcel proposed for development or b) The design, character, location and/or materials of all freestanding and attached signs proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum sign standards. All signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site using similar Community Development 2005-09-20 53 . . . and coordinated design features, materials and colors, etc. The design of the proposed signage is not consistent with the architectural theme of the principal building utilizing coordinated design features, materials and colors. Instead the signage has been designed to be consistent and compatible with the accessory awning with regard to its appearance and color. Further, the colors proposed are reflective of the corporate colors for Amscot and not the design of the building. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the proposed signage is demonstrably more attractive than signage that would otherwise be permitted under minimum sign standards. Based upon the above, the proposal is found to be inconsistent with the above criterion; 2) The height of all freestanding signs proposed through the Comprehensive Sign Program shall relate to the design of the sign and shall not exceed 14 feet in height, except in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts where the height shall not exceed six feet in height. It is noted that the reconsideration before the Board does not include the freestanding sign; therefore this criterion is not applicable to the request; 3) Liahtina. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Sign Program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off at midnight or when the business is closed, whichever is later. As previously noted, the revised plans do not indicate how lighting is being dealt with in this proposal. However, as the previous submittal provided for the illumination of the entire signage area, it is anticipated that the proposed attached signage and the surrounding awning will continue to be illuminated. As per the above criterion, no indication has been made as to the automatic control of the lighting and therefore the development proposal is found to be inconsistent with the above criterion; 4) Heiaht. Area. Number and Location of Sians. The height, area, number and location of signs permitted through th0 Comprehensive Sign Program shall be deterrnined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between the building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, intended traffic circulation pattern, hierarchy of sign age, scale and use of the project, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the development parcel/project. Additionally, the maximum permitted sign area shall be based on the following formula when evaluated against the above criteria: a) Attached Siqns - The maximum area permitted for attached sigr.aga shall range from 1% up to a maximum of 6% of the building facade to which the sign is to be attached and b) Freestandinq Siqns - The maximum permitted area of all freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed the range of sign area permitted by the street frontage or building fac;ade calculation methods set forth in Sections 1806.B.1.c.i.and ii. The proposed attached sign is approximately 37.7 square-feet, which constitutes approximately 5.41 % of the building fac;ade. However, it is presumed that the proposed sign will project 2 feet from the building so as to be flush with the awning and that both the sign and the awning will be illuminated. As such, the proposal will result in an awning that, whiie technically separate from the attached sign, will effectively operate as a part of the sign and give the appearance of a 324 square-foot attached sign constituting 46.5% of the building fac;ade, which far exceeds the maximum area permitted for attached signage. In essence, it would appear that the proposed attached sign tries to accomplish the same effect as the original sign. The design of the awning, specifically the arched yellow banding, happens to align perfectly with the yellow bar on the proposed sign. Effectively accomplishing by design what could not be accomplished in concept; 5) Community Character. The signage proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program shall not hal/e an adverse impact on the community character of the City of Clearwater. It is not anticipated that the signage proposed will have an adverse impact on the community character of the City. Based upon the above, the proposal is found to be consistent with the above criterion; 6) Property Values. The signage proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program will not have an adverse impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed Community Development 2005..09-20 54 - I . . . for development. It is not anticipated that the signage proposed will have an adverse impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity. Based upon the above, the proposal is found to be consistent with the above criterion; 7) Elimination of Unattractive Sianaae. The signage proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program will result in the elimination of existing unattractive signage or will result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel proposed for development in comparison to signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. The subject property presently consists of a freestanding sign in the shape of a cactus. This unattractive signagewill be eliminated with this development proposaL It is noted, however, that while the existing unattractive signage will be eliminated, the signage proposed to take its place does not necessarily result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel. Further, the colors proposed are reflective of the corporate colors for Amscot and not the design of the building. Based upon the above, the proposal is found to be inconsistent with the above cr!terion; and 8) Soecial Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The signage proposed in a Comprehensive Sign Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan that the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. The subject property is not located within an area associated with an adopted special area or scenic corridor plan; therefore compliance with the above criterion is not applicable. Of the eight flexibility criteria, the proposed Comprehensive Sign Program is inconsistent with four of the criteria, consistent with two, and the final two criteria are not applicable to the proposal. Based upon the above, positive findings can not be made with regard to Section 3- 1807 to permit a 37:1 square-foot attached sign through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Comprehensive Sign Program to permit a 37.7 square-foot attached sign for Amscot Financial under the provisions of Section 3- 1807, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.39 acre subject property is within the Commercial (C) District and ihe Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and 2) That the development proposal does not comply with the Flexibility criteria for the Comprehensive Sign Program as per Section 3-1807.C. Don Mastry, representative, said the freestanding sign should not be an issue today as th8 base will be reduced to comply with Code. He referenced staff's acknowledgment that the awning and sign are technically separate. He said the sign is not attached to the awning and meets Code. . He said the awning does not have lettering nor pictures and does not meet the Code's definition of a sign. He said the COB previously approved the attached sign as it relates to Comprehensive Sign Program criteria #1 - Architectural Theme and #4 - Height, Area, Number and Location of Signs. In regard to criteria #3 - Lighting, Mr. Mastry said the applicant will comply with Code, and lighting of the sign automatically will turn off at midnight. Board Attorney Gina Grimes said the COB had agreed to reconsider the wall sign and awning only. It was suggested that the awning could be considered a sign due to its sculpted arches. Planning Director Michael Delk said the entire configuration of the sign and awning, including its lighting and design, meets the Code's definition for a sign. Mr. Mastry said the sign meets all Code requirements, not Code intent, as stated by staff. He said the awning and sign are separate and apart. Community Development 2005-09-20 55 . . . Concern was expressed that the proposed awning performs the function of a sign, in spite of the separation. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said the sign and awning do not reflect the building's architecture and design. In response to questions, Mr. Delk said awnings without lettering or design are not considered signs. Staff would have approved the request"had the sign been separated from the lighted canopy. The sign, by itself, meets Code size requirements. Concern was expressed that many local businesses have awnings that are not considered signage. In response to questions, Mr. Delk said the applicant had not proposed an alternate color scheme. He said by surrounding the sign with awning, the applicant tried to separate the attachable forms to technically comply with the Code. Staff would have approved a sign separated from the lit C'.Bnopy. Member Johnson moved to approve Item G 1, Case: FLD2005-01004 for 1874 North Highland Avenue for an attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program application contained within the Flexible Development Comprehensive"lnfill Redevelopment Project application that approved a problematic use for Amscot Financial in this location based on testimony provided at today's meeting. There was no second. " In response to a question, Mr. Mastry said the applicant would prefer that the sign be illuminated. Member Fritsch moved to approve Item G1, Case: FLD2005-01004 for 1874 North" Highland Avenue for an attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program application contained within the Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application that approved a problematic use for Amscot Financial in this location based on testimony provided at today's meeting arid findings of fact that the awning is not considered a sign if it is not illuminated and that the development proposal complies with the Flexibility criteria for the Comprehensive Sign Program as per Section 3-1807.C, with a Condition of Approval that only the attached sign may be illuminated and that the awnings not be illuminated. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the building's awnings with a recommendation to allow the illumination of awnings on other sides of the building as neighbors support the application and the light will provide security. It was stated that the redesign of the building will meet the architectural design ofthe sign and awning. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the City never issued a permit for the sign on the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Amscot building. Upon the vote being taken, Members Milam and Fritsch noted "Aye"; Members Plisko, Tallman, Johnson, and Alternate Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Nay." Motion failed. Member Plisko moved to approve Item G1, Case: FLD2005-01004 for 1874 North Highland Avenue for an attached sign approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program application contained with!n the Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application that approved a problematic use for Amscot Financial in this location based on testimony provided Qt today'3 meeting and findings of fact that the awning is not considered a :::ign if it is not illuminated and that the development proposal complies with the Flexibility criteria for the Comprehensive Sign Program as per Section 3-1807.C, with a Condition of Approval that only the attached sign and not the awning may be illuminated on the front of the building and that the side awnings may be illuminated. The motion was duly seconded. Community Development 2005-09-20 56 . Members Plisko, Tallman, Johnson, and Alternate Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Aye"; Members Milam and Fritsch noted "Nay." Motion carried. H - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4): . 1 Case: FLD2005-06056/PL T2005-00015 - 475 East Shore Drive Level Two Application Owner: Parkdale, LLC. Applicant: Belleair Harbor, LLC Representative: Bret Krasman, P.E.; Krasman and Associates (31564 US 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-787-4684; fax: 727-781-3345; email: bret@krasengr.com). Location: 0.19 acre located on the east side of East Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet south of the intersediun uf East Shore Di"ive and Baymant Street. Atlas Page: 267 A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings with a reduction to the minimum lot area requirement from 10,000 square-feet to 8,171 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width requirement from 100 feet to 60 feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback froin 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pool), and to permit parking that is designed to back out into the public right-of- way, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. and Preliminary Plat approval for two lots. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (two units). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. Mr. Reynolds reviewed the request. The 0.19 acre.is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of East Shore Drive and Baymont Street. The site is vacant and is fronted by Clearwater Harbor to the east and East Shore Drive to the west. The East Shore Resort motel is to the south. An attached residential unit building is located to the north. According to City records, a building permit for demolition was issued in November 2004 to raze a concrete block motel on this site. Records indicate that seven rental units were housed on this property. The parcel is zoned Tourist (T) District. This property is relatively flat. East Shore Drive is a north - south street, parallel to the Poinsettia Avenue and Mandalay Avenue, which are heavily traveled north - south cQrridors to the west. East Shore Drive is frequented by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Adjacent uses are located within the Tourist Zoning District. Surrounding land uses include overnight accommodations, attached dwellings, retail, and restaurants. . The proposal includes constructing two attached dwellings in a building with two living floors over one level of parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot area requirement from 10,000 square-feet to 8,171 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width Community Development 2005-09-20 57 . . . requirement from 100 feet to 60 f~et, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pool), and to permit parking that is designed to back out into the public right-of- way. A preliminary plat application has also been made for two lots. The proposed building height is 32.33 feet above BFE, which conforms to code. The Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" restricts height to two stories over ground level parking for the east side of East Shore Drive, for parcels less than 2.5 acres. The application is seeking eight approvals to vary from the Community Development Code. The requests are substantial to accommodate two attached residential units. Two of the requests are side setback reductions from 10 feet to five feet, on the north and south sides of the property. The project as proposed would allow for very minimal visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East Shore Drive right-of-way. The applicant was asked to consider redesigning the building width to provide greater side setbacks, but a revised submittal still shows the five-foot side setbacks. Both the north and south sides, with very minimal open space land, have retention ponds with a 4:1 slope, making utility maintenance access, building maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance very difficult. The site is located within the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District." Beach by Design promotes significant lot consolidation within the "Marina Residential District." The proposal is not consistent with the lot consolidation goal. The lot size and width fall below baseline requirements. The minimum lot width and lot size, per Code, for this site are 100 feet for width and 10,000 square-teet tor lot area. The proposal includes a reduction of the minimum lot area requirement to 8,171 square-feet, and a reduction of the minimum lot width requirement to 60 feet. The lot size and width are contributing factors to this property being too small to support a design that requires excessive compromises. The unit sizes and layout contribute to a building width that is too great for this lot. A five-foot side setback for the north and south sides is too narrow. The applicant might consider "stacking" residential units as an alternative to side-by-side units. Staff does not support this proposal with the lot area, lot width and setbacks as proposed. This project is premature, as the site should be enveloped into a larger parcel to appropriately design a project complying with Code provisions and consistent with the vision of the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District." The "Marina Residential District" calls for "significant lot consolidation," but this site comprises one very small lot. Beach by Design recognizes that small lots are an issue with regard to redevelopment. This shortcoming is viewed as hindering and discouraging the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties. According to Beach by Design, "Pedestrian access should be provided through each block to the Intracoastal waterway and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay Avenue." Pedestrian access will not occur without significant lot consolidation. Numerous deviations from minimum Community Development Code requirements would need to be approved through thz Flexible Development process to accommodate the existing design for a building footprint of more than 4,000 square-feet and for a proposed building to house more than 8,000 square-feet of living space. The applicant has indicated that vehicles can maneuver on site without back-out parking into the public right-of-way. However, a very Community Development 2005-09-20 58 . . . small pavement area, that could be use for maneuvering space, does not achieve on-site maneuverability without back-out parking. The Community Development Code prohibits back- out parking for any uses other than detached dwellings. City staff has determined that vehicles parked "inside to the wall" within the garages cannot make a turning movement onto the maneuvering space pavement area. In reality, vehicles will back out onto the right-of-way. Further, the small pavement area, intended for maneuvering space, creates a zero front setback. . . The property at 475 East Shore is the site for the first Flexible Development application in the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District." This is a precedent setting application, the first in the "Marina Residential District." This application, if approved, will set a standard and the goal of the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" will never be met. The Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" recognizes the existing small lots and an anticipated rlevelopment pattern, thus aiming toward the goal to consolidate lots. Although a maximum density of five dwelling units can be placed on this property and only two dwelling units are proposed, the lot area and width and the goal of the "Marina Residential District" are the. predominant issues. Findinqs of Fact: 1) The 0.19 acre subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District; 2) A building permit for demolition was issued in November 2004 to raze a concrete block motel on this site; 3) Currently, the site is vacant; 4) The maximum permitted density for this site is five dwelling units (based on 30 dwelling units per acre); 5) Adjacent uses are zoned Tourist District; 6) The immediate area is developed with a mixture of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations; 7) The proposed structure height is 32.33 feet from BFE; 8) There are no pending Code Enforcement issues with this property; 9) The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Marina Residential District"; 10) The Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" restricts height to two stories over ground level parking for the east side of East Shore Drive, for parcels less than 2.5 acres; 11) A goal of the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" is to attain significant lot consolidation and pedestrian access through consolidated blocks that terminate at apubiic boardwalk. The proposal is not consistent with the lot consolidation intent of the "Marina Residential District" and will ultimately preclude the development of a public bayside boardwalk; 12) The project as proposed would allow for very minimal visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East Shore Drive right-of-way; 13) 80th the north and south sides, with very minimal open space land, have retention ponds with a 4:1 slope, making utility maintenance access, building maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance very difficult; 14) Staff finds the proposal does not meet the following General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913): a) Development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties. The lot size is too small in area and has less than the minimum standard required lot width. No lot consolidation has occurred as part of this proposal, which is inconsistent with Beach by Design. The bulk and coverage is too much for this site, as setbacks are encroached. The applicant might consider redesigning the project, with stacked dwelling units instead of side-by-side units; b) Development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The development as proposed will clearly hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of adjacent land because it will set precedent as the first Flexible Development or Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment application in the "Marina Residential District" setting a standard in direct conflict with the goal and intent of Beach by Design. The development as proposed will consume a parcel without lot consolidation and without providing the coordinated neighborhood design elements of a Community Development 2005-09-20 59 . . . walkway and a public boardwalk; and c) Development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Gommunity character of the immediate vicinity. There is minimal to no "view scape" due to only 5-foot side setbacks. The proposed building is out of scale to the lot. The intent of the Beach by Design "Marina Residential District" is to establish a community character whereby parcels are consolidated and pedestrian access is provided to the Intracoastal Waterway and a public boardwalk, aims that are not met by the proposal; and 15) Staff finds the proposal does not meet the following Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria (Section 2-803.C): a) The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. The proposed building is oversized in scale and bulk for the lot. The unit sizes are substantial and the building design places these large units side-by-side. It is not a matter of the development being impractical without seeking relief from Flexible Development and Comprehensive Infill; b) The development of the parcel proposed for as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal cannot upgrade the immediate vicinity because lot consolidation and the development of a walkway to a public boardwalk have not been proposed, failing to meet the Beach by Design plan for the immediate vicinity, which is the "Marina Residential District"; c) The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. There is no enhancement because the design is seeking too many deviations from the Community Development Code. The residential unit sizes are large at approximately 4,000 squart::-feei each. The building footprint of more than 4,000 square-feet is tou large in scale and bulk for the 8,171 square-foot lot; and d) Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The reduction in the side setbacks will result in a building out of scale with the lot on which the building will sit. The applicant has not clearly shown that the flexible development requests provide a benefit to the community character and the immediate vicinity of the property. The mass and scale of the proposed development do not benefit the community character. Adequate view corridors have not been proposed. Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal is not consistent with the "Marina Residential District" of Beach by Design as no lot consolidation has occurred or is proposed to occur; 2) As Beach by Design states, "Pedestrian access should be provided through each block to the Intracoastal waterway and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay Avenue," the proposal does not address the pedestrian access as intended by Beach by Design; 3) The project as proposed would allow for very minimal visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East Shore Drive right-of-way; 4) Both the north and south sides, with very minimal open space land, have retention ponds with a 4:1 slope, making utility maintenance access, building maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance very difficult; 5) As Beach by Design, states that, "Pedestrian access should be provided through each block to the Intracoastal waterway and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay Avenue" the proposal does not address pedestrian act:ess as intended by Beach by Design; 6) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project per Section 2-803.C. 1, 5, 6, and 7; and 7) The proposal does not comply with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.1, 2, and 5. Community Development 2005-09-20 60 . . . The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development request to permit attached dwellings with a reduction to the minimum lot area requirement from 10,000 square- feet to 8,171 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width requirement from 100 feet to 60 feet, a reduction to' the front (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five fee1(to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pool), and to permit parking that is designed to back out into the public right-of-way, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. and Preliminary Plat approval for two lots based upon the above stated recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. . William Day requested party status. Member Johnson moved to grant William Day Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Bill Johnson requested party status. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to grant Bill Johnson Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Troy Purdue, representative, reviewed the surrounding area, lot size, and proposal to construct two townhomes. He said without deviations redevelopment of the substandard lot would be impossible. He said the rear setback request is not an issue as its purpose is to construct a swimming pool and pool deck. He said the front setback request could be withdrawn, as its purpose is to alleviate staff concerns regarding back-out parking by flaring the driveway to allow three-point turns. He said Beach by Design offers incentives to encourage land assembly but does not require land consolidation in the "Marina District." He said the owner to the south will not sell that property to allow consolidation. He said the applicant is not requesting any incentives. He said access to the proposed boardwalk via this property would not be necessary as it is located in the middle of the block. Bret Krasman, representative, reviewed the lot shape and size, and reported the structure could not be reduced to less than 48 feet, which would provide a six-foot setback on e~ch side. As proposed, he said the view corridor to the north would be 30 feet, with five feet of that provided on this property. He said the plan would provide a five-foot view corridor on the south, where none is required. Party Status Holder Bill Johnson opposed the request, stating the property owner had not attempted to purchase the abutting condominium property, the proposal allows back-out parking, and provides no view corridors, open space, or sidewalk. Party Status Holder William Day opposed the request, expressing concern regarding the future character of East Shore and recommending that the area be pedestrian friendly and not imitate Brightwater's dense redevelopment pattern. Community Development 2005-09-20 61 . . . In response to cross-examination, Mr. Purdue said he had spoken with Messrs. Johnson and Day prior to this meeting. Mr. Day said the developer had not made an offer for his property. Mr. Reynolds said it is possible to develop the subject property without setback reductions. Beach by Design requires sidewalks but does not dictate their placement. Mr. Purdue said this area will not resemble Brightwater as the abutting condominium ieatures a 30-foot side setback. He said setbacks for the property to the south do not conform with Code. He said some nearby structures are built to the property line, with no setbacks. He noted that increased density could have been requested. He said East Shore is not a busy street and the proposed parking is consistent with City policy that permits back-out parking for town homes. In response to a question, Mr. Delk reviewed flexibility options allowed in the "Marina District" for consolidated, contiguous properties. While Beach by Design encourages consolidation by providing site design flexibility, staff does deny requests based on the inability to consolidate. Staff supports the enforcement of consistent regulations. He expressed concern the mass and scale of this proposal does not meet the intent of Code and would establish precedent. It was felt that deviations only should be permitted after proof is presented regarding consolidation attempts. Mr. Delk expressed concern the proposed 4,000 square-foot u"nits are very large and require a deviation from normally allowed side setbacks. Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to deny Item H1, FLD2005-06056/PL T2005- 00015 for 475 East Shore Drive based on the staff report, and findings of fact and conditions of law as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Purdue requested that the item be continued. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The COB recessed from 12:01 to 12:34 p.m. Community Development 2005-09-20 62 . . . 2 Case: FLD2005-07070 - 706 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Harborside Condominiums, LLC Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: nestech@mindspring.com). Location: 0.35 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (16 existing attached dwelling units; 15 attached dwelling units proposed, where a maximum of 10 dweiling units permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 15 attached dwellings with reductions t6 the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 12.4 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback fi0i'ii 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.3 feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.3 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 10.8 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 6.8 feet (to sidewalk) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 87.25 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 8.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2-803.B. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Point 1 Beach House 16 (845 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-535-2424); Clearwater Point 3 Marina House 17 (868 Bayway Blvd #212, Clearwater, FI 33767); Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1 (895 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-530-4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-447-0290); Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-441-8212; e-mail: cpoint7@knology.net); Clearwater Point 8 Shipmaster, Sail (800 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-442-0664; e-mail: c1wpt8@tampabay.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Cleal'\vater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. - -. , Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 0.35-acre property is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. The site has approximately 135 feet of frontage on Bayway Boulevard and currently is developed with 16 attached dwellings. Parking for the current development is located partially within and backs into the right-of-way. The existing building is primarily one-story in height, except the front portion is two-stories in height, and wraps around a pool in the center of the building. All existing improvements are proposed to be demolished. A City police substation abuts the west side of this site. Attached dwellings (town homes and condominiums) are east and west of this site on the north side of Bayway Boulevard. An existing overnight accommodation use is southwest across Bayway Boulevard, while a shopping center (retail sales) is south across Bayway Boulevard. On June 21, 2005, the COB denied Case FLD2005-03031,' which was a similar request, but for 16 attached dwellings and greater setback reductions, especially to the side and rear Community Development 2005-09-20 63 . . . setbacks, than under this current proposal. The revisions embodied in this proposal were determined to be a substantial change under Section 4-202.G, allowing the submission of this proposal within nine months from the date of denial by the CDB. The proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the nonconforming density of 16 d'!.'e!!ing units (45.71 du/acre). Based on current Land Use CS!tegory density limitations of 30 dwelling units per acre for residential uses, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 10 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to terminate the nonconforming density in order to redevelop the site with 15 new attached dwellings. Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District; 2) Improvement of off-street parkinq lots. The applicant is removing all existing improvements and is providing parking that meets Code provisions; 3) Removal of nonconforminq siqns. outdoor !iqhtinq or other accessory structures. The applicant is removing all existing improvements. Any future signage will need to meet current Code provisions; and 4) Use of Comprehensive Siqn Proqram and Comprehensive Landscape Proqrams to satisfy requirements. The Comprehensive Sign Program is not available under the Code to residential properties. The Comprehensive Landscape Program is unnecessary. Staff's previous concern under Case FLD2005-03031 relative to the termination of the nonconforming density for 16 proposed units was the relationship of the overall site and building improvements proposed, especially with regard to the proposed rear and side setbacks, which resulted in the site being overbuilt with too many units. This current proposal reduces the number of units to 15 attached dwellings, which reduces the required number of parking spaces, allowing the building to be moved southward on the site with acceptable setbacks. The proposal includes reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 12.4 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.3 feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.3 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 10.8 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 6.8 feet (to sidewalk). In regard to the placement of the building versus pavement on the property, the building itself is designed 18 feet from the front property line, 19.2 feet from the east property line, 21 feet from the west property line, and 18 feet from the rear property line (to the rear stair tower and the cantilevered balconies). The stairwell and elevator portion of the front of the building projects approximately 17 feet southward from the residential living area portion. The proposed front setback is consistent with other existing, approved and/or constructed projects along Bayway Boulevard. The pavement for the parking areas extend closer to the property lines than the building, at a front setback of 12.4 feet, an east side setback of five feet, a west side setback of 8.3 feet and a rear setback of 10.8 feet. This proposed rear setback to the building is now consistent with setbacks approved by the CDB for properties along Bayway Boulevard (620 Bayway Boule'J~rd [27 feet]; 656 Bayway Boulevard [28 feet]; 674 Bayvvay Boulevard [30 feet]; 692 Bayway Boulevard [30 feet]; 830 Bayway Boulevard [18 feet]; a~d 850 Bayway Boulevard [20 feetj). The proposed rear setback to the building also is consistent with the Building Code setback requirement of at least 18 feet from the seawall. With regard to the front setback reduction related to the trash staging area, the building will have a refuse coliection room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will Community Development 2005-09-20 64 . . . be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. The subject parcel has a greater front lot width at the property line than at the rear property line, producing a siightly "pie slice" angle for the side property lines. By Building Code requirements, rear stairs must be provided with a sidewalk out to the sidewalk within the Bayway Boulevard right-of-way. Under prior Case FLD2005-03031, this sidewalk reduced the landscape area along this west property line to a width where it would have been difficult to plant meaningful landscaping along the eastern half of the west side of the property. The current proposal has enlarged this planting area to a minimum of 4.3 feet in width, which is acceptable for this portion of the site. Parking spaces for the current site improvements straddles the front property line along 9ayway Boulevard (partially on-site and partially within the right-of-way). The proposal will eliminate all parking within the right-of-way and provide 23 parking spaces on-site (Code minimum requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit or 23 spaces for 15 dwellings). Parking will be provided at ground level either under the building or projecting from the building envelope. The applicant is proposing a four-foot high screening wall along the side property lines and partially along the spaces along the front of the property, which will be augmented by landscape screening. Access to the site will be by one-way driveways on Bayway Boulevard, with a one- way traffic flow on-site. The proposal includes constructing 15 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building of Mediterranean architecture with eight living floors over the ground-level parking. The proposal includes two dwellings per floor area (except for the second floor), each with 2,360 square-feet of living area, and an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 87.25 feet from the BFE to the highest roof deck. The site is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design, which is a distinctive area of mixed uses including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels, and commercial uses. Beach by Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater beach. While adjacent to buildings that are less than 50 feet in height, various attached dwelling projects (existing or proposed) in close proximity are close to or exceed 100 feet in height (Clearwater Point to the east of Gulf Boulevard, Continental Towers at 675 S. Gulfview Bouievard, the approved Clearwater Grande Hotel at 655 S. Gulfview Boulevard, and the Sunspree Condominiums at 715 S. Gulfview Boulevard). The proposed height is compatible and consistent with other projects within this "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District." The proposal includes a request to increase the height of perimeter parapets around the edge of the roof deck an additional 8.67 feet (from roof deck), where the Code permitted maximum is 30 inches. This increase may be viewed as making the parapets proportional in respect to the height of the buiiding and to aid in the screening of the rooftop air-conditioning units. Under prior Case FLD2005-03031, there were no proposed recreation amenities. This proposal converted one dwelling on the second floor to an amenities room for the condominium owners. Plans submitted indicate that the fire pump will be located within the amenities room. Due to Code and Fire Department requirements, the Fire Command room shown on the ground Community Development 2005-09-20 65 . floor must be located above BFE and is anticipated to also locate within this amenities room. Site drainage is proposed within vaults under the south side of the parking lot. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. It is noted that the Code does not provide the ability to request a Comprehensive Sign Program for a residential property. Future signage will need to meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign would need to be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and attached dwelling criteria (Section 2-803.B) have been met. . Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.35 acre is zoned Tourist District and is located within the "South Beach/ Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for 16 attached dwellings, which is nonconforming to current density maximums at 45.71 dwelling units per acre; 3) Based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30 dwelling units per acre, the overall subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 10 dwelling units; 4) On June 21. 2005, the COB denied a similar request for this property, but for 16 proposed attached dwellings and greater rear and side setback reductions; 5) The applicant is deriving the proposed 15 attached dwelling units through the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the existing 16 attached dwelling units; 6) The applicant proposes to redevelop the entire site in a residential building 87.25 feet tall; 7) The proposed height is compatible and consistent with other existing, proposed or approved projects within this "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District"; 8) The proposed reductions to the rear setback to building and pavement are consistent with setbacks approved by the COB for properties along Bayway Boulevard; 9) The landsC3pc ~rc~ along the west side has been increased over that previously proposed under FLD2005-03031 to a width that will support meaningful landscaping; 10) While the proposal will eliminate all existing parking within the right-of-way, the proposal meets the minimum Code required number of parking spaces for the proposed number of dwellings; 11) The proposal is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity; and 12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density complies with the criteria of Section 6-109; 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2- 803.B; 3) Staff concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; 4) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with Beach by Design; and 5) Based on the above findings, Staff recommends approval of this application. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The pfannirig Department recommends approval of (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (16 existing attached dwelling units; 15 attached dwelling units proposed, where a maximum of 10 dwelling units permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development application to permit 15 attached dwellings with reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 12.4 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to three feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.3 feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.3 feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 10.8 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 6.8 . Community Development 2005-09-20 66 . feet (to sidewalk) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 87.25 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 8.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2-803.B, for the site at 706 Bayway Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That, while the proposal includes 16 existing dwelling units through the Termination of Status of Nonconformity and only 15 dwelling units are proposed, the one remaining dwelling unit cannot be constructed on-site and cannot be transferred off-site in the future; 3) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 4) That boats moored at the future 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; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building; 6) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. . The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 7) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; and 8) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits, including the location of the fire command room above BFE. Mr. Wells reported that staff had received an objection regarding this case and removed it from the Consent Agenda. Parking extends beyond the proposed building, therefore some parking spaces will be in the open and not under the building. Fencing along property lines will screen the parking. Housh Ghovaee, representative, said the project results in a reduction in size, meets all setbacks, considers sight lines, air circulation, etc. The project is tall, rather than short and bulky. He referred to an aerial view of the property, noting it is consistent with the neighborhood, being adjacent to the Police station in an area of tall buildings. He said while the current structure does not conform to Code, the new project will. He said this project is architecturally pleasing and will be a positive addition to Clearwater. Member Milam moved to approve Item H2, Case FLD2005-07070 for 706 Bayway Boulevard, based on the staff report, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and bases of approval and conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . Community Development 2005-09-20 67 . . . 3 Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas. Representative: Keith Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; email: keith@keithzayac.com). Location: 0.35 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive between Coronado and Hamden Drives. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (27 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 20 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of 10 dwelling units would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 20 attached dwellings within the Tourist (T) District with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional seven feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 18 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to 14.94 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to 14.88 (to building/pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 67.5 feet along Coronado Drive and to 71.64 feet along Hamden Drive as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Ciearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Ciearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. The 0.35-acre subject property, which is located along the south side of Brightwater Drive between Coronado and Hamden drives, has a zoning designation of Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The property is also located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Small Motel District." According to City records, the subject property presently consists of two separate buildings, which function as a single development. The property at 342 Hamden Drive consists of a two-story building with an accessory swimming pool and river rock deck, while the property at 343 Coronado Drive features a one-story building with an accessory wood deck and shuffleboard court. The development also has back-out parking into Brightwater Drive, Coronado Drive, and Hamden-Diive rights-of-way. The immediate vicinity is comprised predominantly of overnight accommodation uses with nonresidential uses to the west along South Gulfview Boulevard and attached dwellings to the east along Brightwater Drive. The development proposal consists of the demolition of existing improvements on the subject properties and construction afan 83-foot high building (as measured from BFE to roof deck) containing 20 condominium units that range in size from a 1,650 square-foot two-bedroom unit to a 2,100 square-foot two-bedroom unit with den. Community Development 2005-09-20 68 . Existing back-out parking within the Brightwater and Hamden rights-of-way will be removed and replaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line, while back-out parking within the Coronado Drive right-of-way will be removed and replaced with sod and on-street parking. No sidewalk presently exists adjacent to the subject property. The development proposal also includes the provision of a roof top swimming pool, sundeck, gazebo, and garden. Pursuant to Section 2-803, the minimum required lot width for attached dwellings is between 50 feet and 100 feet. The subject property is approximately 67.5 feet in width along Coronado Drive, 71.64 feet in width along Hamden Drive, and 220 feet in width along Brightwater Drive. It is noted that the adjacent properties to the south, which account for the baiance of the block, are associated with the approved development for 325 South Gulfview Boulevard (Lucca Development). Therefore, there is no opportunity for consolidation of properties; thus the reduction to lot widths, as requested, can be supported. Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings are required to provide a front setback of 0-15 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback of 10-20 feet. The subject property consists of three front setbacks (north, east and west) and one side setback (south), and the development proposal requires reductions to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to 14.94 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to 14.88 (to building/pavement), and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement). . The requested reductions to the front (north/west) setbacks to the building are minimal and can be supported. The balance of requested reductions is to walkways, parking spaces and the refuse staging area. Concerning the walkways and refuse staging area, the reductions can be supported; however the reductions to the parking spaces, while justifiable in their necessity to support the dwelling units, raise questions as to the whether there is too much development proposed on the site due to the amount of pavement associated with the reduction. Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings units require the provision of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 20 attached dwelling units require a total of 30 parking spaces and the development proposal includes the provision of 22 parking spaces on the ground level and 8 parking space on the second level, which are accessible via a lift (30 total). With regard to the parking spaces on the second level, Staff has a concern with regard to their accessibility from the lift. From a vehicle's position on the lift, the vehicle can drive forward to access two of the parking spaces; however in order to access the other six parking spaces, a vehicle would need to drive in reverse off of the lift and back into those parking spaces. The design/layout of the parking alGa is atypical and does raise safety concerns, and while these parking spaces are accessible, that accessibility is rather limited. The parking and development as a whole would likely be better served with fewer dwellings, as fewer parking spaces would be required and a more efficient layout could be utilized. The width of the building along Hamden and Coronado drives (east and west elevations) measures approximately 38 feet and the width along Brightwater Drive (north elevation) measures approximately 194 feet. The height of the building measures 83 feet to the roof deck with an additional 7 feet for perimeter parapets and 18 feet for architectural embellishments; thereby resulting in a total height of 101 feet. When viewed from its east and west elevations, it . Community Development 2005-09-20 69 . is apparent that the height of the building is disproportionate to its 'v'Jidth. In addition, the stc::ndard allowable height for perimeter parapets is 30 inches, nearly one-third of the height that is proposed. Modifications could be made to the development proposal that would result in a building height more in proportion and compatible with its width, and at the same time increase the development proposal's compliance with Beach by Design. Reductions to the building height would likely reduce the dwelling unit count, which in turn would reduce the number of required parking spaces and possibly enable the provision of additional landscaping on site or modifications to the second level of parking to address accessibility and safety concerns. On July 17, 2005, the COB approved a development proposal which accounted for the balance of the block. This development proposal (325 South Gulfview Boulevard - Lucca Development) was to construct a 64-foot high building on the abutting parcels to the south. The development proposal includes the provision of a trash and recycling holding area along the north side of the building with a 5-foot by 10-foot refuse staging area adjacent to the proposed driveway at Brightwater Drive. . . The development proposal includes a request for termination of status of nonconformity to permit 20 of the 27 existing overnight accommodation dwelling units to remain as attached (condominium) dwelling units, where only 10 attached dwelling units would otherwise be permitted. The criteria for termination of status of nonconformity. as per Section 6-109, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code, will be met with this development proposal. However, while these criteria have been met, the resulting density in combination with the narrowness of the site and its location along three rights-of-way produces a development that requires the virtual elimination of the north and south setbacks to pavement, the provision of an atypical parking configuration where safety concerns will exist, and a building height that is disproportionate to the building width. In 1997 and 1998, a Plan was prepared for the City entitled "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization." This Plan was prepared after an extensive public process, directive surveys and input from the City Council and City administration. The purpose of Beach by Design, which was adopted by the City Council in 2001, is to implement the recommendations of that P~c::n and regulate development within certain areas of the beach. The subject property is ioeated within the "Small Motel District" of the Beach by Design special area redevelopment plan and is defined as an area of small motels with established clientele and limited on-site amenities and off-street parking. While Beach by Design does not specifically put forth guidelines for the redevelopment of property within the portion of the "Small Motel District" between Coronado and Hamden drives, it does draw a correlation between the redevelopment of this area and the redevelopment of the Brightwater Drive area to which Beach by Design does specifically call for the development of mid-rise townhouses/times hares between two and four stories above parking. While the subject property is not located along the "finger" of Brightwater Drive, it does have a significant amount of frontage along Brightwater Drive (220 feet) and as such the subject property should be consistent with these guidelines. .. Community Development 2005-09-20 70 . . . The proposed building measures 83 feet to roof deck, which far exceeds the standard height set forth in Beach by Design for this area. Further, as proposed, the density will be roughly twice what is permitted by code (57.14 du/ac), and the number of parking spaces required to accommodate these dwelling units will necessitate that seiUacks along the front (north) of the property and side (south) of the property need to be reduced to zero feet. Finally, in order to fit the proposed dwelling units on the property (a property which does not meet the minimum required lot width), a building 83 feet in height will need to be constructed. Based upon the above, the development proposal appears to constitute too much development for the subject property, and should be reduced in scale. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 4, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development approval to permit 20 attached dwellings within the Tourist (T) District with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional seven feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 18 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 fE:et to 14.94 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to 14.88 (to building/pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 67.5 feet along Coronado Drive and to 71.64 feet along Hamden Drive as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C., and a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (27 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 20 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of 10 dwelling units would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109, based upon the following recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law: Findinos of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.35-acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Small Motel District"; 3) That the development proposal does not comply with the "Small Motel District" of Beach by Design; 4) That the subject property currently is developed with 27 overnight accommodation units; 5) That the subject property is permitted a maximum of 10 attached dwelling units (30 du/ac); 6) That the adjacent properties are zoned Tourist (T) District, and developed with overnight accommodations and nonresidential uses to the west along South Gulfview Boulevard and attached dwellings to the east along Brightwater Drive; 7) That the height of the proposed building is 83 feet as measured from BFE to roof deck; 8) That the parking circulation on the second level does not function adequately and provides only limited accessibility; 9) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 10) That the development proposal meets the requirements for a termination of status of nonconformity a~ per Section 6-109 to permit 20 dwelling units where 10 units would otherwise be allowed; 11) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Applicability criteria of Section 3-913.A; and 12) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment criteria of Section 2-803.C. Ed Armstrong, representative, reported the applicant had retained him last Friday. He said due to the deadline, a decision by the COB on this item is necessary today to maintain his right to request termination of nonconformity status regarding density. Staff has not seen changes to be proposed today. He acknowledged that this approach is unusual, but he felt certain the changes are more consistent with staff expectations. He requested approval of the Community Development 2005-09-20 71 . . . termination of nonconforming status and to delegate to staff review of the remaining issues to ensure the applicant's design is adequate. Mr. Delk said although the ordinance imposed deadline regarding termination of nonconformity requests is extraordinary, the COB previously indicated they will not consider site plan reviews presented at meetings. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reported September 22, 2005, is the deadline for submitting nonccnformity requests. Mr. Armstrong said the applicant requests to preserve the nonconforming density and convert the use. Richard Gillette, architect, reviewed details of the modified proposal: 1) Reduce height of habitable space by 11 feet and architectural elements by another 18 feet: 2) Remove three parking spaces on street side setback, leaving only one parking space in 15-foot setback; 3) Include 15-foot setbacks for three street sides; 4) Increase landscaping along street; 4) Reduce density from 20 to 18 units; and 5) Reduce parking from 30 to 27 spaces. He said the unusual design of the second level of parking has been successful elsewhere. He said architectural elements result in improved design. He said the applicant will work with staff to improve the fac;ade's articulation. Keith Zayac, engineer, reviewed the site, and said the proposed project would function more appropriately than current development. He said the building cannot accommodate Code setbacks for the front and rear due to the required 62-foot width of the parking area. He said :-educing the number of units eliminates the requirement for three parking spaces and allows more green space and landscaping in the building's front setback. He said eight parking spaces are planned for the second level, inside the garage. He said the car lift has been moved to the rear of the garage for efficiency. He said the roof height will be reduced to 62 feet and 72 feet to address staff concerns. Ethyl Hammer, representative, reviewed nearby projects, stating some are as tall as 150 feet. She opined this request is compatible with the adjacent use. She said the City has targeted the block immediately north for acquisition to construct a parking garage. She said this property differs from the Brightwater finger. She said the project complies with the Beach by Design general goal to stimulate projects in this area. She said the current motel has back-out parking and no sidewalks, while this project will feature sidewalks, remove back-out parking from the right-of-way, and reduce vehicle trips. She said the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan encourages high-density residential development on this property and the project will be beneficial to the community. In response to questions, Mr. Gillette discussed the proposed parking lift, which is not robotic. He said every unit will have one ground-level parking space. He said single-family homeowners drive forward into their garages and back out. Mr. Delk said that situation differs significantly from what is being proposed to require six drivers to back onto a lift. Mr. Gillette said the new request proposes heights of 62 feet 2 inches and 72 feet 2 inches above BFE, plus ai 6-foot mechanical elevator overrun. Mr. Delk said an approved project on one nearby parcel referenced by Ms. Hammer is half the size of this proposal. Staff does not have concerns with height issues, but with the project's performance, which proposes twice as many units as the adjacent property, the small size of the lot compared with the proposed mass and bulk, and the configuration of second level parking. Staff supports a reduction in the building's mass and elimination of structure at the Community Development 2005-09-20 72 . south property line. Staff feeis a zero setback is insufficient. Mr. Delk agreed the site is constrained and difficult to develop. Mr. Armstrong said the current building is old, has back-out parking, and needs repair. The applicant plans to lipgiCida the site and improve the neighborhood. As this is the last day the applicant can obtain approval of terminating the nonconformity, he requested the CDS approve the termination of nonconformity only and allow the applicant to work with staff regarding staff concerns regarding size, bulk, mass, and parking. He said this property may never be redeveloped at a density of 10 units per acre. He did not feel an impasse between the applicant and staff would occur. In response to a question, Ms. Grimes said the Code contains no provision to allow the CDS or City Council to continue this case, as the deadline was established by ordinance. Ms. Grimes said the CDS could approve the part of the application to terminate a nonconforming status, and direct staff to work with the applicant regarding the flexible development request. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed Ordinance #7445-05 language, which requires qualifying applications to be complete. She said a separate application for the termination of nonconformity was not submitted and the two requests were agendaed together. Mr. Armstrong said when applicants file for flexible development, part of that application often includes a request for the termination of nonconformity status. He said the two requests are construed as one application. It was stated if the staff and applicant cannot work out issues of concern, the CDS would make a final decision regarding the flexible development application. In response to a question, Planning Manager Neil Thompson said applications for termination of nonconformity status that did not meet sufficiency requirements were not included on today's agenda and will not be heard. . Mr. Armstrong suggested the CDS could approve the application, with a requirement that the applicant work with staff to address staff concerns. Ms. Grimes said the CDS should not delegate its total authority to staff, but recommended requiring the item be brought back to the CDS for a final decision. She suggested if the CDS is comfortable with the proposed density, they could request that only design issues be brought back for review. Discussion ensued with comments that staff does not want the CDS to consider design changes at meetings, that this unusual situation is uncomfortable, and that the CDS could be flexible to make the project workable. Concerns were expressed regarding the viability of the second floor parking system, the proposed density, the high number of units and resulting parking requirements. It was suggested the CDS approve the nonconformity request and the applicant to redesign the building and bring it back for CDS review. Ms. Grimes recommended that approval of the termination of nonconformity be conditioned upon the applicant working with staff, developing a site plan that is compatible with Code to address staffs concerns, requiring staff to report to the CDS regarding the project, and providing staff with clear direction regarding issues discussed today. Mr. Armstrong reported the architect had indicated that parking concerns could be addressed by eliminating another unit. Mr. Gillette said the applicant is willing to add a second entrance off Hamden for a two-way ramp to the second level. In response to a question, Mr. Armstrong said the property to the south has 10 units. . Community Development 2005-09-20 73 . Discussion ensued with comments that the applicant should have retained representation earlier, that the CDB should not be expected to review and approve the re- design of a critical project, that ~his type of request does not provide time for staff and the applicant to work out issues, and the property's shape is unusual and unique. It was recommended if the nonconformity termination is approved, the number of units should be reduced and parking situation improved. Mr. Armstrong reviewed the revised application: 1) Request approval of the termination of nonconformity status and 2) Request for flexible development for a 17 -unit project that is 62 feet 2 inches at one portion of the building and 72 feet 2 inches at another portion of the building and to add a second entrance off Hamden for a two-way ramp to the second level. Mr. Gillette said all setbacks will be 15 feet, except for driveway aisles. Concerns were expressed that no one knows what the building will look like, and that some people are uncomfortable with the CDB placing this much faith in staff. Mr. Delk requested that the CDB not preclude staff from working with the applicant on design issues, etc. Ms. Grimes suggested that staff submit for CDB review a new staff report, which addresses staff ::md CDB concerns. In response to a question regarding the number of units that are acceptable to staff, Mr. Delk said staff is more concerned regarding the performance of the site, i.e. the mass and scale, landscaping, appearance, presentation to the street and surrounding properties, etc. He said the applicant may not be able to meet staff's expectations, though staff will make every effort to work out issues with the applicant. . Member Milam moved to deny Item H4, Case FLD200S-07066 for 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive, based on the staff report, and findings of fact and conclusions of law as listed. There was no second. Member Johnson moved to conditionally approve the termination of nonconformity and the revised parking plan presented today for Item H4, Case FLD2005-07066 for 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive and that the applicant and staff are to work on the remainder of the application, which is to be brought back to the CDB for final review and decision next month. The motion was duly seconded. It was recommended thafthe motion include a condition that revokes the termination of nonconformity status if the applicant does not meet staff concerns. Ms. Grimes said the application is being condit:onally approved, subject to submission of a revised site plan that meets all performance standards in the Code, and after meeting with staff, the applicant will come back to the CDB for apPiOval of density, etc. Mr. Delk said following discussions between staff and the applicant, final plans must be submitted by October 14, 2005, for CDB consideration on November 1S, 2005. Member Johnson amended his motion to continue the flexible development request portion of Item H4, to November 1S, 200S. The seconder agreed. Upon the vote being taken, Members Plisko, Johnson, Tallman, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy and Chair Giidersleeve voted "Aye"; Members Fritsch and Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried. . Community Development 200S-09-20 74 . . . 4 . Level Two Application Case: FLD2003-08039....: 1460, 1470, and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc. Representative: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire (2550 Permit Place, New Port Richey, FL 34655; phone: 727-942-0733; fax: 727-944-3711; email: fig@fhlaw.net). Location: 2.31 acre~ !ecated on the west side of South Missouri Avenue, south of Bellevue Boulevard and 200 feet north of Woodlawn Street. Atlas Page: 314A. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District and Low Medium Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit vehicle sales/display and an automobile service station in the Commercial District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to pavement), from 25 feet to 13.7 feet (to existing building) and from five feet to zero feet to retain existing signage (to the leading edge of the sign), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to carport) and from 10 feet to 3.9 feet (to pavement), reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 3.5 feet (to pavement and existing building), a reduction to required parking from 55 spaces to 30 spaces, an increase to sign height from 14 feet to 15 feet (for existing signage), a deviation to allow vehicle sales/display contiguous to residentially-zoned property, a deviation to allow the display of vehicles for sale outdoors and a deviation to allow direct access to a major arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and reductions to the landscape buffer width along South Missouri Avenue from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to 13.7 feet (to existing building), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the south property line from five feet to 3.9 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the west property line adjacent to single family dwellings from 12 feet to 5.8 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the west property line adjacent to a nonresidential use from five feet to 3.5 feet (to pavement and existing building), a reduction to the foundation landscaping adjacent to buildings from five feet to zero feet and a reduction to reduce the interior landscape area from 10 percent to 7.45 percent of the vehicular :.Jse area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (2) to permit non-residential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential District, with a deviation to allow landscaping on the inside of a perimeter fence, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E. Proposed Use: Vehicles display and sales. Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120 Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; email: duketieman@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;. phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. A letter from representative Gerald A. Figurski requested a continuance to October 18, 2005, due to health reasons. Acting Member Dennehy moved to continue Item 1-14, Case FLD2003-08039 for 1460, 1470, and 1480 South Missouri Avenue, to October 18, 2005. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2005-09-20 75 . . . Other It was suggested that single lot development in the "Old Florida District" be required to meet a condition that the property owner either makes an effort to sell his/her property or acquires abutting properties to meet the Beach by Design goal of consolidating small parcels. Ms. Grimes said the COB is not authorized to provide guidance to staff. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the COB can consider efforts made to meet objectives codified in Beach by Design. Mr. Delk said staff considers property consolidation on the beach when talking with applicants, particularly when discussing constrained properties and the ability to acquire properties that offer greater development flexibility. Staff was complimented for their work and Mr. Delk expressed his appreciation for their efforts. It was requested that staff provide more accurate color renderings of buildings on vertical sketches of proposed developments. Mr. Delk said development proposals in the "Old Florida District" now are being processed under new height restrictions, per City Council direction. I - ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. ~~I} Chair " Community Development Board Via Community Development 2005-09-20 76 ~ '" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 20, 2005 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 1. Case: FLD2005-01004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue Requester: City of Clearwater / yes Level Two Application RECONSIDERED ITEM no LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 14): 1. Case: FLD2005-05043 - 651 Bay Esplanade Owners: Ardent International, LLC and P. Vasiloudes Level Two Application /' yes no 2. Case: FLD2005-06058 - 1242 Cleveland Street Owners: Raim Tzekas /yes Level Two Application no 3. Case: FLD2005-07070 - 706 Bayway Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Harborside Condominiums, LLC /' yes Level Two Application no 4. Case: FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive Owner: Sunrise on the Beach, Inc. /yes Level Two Application no 5. Case: FLD2005-05042 - 1254 Grove Street Owner/Applicant: P7cia A. Bilotta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOPA, LLC. ~ yes no Level Two Application . ... 6. Case: FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Coates 1, Inc. y'"" yes no 7. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas /yes no 8. Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade Properties, LLC ~es no 9. Case: FLD2005-06057/TDR2005-07023 - 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner: Seawake Motel, Ltsl/ V yes no 10. Case: FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Clearw~r Grande Development, LLC v/ yes no Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application 11. Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Boldog, Trustee for M & J Trust. ~es no 12. Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc ~es no 13. Case: FLD2005-06056 - 475 East Shore Drive Owner: Parkdale, LLC ~es no 14. Case: FLD2005-07063 - 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. /no yes 2 Level Two Application Level Two Application . . LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 -6) 1. Case: LUZ2005-05009 - i532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/ Applicant: Aubrey and Caroline Wilkes. Level Three Application yes /no 2. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Owner: Rottlund Homes. ---..0/ / liMe no''t't>' ~yes ~v' Level Three Application 3. Case: ANX2005-06020 - 313 7 San Jose Street Owner: Adam Saldana. Level Three Application yes /no 4. Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Owner: City of Clearwater Level Three Application yes / no 5. Case: ANX2005-06023 - 1932 Summit Drive Owner: Corinne Davis Level Three Application yes / no 6. Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Owner: Gus DiGiovanni, Renaissance Oaks, LLC Level Three Application /yes no REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1. Case: DV A2004-00002A - 301 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Crystal Beach Capital, LLC /no Level Three Application Signature: DATE: artment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 3 \ . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 20, 2005 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 1. Case: FLD2005-01004 - 1874 North Highland Avenue Requester: City of crarwater ~ yes no Level Two Application RECONSIDERED ITEM LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 14): 1. Case: FLD2005-05043 - 651 Bay Esplanade Owners: Ardent Int(frnational, LLC and P. Vasiloudes J yes no Level Two Application 2. Case: FLD2005-06058 - 1242 Cleveland Street Owners: Raim TZ]k is yes no Level Two Application 3. Case: FLD2005-07070 - 706 Bayway Boulevard owner/APPlicant]. . rborside Condominiums, LLC yes no Level Two Application 4. Case: FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive Owner: sunn::;r::aCh, Inc. Level Two Application no 5. Case: FLD2005-05042 - 1254 Grove Street Owner/Applicant: Pttricia A. Bilotta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOPA, LLC. i J yes Level Two Application no . .. 6. Case: FLD2005-07064 - 6 1 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Coate I, Inc. yes Level Two Application no 7. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Hamden Drive Owner/Applicant: Jx:~sa Tas Level Two Application no 8. Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade Properties, LLC I ~yes Level Two Application no 9. Case: FLD2005-06057/TD '005-07023 - 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner: Seawake Motel, L d yes no Level Two Application 10. Case: FLD2005-070n - 615 - 655 South Gu1fview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: C1earnpter Grande Development, LLC f V' yes no Level Two Application 11. Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gu1fview Boulevard Level Two Application Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Bo1dog, Trustee for M &Jrust. yes no 12. Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Peter rd Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc I f 'J yes no 13. Case: FLD2005-06056 - 475 East Shore Drive Owner: Parkdale, Ll) yes no Level Two Application 14. Case: FLD2005-07063 - 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/ APPliCan]t:,!HOmeleSs Emergency Project, Inc. \. yes no Level Two Application 2 . .. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 -6) 1. Case: LUZ2005-05009 - 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/Applicant: :Jrey and Caroline Wilkcs. Level Three Apphcat;on yes no 2. Case: ANX2005-040l5 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Owner: Rottlund Homes. Level Three Application yes \/ no 3. Case: ANX2005-06020 - 313 7 San Jose Street Owner: Adam Saldana. j yes no Level Three Application 4. Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Owner: City of Clearwater J' yes no Level Three Application 5. Case: ANX200S-06023 - 1932 SUJ Drive Owner: Corinne Davis yes . no Level Three Application 6. Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMqllen Booth Road Owner: Gus DiGiovanni. RenaissanJ Oaks, LLC yes . no Level Three Application REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1. Case: DV A2004-0Q002A - 301 South Gulfview Boulevard owner/.APPlica:trYS,al Beacli Capital. LLC ", es no ~ " Signature; \ --"~~- Level Three Application DATE: C1. t.O .O~ S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 3 . \.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 20, 2005 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Requester: c:zater Level Two Application RECONSIDERED ITEM 1. Case: FLD2005-01004 -1874 North Highland Avenue no LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 14): 1. Case: FLD2005-05043 - 651 Bay Esplanade Owners: Ardent International, LLC and P. Vasi10udes ~ no Level Two Application 2. Case: FLD2005-06058 - 1242 Cleveland Street Owners: Raim Tzekay ~ yes no Level Two Application 3. Case: FLD2005-07070 - 706 Bayway Boulevard . owuer/APPlica~~Side Condominiums, LLC yes no Level Two Application 4. Case: FLD2005-07061 ~ 229 Coronado Drive Owner: Sunrise on the Beach, Inc. Jyes Level Two Application no 5. Case: FLD2005-05042 - 1254 Grove Street owner/APPlic~ia A. Bilotta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOPA, LLC. yes no Level Two Application . , . 6. Case: FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: coa0c. yes no 7. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas -0es no 8. Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade Properties, LLC ~es no 10. Case: FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Cl~Grande Development, LLC yes no Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application Level Two Application 11. Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Hotdog, Trustee for M ~t yes no 12. Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc ~s no 13. Case: FLD2005-06056 - 475 East Shore Drive Owner: Parkdale, LLC ~es no 14. Case: FLD2007:-07063 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/Applicant: omeless Emergency Project, Inc. yes no 2 Level Two Application Level Two Application . " LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 -6) 1. Case: LUZ2005-05009 - 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/Applicant: Aub/nd Caroline Wilkes. Level Three Application V yes no 2. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Owner: Rottlund ~ yes no 3. Case: ANX2005-06020 - 313 7 San Jose Street Owner: Adam S~ yes no 4. Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Owner: City of C~ater ~ yes no 5. Case: ANX2005-06023 - 1932 Summit Drive Owner: cori~~is yes no 6. Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Owner: Gus :;:nni, Renaissance Oaks, LLC yes no REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1. Case: DV A2004-00002A - 301 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/ APPlica7tal Beach Capital, LLC yes no Signature: ~--- DATE: Level Three Application Level Three Application Level Three Application Level Three Application Level Three Application Level Three Application If-I C(-t/Y S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 3 ... . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: September 20, 2005 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 1. Case: FLD2005-01004 1874 North Highland Avenue Requester: City of Clearwater /;es Level Two Application RECONSIDERED ITEM no LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 14): 1. Case: FLD2005-05043 - 651 Bay Esplanade Owners: Ardent International, LLC and P. Vasiloudes ~es no Level Two Application 2. Case: FLD2005-06058 - 1242 Cleveland Street Owners: Raim Tzekas Level Two Application ~yes no 3. Case: FLD2005-07070 - 706 Bayway Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Harborside Condominiums, LLC yes ~no Level Two Application 4. Case: FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive Owner: Sunrise on the Beach, Inc. Level Two Application yes J no 5. Case: FLD2005-05042 ~ 1254 Grove Street Owner/Applicant: Patricia A. Bilotta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOPA, LLC. ~es no Level Two Application .. .. 6. Case: FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Coates 1, ptc. ~yes Level Two Application no 7. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas Level Two Application yes l/no 8. Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay ESP7de Properties, LLC ~ yes no Level Two Application 9. Case: FLD2005-06057/TDR2005-07023 - 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner: Seawake Motel, Lt~ ~yes no Level Two Application 10. Case: FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Clea~r Grande Development, LLC yes no Level Two Application 11. Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401,411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Boldog, Trustee for M & J Trust. ~es no 12. Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc ~ no 13. Case: FLD2005-06056 - 475 East Shore Drive Owner: Parkdale, LLC Level Two Application yes /no 14. Case: FLD2005-07063 - 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. Level Two Application Vyes no 2 ~ . LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 -6) 1. Case: LUZ2005-05009 - 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/Applicant: Aubrey and Caroline Wilkes. Level Three Application yes no 2. Case: ANX2005-04015 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Owner: Rottlund Homes. Level Three Application yes no 3. Case: ANX2005-06020 - 3137 San Jose Street Owner: Adam Saldana. Level Three Application yes no 4. Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Owner: City of Clearwater Level Three Application yes no 5. Case: ANX2005-06023 - 1932 Summit Drive Owner: Corinne Davis Level Three Application yes no 6. Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Owner: Gus DiGiovanni, Renaissance Oaks, LLC V;es Level Three Application no REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1. Case: DV A2004-00002A - 301 South Gulfview Boulevard owner/APjaPlicant~: ::".1 BZ ~ Signature: _ _ DATE: . Level Three Application 9/ 19} os- S:\Planning Departrnent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 3 " " o ~v-.v ~"'~~ '" \)'? . i\ \0 ~c ~ ," yO"fl 1. \) 1.\\ . \C '-1\;; i>"''' p ~e( ','(\'3-\ ;;\ "",\~'i . 'be~V~~ C "Qc<';;o ~~\'>'~ i>'~\e.. 0<.\ 0'(\ ~ CO _~I e\\~~ \\(?i\~ ~..e ~ \~~eS e<(so~'3- \eO- '3- V co<.\o.v.c AlC;;' , "0,,,,0 ~t;\~e ....O~e~" ~ r~ \V~ . ~"Q'" <.\%~~" \O\\O~\~ \~1~ ~O,,~ QQ6. / as,Q \ '3.\e"'- . ~\.;\)'}.lJ C\e'3.~ \\0 \. C~S.' ,...C\\~ 0\ ~ \1\)'. ~.l\".S J ~eS \ / ~ ~\S (\\Ct\\$ '\\ 0 \.~ :\' \' '-' \ C 1'> -c~'-' '\~ 0 ~ S \ y,~~ ~S~\"';,~~~ ~S\\o..,~OS ~p Q6.,/6 l,C '3.~ f)'}.QasJJS ~'3.\\O\\'3-\' \.J . c~.., \'\> ,~e"\ \"," i\o ,lJ "e.s',1' ~ O~i '1eS ~ (\ S\!eet A'1. C\e'Je\'3.~ 60)~ / \'}. '1.Q05-0 C~se" ~'-'\) . 't1i'~'3.'i> ~'1. s' R'3.\\\\ O~l\e~ . pes Uro\e'J'3-ru ..,~"'a / 106 U'3-~~~o~~t\u\\\S, LLC ~~5-a I\J I . .\'e Co~ . r\.JD'1.'-'\J \\ I'oo1"SW Or C~se. I ~\l\l\\c,~l\t~ '3. no O~l\e~ ____...e- yes Level TWO APplication . 11 -~ licctt\O ~~ .. 1 'fwD MP ~S) \r{ V"e :\)~~'J;J Co~~t ~~ . 1'1 1 licClt\O 1 'fwD APP V"e r catiOn l TWO j\pP \ Leve t\.o ------- Level TwO APplication ;) Drive <) C01"( 06\ / '}.t: . f)'1.0Q5.Q1 Ue'3-c\\, W i 1\, C~se~ ~~ '2,u\\1"\se 0\\ \ne ,-/ O~\\e~' /, _no y--'1es Level Two Application Ie Street 1[fJSSJSr:A 1 ~ I:tta & Lorri S. Ritter; LOP A, LLC. C se' t,-,D t. }>'3-\r\c, / S. ;",~erII'VV\\e~__yo 1 . l. Level Two Application ,,'6. Case: FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Coates ~Inc, v yes no 7. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive 4' Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas J yes Level Two Application no ~~ Case: FLD2005-07065 - 64 Bay Esplanade and 566 Bay Esplanade Owner/Applicant: Bay Esplanade Properties, LLC Level Two Application vi no yes /9. Case: FLD2005-06057/TDR2005-07023 - 691 South Gulfview Boulevard \.-..../ Owner: Seawake Motel, LJd V yes no Level Two Application {~,9. Case: FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Cle~r;rater Grande Development, LLC vi yes no Level Two Application ,fl. Case: FLD2005-07068 - 401, 411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application '.' Owners: Canterbury Property Management, Inc., TLS Holdings, Inc., Canterbury Oaks, Inc. and Dorothy C. Boldog, Trustee for M & J Trust. / yes no ,12. Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises, Inc \/ no yes 13. Case: FLD2005-06056 - 475 East Shore Drive Owner: Parkdale, LLC /' yes Level Two Application no '14. Case: FLD2005-07063 - 1200 North Betty Lane Owner/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. / 1/ no Level Two Application yes 2 . '- LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 -6) 1. Case: LUZ2005-05009 - 1532 S. Highland Avenue and a portion of 1536 S. Highland Avenue Owner/Applicant: Aubrey and Caroline Wilkes. Level Three Application yes / no l> 2. Case: ANX2005-040l5 - 2695 2nd Avenue S. Owner: Rottlund Homes. Level Three Application yes vi no 3. Case: ANX2005-06020 - 3137 San Jose Street Owner: Adam Saldana. Level Three Application yes )/ . no 4. Case: ANX2005-06022 - 1715 Keene Road Owner: City of Clearwater Level Three Application yes J no 5. Case: ANX2005-06023 - 1932 Summit Drive Owner: Corinne Davis Level Three Application yes I no 6. Case: ANX2005-07024 - 2275 McMullen Booth Road Owner: Gus DiGiovanni, Renaissance Oaks, LLC Level Three Application yes j no REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to a date uncertain) (Item 1): 1. Case: DV A2004-00002A - 301 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: Crystal Beach Capital, LLC Signature: ~~~ Level Three Application DATE: 9//1 /D~ { S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 3