11/15/2005
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 15, 2005
Present: David Gildersleeve
Alex Plisko
Kathy Milam
J. B. Johnson
Thomas Coates
Dana K. Tallman
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Daniel Dennehy
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes.
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Michael L. Delk
Gina Clayton
Patricia O. Sullivan
Attorney for the Board
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
. C - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 18, 2005
Member Johnson moveu to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 18,
2005, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not
vote.
D - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (to December 20,2005) (Items 1- 4):
1.
Level Three Application
Case: Amendment to 8each by Design Special Area Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines that revise the allowable uses and maximum heights set forth in Section II,
Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida District" and that deletes the reference to a
live/work product in Section II, Future Land Use, Subsection C. the Marina Residential District.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
1
.
Member Coates moved to continue Item 01, Case: Amendment to Beach by Design
Special Area Plan to December 20, 2005. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
2. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2005-1 0013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department.
Representative: Shaieii"Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
Location: 8 acres generally located west of Mandalay Avenue and east of the Gulf of
Mexico, north of Kendall Street and south of Acacia Street (including the parcels fronting
Somerset Street).
Atlas Page: 258A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort
Facilities High (RFH) Category; and
b) Rezoning from the Mediunl High Density Residential (MHDR) District to Tourist (T) District.
Proposed Use: Residential and Overnight Accommodations.
Type of Amendment: Small Scale.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
.
Member Plisko moved to continue Item 02, LUZ2005-1 0013 -.A. portion of the "Old
Florida District" on Clearwater Beach to December 20, 2005. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Altemate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
3. Level Three Application
Case: T A2005-1 0003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, City Attorney's Office
Request: Amendments to Community Development Code approving a settlement agreement
between the City of Clearwater and National Advertising Company and its parent company,
Viacom Outdoor, Inc., regarding current litigation, providing for phased removal of certain
billboards located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road, providing for maintenance,
repair and reconstruction of the billboards, providing that in the event development or
redevelopment of a covered property occurs, National shall be entitled to relocate and
reconstruct the billboard on said property pending removal, within setback requirements and
without size or height increases, providing for mutual releases, providing for enforcement,
providing for filing of a joint motion for stipulated final judgment, providing for modifications
which may arise from the hearing process, and related provisions.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clealwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney.
Member Coates moved to continue Item 03, T A2005-1 0003 Amendments to the
Community Development Code to December 20, 2005. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15 "
2
.
.
.
4. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and petrit
Meroli).
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street,Suite 930, Cle8rwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspi-ing.com).
Location: 0.30 acre located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset
Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit eight attached dwellings in the Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the minimum lot area from 15,000
square-feet to 13,087 square-feet, reductions to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 120 feet
along Bay Esplanade and from 150 feet to 110 feet along Somerset Street, a reduction to the
front (west) setback from 25 feet to 22 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (south)
setback from 25 feet to 11 feet (to building and pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash
staging area), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 3.1 feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase to
building height from 30 feet to 46.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for perimeter
parapets (from roof deck) and to permit the building within the visibility triangles, as a
Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and a reduction to the
landscape buffer along Bay Esplanade from five feet to three feet (for the retention pond
planting area), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Somerset Street from 10 feet to zero
feet (to trash staging area) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north property line
from 10 feet to 3.1 feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.8.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (eight condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net; and Coral Resort Condominium (Peggy Harnung,
483 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-3711; e-mail:
coraI443@aol.com).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item 04, FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay
Esplanade to December 20,2005. The motion was duly seconded. Members Milam, Johnson,
Coates, Tallman, Fritsch, Chair Gildersleeve, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"
Member Plisko abstained. MotiOn carried.
E -CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 1 - 10)
Community Development 2005-11-15
3
.
.
.
1.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald and Karen Kazan.
Applicant: Newkirk Ventures, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.676 acre located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 300 feet
south of Skiff Point.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a pool to a previously u
approved attached dwelling project (FLD2005-05045, approved August 16, 2005) in the Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet
to zero feet (to pool deck), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
404.F.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (26 condominiums) with pool.
Neighborhood Associations: Island Estates Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #239,
Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237); Dolphin Cove Condo Association (255 Dolphin
Point, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail: dlphincove1@netzero.com); Village
on Island Estates (Tom Baiocco, 240 Windward Passage, Unit 803, Clearwater, FL 33767;
phone: 727-461-3861; e-mail: narctom@msn:com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug
Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail:
Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.676 acres is located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 300 feet south
of Skiff Point. The site has 144.65 feet of frontage on Island Way and currently is developed
with 26 attached dwellings in a two-story, U-shaped building. There is some covered parking
along the west side of t1-IE: uuiiding. All existing improvements, excluding the dock, are planned
to be demolished.
On August 16, 2005, the COB (Community Development Board) approved Case:
FLD2005-05045, with 11 conditions of approval, permitting the redevelopment of this site with
26 attached dwelling units, replacing the existing residential development. This proposal
included a building with four floors of dwellings and parking under the building and in open
areas on the west side of the site.
The property to the direct north at 415 Island Way presently is developed with 12
attached dwellings in a two-story building on the east side of the property, but was approved by
the COB to redevelop the site with 20 attached dwellings (FLD2005-04035, approved August
16, 2005), also with a pool adjacent to the seawall.
The proposal is to add a pool area to the rear of the property adjacent to the seawall.
This pool was not proposed with the original proposal approved by the COB, but did include an
amenities room on the second floor for the residents. This proposal includes a reduction to the
rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pool deck). Current development practices
place the pool area at the rear of the property, which is generally the most private area of the
property (even if on a canal with detached dwellings on the other side of the canal), with a pool
Community Development 2005-11-15
4
.
.
.
deck at a zero setback. The property to the north at 415 Island Way was also approved by the
COB with a pool in a similar location and setback as this proposal. The site grading plan will
need to be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to indicate the pool deck elevation not
exceeding one-foot above grade and the seawall. The elevation of the seawall adjacent to the
pool location currently is approximately 3.2 feet. Any increase to the seawall elevation will need
to be justified to staff. While not indicated, pool fencing will need to be non-opaque within the
waterfront visibility triangle. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks are still
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 and is compatible with surrounding development.
The setback reduction requested is to a non-building structure and would most likely been
approved at the requested setback if it had been included in the prior request for this property
(FLD2005-05045).
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residentiallnfill Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) have
been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.676 acre is zoned Medium High Density Residential
District and has 144.65 feet of lot width; 2) The site is currently developed with 26 attached
dVv'ellings, which is nonconforming to current density limitations, in a two-story building not
meeting current FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) requirements; 3) On
August 16, 2005, the COB approved Case FLD2005-05045, with 11 conditions of approval,
. permitting the redevelopment of this site with 26 attached dwelling units to replace the existing
residential development. The approved development proposal included a building with four
floors of dwellings and parking under the building and in open areas on the west side of the site;
4) This proposal is to add a pool area to the rear of the property adjacent to the seawall, which
was not included in the original proposal, at a zero-foot rear setback; 5) Current development
practices place the pool area at the rear of the property; 6) The property to the north at 415
Island Way was also approved by the COB with a pool in a similar location and setback as this
proposal; 7) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 8) There are no
active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-4U4.F; 2) Staff further
concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-
913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above f!ndings and proposed
conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials on September 29, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the
Flexible Development application to permit the addition of a pool to a previously approved
attached dwelling project (FLD2005-05045, approved August 16, 2005) in the Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to
zero feet (to pool deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, .
for the site at 405 Island Way, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1)
The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per
Section 2-404.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including
the General Applicability CritE::!ria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with
the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of
Community Development 2005-11-15
5
.
.
.
Approval: (* Previously imposed under Case: FLD2005-05045) 1)* That the final design and
color of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified
by, the COB; 2)* That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of
any permits; 3)* That the windows and sliding glass doors on the front elevation be coordinated
with that indicated on the floor plans prior to the issuance of the building permit; 4)* That the site
and landscape plans be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to show a four-foot high,
landscaped opaque fence or wall along the west, north and south property lines to screen off-
street parking from the adjacent parcels and roadway; 5)* That boats moored at the existing or
future dock, lifts and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the
condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 6)*
That future signage meet the requirements of the Code and any freestanding sign be a
monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height, designed to match the exterior materials
and colors of the building; 7)* That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building
Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 8)* That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to
the proposed buildings) be placed underground; 9)* That a condominium plat be recorded prior
to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 10)* That all Parks and Recreation fees be
paid prior to the issuance oj any permits; 11)* That all Fire Department requirements be met
prior to the issuance of any permits, including any extension of the fire riser to the north for the
future docks; 12) That the site grading plan be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to -
indicate the pool deck elevation not exceeding one-foot above grade and the seawall; and 13)
That the pool fencing be non-opaque within the waterfront visibility triangle.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Wayne Wells as
an expert witness.
Member Coates moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
general planning, zoning, site plan analysis, and code administration. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request and said the added conditions relate to the
new request to add Cl swirrHlling pool to the rear of the property.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said this request is only for setback related to a small
swimming pool.
Member Milam moved to approve Item E1, Case: FLD2005-08086 for 405 Island Way
based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report, with Bases of
Approval and _Conditions of Approval, as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board iv1ember Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-11-15
6
.
.
.
2. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.312 acre located at the southeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset
Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit eight attached dwellings in the Tourist (T)
District with a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to 13 feet (to water feature),
reductions to the front (north) setback along Somerset Street from 15 feet to 12.67 feet (to
building), from 15 feet to 9.83 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging
area), a reduction to the side ( east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase
to building height from 35 feet to 46.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for
perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and to permit the building within the visibility triangles,
under the provisions of Section 2-803. B.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (eight condominiums).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; a-mail: Djvi@gte.net; and Coral Resort Condominium (Peggy Harnung,
483 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-3711; e-mail:
coraI443@aol.com). .
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest.
The 0.312 acre is loc~ted at the southeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset
Street. The site is a parallelogram corner lot with dimensions of 110 feet deep by 125 feet wide.
The site currently is developed with the two-story, 13-unit Water's Edge Apartments on the north
side and a duplex on the south side. All existing buildings and other site improvements will be
demolished. It is noted that a portion of a driveway for the property to the south encroaches
onto this site and is proposed to be removed as part of this proposal.
Properties to the north, west and south are developed with a mixture of attached
dwellings and overnight accommodation uses. This site is located in the "Old Florida District" of
Beach by Design. Many properties within this district are undergoing change, where existing
developments are being demolished and new attached dwelling buildings will be constructed.
The proposal includes the construction of an eight-unit residential building 46.83 feet tall
(to roof deck). Two dwellings per floor with approximately 2,227 square-feet of living area each
are proposed on four floors. A total of 13 parking spaces are proposed, primarily located under
the building. A pool is proposed to the east of the building adjacent to the seawall.
The proposal includes a request for a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 feet
to 13 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (north) setback along Somerset Street from
15 feet to 12.67 feet (to building), from 15 feet to 9.83 feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet to
zero feet (to trash staging area) and a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero
Community Development 2005..11-15
7
.
feet (to pool deck). The design of the proposed building includes a water feature in the center of
the building facing Bay Esplanade, extending two feet from the base of the building. The
building otherwise meets the minimum 15-foot front setback from Bay Esplanade. The building
has been designed parallel with Bay Esplanade.
The lot is a parallelogram, which creates angles to the north and south sides of the
rectangular building in relation to lot lines. The building, pavement backup flair and pool deck
exceeds the required 10-foot side setback, being located 11 feet from the south property line.
Due to the angles created with the building parallel on the lot with Bay Esplanade, the proposal
includes a reduction to the front setback adjacent to Somerset Street of 12.67 feet to the
building. Somerset Street dead-ends at the east side of this property. With the placement of
the building and the angles of property lines, the northwest corner of the building is located 22
feet from the Somerset Street property line.
The proposal includes one parking space outside the building on the northwest corner at .
a front setback of 9.83 feet adjacent to the driveway and approximately 12 feet at the northwest
corner of the parking space. Somerset Street currently acts as a parking area for the existing
development on this site. The proposal eliminates this practice and places all but this one
parking space under the building. The minimum required parking is exceeded by only one
space. While this space could be eliminated, parking exceeding the current minimum
requirement for attached dwellings is encouraged. Landscaping in excess of minimum Code
requirements is proposed adjacent to this parking space to adequately screen this parking
space from view from the rights-of-way.
.
With regard to the front setback reduction from Somerset Street related to the trash
staging area, the building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor within the
parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The
location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity
of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments.
This proposal includes a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to
pool deck). Current development practices place the pool area adjacent to the waterside of the
property, which is generally the most 'private area of the property, with a pool deck at a zero
setback. The CDB has approved other properties along the water within the "Old Florida
District" with a pool in a similar location and setback as this proposal. These proposed front and
side setbacks are consistent with or exceed the setbacks approved within the Tourist District for.
similar projects within this "Old Florida District."
The proposal includes 13 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirement by
one space, accessed from a diiveway from Somerset Street. On-site parking meeting Code
requirements will replace on-street parking within Somerset Street and eliminate parking that
requires vehicles to back into the right-of-way for maneuvering, producing safer conditions.
New public sidewalks will be constructed within the rights-of-way for both Bay Esplanade and
Somerset Street, reducing impacts between pedestrians and motorists and increasing the safety
for this area.
.
An increase to building height from 35 feet to 46.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional
4.17 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) is included in this proposal. Pursuant to
Section 2-803, the Tourist District allows a height of 35 feet that may be increased to a
Community Development 2005-11-15
8
.
.
.
maximum height of 100 feet, b::::sed upon meeting certain criteria. However, as the subject
property is located within the "old Florida District" of the Beach by Design special area plan,
height is further limited by the standards set forth in the Plan as being low to mid-rise in
accordance with the Community Development Code. 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 which 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 Community Development Code, based upon the height standards
set forth in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Tourist (T), and High Density
Residential (HDR) Districts, the Planning Department has previously interpreted "mid-rise"
development as having a maximum height of 50 feet.
On 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.
As stated previously, the proposal includes a front setback to the proposed building
adjacent to Bay Esplanade equal to the minimum required setback, less than the minimum
required setback adjacent to Somerset Street and exceeding the minimum side setbacks (south
and east). This application was submitted prior to, and therefore could not anticipate, City
Council's new policy direction. The proposed building with four living floors over ground level
parking at a height of 46.83 feet (to roof deck) is consistent with the new policy direction, as this
site falls into both the 50-foot and 65-foot building height. The building, however, is inconsistent
with this new policy direction in that it does not incorporate any increased setback or step back
due to the building being designed greater than 35 feet in height.
The proposed building has been designed using an Old Florida vernacular style utilizing
a light-to-medium brown stone finish on the first two floors and other vertical portions of the
fac;ade for accent. The upper portions of the building fac;ade will be white stucco with banding at
the second and fourth levels. While the primary roof will be flat, pitched roofs finished with
shades of brown barrel tiles over the stair tower, balconies and end units will provide visual
interest to the perimeter of the roofline.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A, at street or driveway intersections no structure or
landscaping may be installed within the sight visibility triangle that will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches and eight feet above grade. There is a Medjool date palm proposed within
the visibility triangle at the street intersection that will need to be relocated to be outside of the
visibility triangle. A building column on the east side of the driveway is also located within the
Community Development 2005-11-15
9
.
.
.
visibility triangle. The visibility wil!" not be impacted, however, as Somerset Street dead ends at
the water at the east side of the property. Granting the ability for the column within the visibility
triangle will not result in the grant of a special privilege, as similar reductions could be supported
elsewhere under similar circumstances. Pursuant to Section 3-904.B, in order to enhance views
of the water from residential waterfront property, no structure or landscaping may be installed,
other than a fence around a swimming pool or any non-opaque fence not exceeding 36 inches
within the sight visibility triangles formed by the rear and side property lines. The proposal
includes hibiscus shrubs and an Oleander tree-form within the waterfront sight visibility triangle
at the southeast corner of the site, which will need to be removed.
The site will be extensively landscaped with a variety of trees (Gold Trumpet, Oleander
tree-form, Sabal palms, Mexican fan palms, Medjool date palms and Pygmy date palms),
shrubs (hibiscus, ixora and schejfjera arboricola) and ground covers (fakahatchee grass and
dwarf jasmine). A retention pond is proposed on the east side of the building adjacent to
Somerset Street and the seawall.
The applicant has not indicated any freestanding signage for this site. Any future
freestanding sign should meet the requirements of the Code, be a monument-style sign a
maximum four feet in height and be 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.B) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated
with this site.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.312 acre is located within the "Old Florida District" of
Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a 13-unit apartment building and a duplex
(which is nonconforming to current density maximums of 12 rooms or nine dwelling units); 3)
The proposal includes the demolition of the existing residential buildings and all existing site
improvements; 4) The subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan,
Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District"; 5) Proposed front and side setbacks are
consistent with or exceed the setbacks approved within the Tourist District for similar projects
within this "Old Florida District"; 6} The proposed building height is 46.83 feet as measured from
base flood elevationto roof deck; 7) The proposed building height at 46.83 feet is consistent
with the new City Council policy direction for the "Old Florida District," as this site falls into both
the 50-foot and 65-foot building height areas; 8) The building, however, is inconsistent with this
new City Council policy direction in that it does not incorporate any increased setback or step
back due to the building being designed greater than 35 feet in height; 9) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and color palette of Beach by Design; 10) The
proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 11) There are no active code
enforcement cases for the poreal.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria for attached dwellings per Section 2-803.B; 2) Staff further concludes that
the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the
other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, staff
recommends approval of this application.
Community Development 2005-11-15
10
.
.
.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005.
The Planning Department recommends approval for the Flexible Development application to
permit eight attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to the front (west)
setback from 15 feet to 13 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (north) setback along
Somerset Street from 15 feet to 12.67 feet (to building), from 15 feet to 9.83 feet (to pavement)
and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from
10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 46.83 feet (to
roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and to permit the
building within the visibility triangles, under the provisions of Section 2-803.B, for the site at 685
- 689 Bay Esplanade 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 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 a
Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a
condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 4) 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; 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 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; 7) That all applicable
requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 8) That all
Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all
substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project be brought up to
standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304); 10) That all unused
existing driveways/parking areas within the Bay Esplanade and Somerset rights-of-way be
removed and be sodded, acceptable to the Engineering Department; 11) That the encroaching
pavement along the south property line be removed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate
of Occupancy; 12) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan be revised to
remove the Medjool date palm from the visibility triangle at the street intersection and the shrubs
and tree from the waterfront sight visibility triangle in the southeast corner of the site; and 13)
That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical
and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they
are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Member Coates moved to approve Item 2E, Case: FLD2005-08088 for 685 - 689 Bay
Esplanade based on Findings Gf Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report, with
Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval, as listed. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, Fritsch, Chair Gildersleeve, and Alternate Board
Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Plisko abstained. Motion cairiea.
Community Development 2005-11-15
11
.
.
.
3. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Representative: Keiti-I" Zayac; Keith Zayac and Associates (701 Enterprise Road, Suite
404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; e-mail:
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: Flexible Development approval to permit 17 attached dwellings within the Tourist (T)
District with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 78 feet (to roof deck) with an
additional 14 feet for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to the front
(north) setback from 15 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: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
On September 20,2005, the COB approved a Termination of Status of Nonconformity
(27 existing overnight accommodation units to be converted to 17 attached dwelling units,
where a maximum of 10 dwelling units would be permitted under current Code) associated with
a Flexible Development request for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The
balance of the development proposal was continued until November 15, 2005, with direction
given to the applicant to redesign the project to meet setbacks (with regard to the building and
parking) and to reduce the number of dwelling units (to the proposed 17). The applicant has
submitted revised drawings addressing the above issues and the application is now before the
Board for approval.
The 0.35-acre subject property, which is located along the south side of Brightwater
Drive between Coronado and Harnden Drives, has a zoning designation of Tourist (T) District
with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resoi1 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 the City's 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 consists of a one-story building with an accessory wood deck and
shuffleboard court. The development also consists of back-out parking in the Brightwater Drive,
Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive rights-of-way. The immediate vicinity is predominantly
comprised of overnight accommodation uses with nonresidential uses to the west along South
Gulfview Boulevard and attached dwellings to the east along Brightwater Drive.
Community Development 2005-11-15
12
.
The development proposal consists of the demolition of existing improvements on the
subject properties and the construction of a 78-foot high building (to mean roof) containing 17
condominium units that range in size from a 1,650 square-foot two-bedroom unit to a 2,260
square-foot two-bedroom unit with den.
Existing back-out parking within the Brightwater Drive and Hamden Drive rights-of-way
will be removed and replaced with sod and a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the property
line, while the back-out parking within the Coronado Drive right-of-way will be removed and
replaced with sod and on-street parking. 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 pavilion.
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
balance of the block, are associated with the approved development for 325 South Gulfview
Boulevard (Lucca Development). Therefore, there is no opportunity for consolidation of the
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). The
development proposal has provided a 15-foot setback to the building from all property lines;
however a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement) is
required. The requested reduction to the front (north) setback is to accommodate walkways to
the building and the refuse staging area, which can be supported.
It is noted that the development proposal currently before the COB has been modified to
locate the majority of the proposed parking below grade. Thus, there no longer is a need for a
setback reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), as was
previously part of this development proposal. As such, the revised development proposal is
consistent with the direction set forth by the COB.
Pursuant to Section 2-803; attached dwelling units require the provision of 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 17 attached dwelling units require a total of
26 parking spaces. The development proposal provides 20 parking spaces on the sublevel
parking area and six parking spaces on the ground level, for a total of 26 parking spaces; thus
the project complies with the requirements of code with regard to the provision of off-street
parking. It is noted that parking spaces #1 and #20 on the sublevel have limited visibility to the
drive aisle. It is attached as a condition of approval that measures to enhance the sight visibility
of these parking spaces are accommodated prior to the issuance of any building permits. It is
further noted that the proposed elevation of the sublevel (-4.0) is below the seasonal high water
table (+2.75); therefore it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any
building permits the means by which seepage and accumulated water will be evacuated from
the sublevel must be identified and deemed acceptable by the City's Engineering Department.
Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings within the Tourist (T) District have a
standard maximum height of 35 feet with a maximum permissible height of 100 feet, based
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
13
.
.
.
upon compliance with the performance standards set forth in Section 2-803.B.3. The height of
the proposed building measures 78 feet (to mean roof) with an additional 14 feet for
architectural embellishments. It is noted that while the proposed building measures 78 feet in
height, a reduction of five feet from what was previously proposed, this constitutes only one-half
of the building. The balance of the building measures approximately 53 feet in height. As such,
the proposed height of the building is now more proportionate to its width than what was
previously proposed. The increase in height from 35 feet to 78 feet is consistent with the
requirements of Section 2-803, and the requested additional 14 feet for architectural
embellishments can be supported, as these elements are minimal in number and size, and will
result in a varied roofline and improved building aesthetics.
The development proposal includes the provision of a "trash room" along the north side
of the building as well as a 1 a-foot by 1 a-foot dumpster and recycling staging area within the
front setback area along Brightwater Drive. While the proposed staging area accommodates
space for recycling containers, it appears that the "trash room" does not have sufficient space to
accommodate any recycling containers. It is attached as a condition of approval that the
development proposal is revised to provide adequate accommodations for recycling containers
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
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
byDesign, 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 "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. It is noted that Beach by Design does not
specifically put forth guidelines for the redevelopment of property within that portion of the
"Small Motel District" between Coronado and Hamden Drives, but does contemplate that
existing improvements will be sustained over time.
It is noted on July 19, 2005, the COB approved a development proposal on the abutting
property to the south, which included the construction of a 64-foot high building on said
property. As discussed previously with regard to building height, one-half of the subject
development proposal measures 78 feet in height (to mean roof), while the balance measures
approximately 53 feet in height. Based upon the above, the average height of the building is
roughly 65 feet, which will be consistent with the emerging development pattern for this portion
of the "Small Motel District."
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the intent and purpose
of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design with regard to density, height, scale/mass,
setbacks, and parking areas. Further, the proposed color palette for the development, which
consists of dark beige (S'vV2018), pale yellow-green (SW2353), pale yellow-green (SW2354),
pale green (SW2367), pale blue (SW241 a), and light tan (SW2445), has been found to be
consistent with the recommended color palette set forth in the Design Guidelines of Beach by
Design.
Community Development 2005-11-15
14
.
Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard to the development
proposals compliance with the Beach by Design special area redevelopment plan. There are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with this site.
.
The Planning DApartmAnt recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval
to permit 17 attached dwellings within the Tourist (T) District with an increase to building height
from 35 feet to 78 feet (to mean roof) with an additional 14 feet for architectural embellishments
(from mean roof), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 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., based upon the following recommended Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law, and conditions of approval: Findinqs 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 subject property was previously approved by the COB at its meeting of September 20, 2005,
for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for 27 existing overnight accommodation units to be
converted to 17 attached dwelling units, where a maximum of 10 dwelling units would have
otherwise been permitted by Code; 4) That the adjacent properties are zoned Tourist (T)
District, and developed with overnight accommodations and noniesidential uses to the west
along South Gulfview Boulevard and attached dwellings to the east along Brightwater Drive; 5)
That the proposed building measures 78 feet in height (to mean roof); 6) That there are no
pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 7) That the development proposal is
consistent with the "Small Motel District" of Beach by Design; 8) That the development proposal
is consistent with the Design Guidelines and color palette of Beach by Design and further that
those colors consist of: dark beige (SW2018), pale yellow-green (SW2353), pale yellow-green
(SW2354), pale green (SW2367), pale blue (SW241 0), and light tan (SW2445); 9) That the
rlevelopment proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria of Section 3-913.A;
and 10) That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment criteria of Section 2-803.C.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That any/all required Parks and Recreation fees are paid prior
to the issuance of a building permit; 2) That any/all required Transportation Impact Fees are
paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 3) That the final design and color of the
building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the COB,
and be approved by staff; 4) 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; 5) That all Fire
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That all Traffic
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 7) That all signage meet
the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly
to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to
proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved
by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and
coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size and b) All signs be
Community Development 2005-11-15
15
.
.
.
constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and
architectural style of the building; 8) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work
performed in the public right-of-way; 9) That the first building permit be applied for within one
year of the COB approval (by November 15, 2006); 10) That the final Certificate of Occupancy
be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; 11) 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; 12) That measures to enhance
the sight visibility of these parking spaces are accommodated prior to the issuance of any
building permits; 13) That prior to the issuance any building permits the means by which
seepage and accumulated water will be evacuated from the sublevel must be identified and
deemed acceptable by the City's Engineering Department; and 14) That the development
proposal is revised to provide adequate accommodations for recycling containers prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Robert Tefft as an expert witness.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of Land
Use Planning, Site Plan Review, and Zoning. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Member Plisko was absent. .
Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. Concern was expressed that Item 3, under
the Findings of Fact are incorrect as the density had not been approved previously.
Ed Armstrong, representative, said the applicant had spent a significant amount of time
redesigning the project based on COB direction. In response to a question, Richard Gillette,
representative, said the water feature is similar to logia, and is 11 feet tall.
One person spoke in support of the project.
Concerns were expressed that the project is not catalytic. approval would establish a
precedent, and the project is an egregious overdevelopment of the property, as the number of
requested units is 70% greater than what is permitted. It was felt the request has not been
justified.
Member Fritsch moved to deny Item E3, Case: FLD2005-07066 for 342 Harnden Drive
and 343 Coronado Drive as the application is not consistent with General Applicability
Standards as the proposed development of the land will not be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located and the proposed
development is not designed to minimize traffic congestion, based on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. The motion was duly seconded. Members Fritsch and Milam voted "Aye";
Members Johnson; Coates, Tallman, Chair Gildersleeve and Alternate Member Dennehy voted
"Nay"; Member Plisko was absent. Motion failed.
Member Coates moved to approve Item 3E, Case: FLD2005-07066 for 342 Hamden
Drive and 343 Coronado Drive based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the
Staff report, with Conditions of Approval as listen. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Johnson, Coates, Tallman, Chair Gildersleeve and Alternate Member Dennehy voted "Aye";
Members Fritsch and Milam voted "Nay"; Member Plisko was absent. Motion carried.
Community Development 2005-11-15
16
.
.
.
4 Case: FLD2005-0808? - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Anthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach 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; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.348 acre on the south side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 200 feet east of
Poinsettia Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request:
1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (11 existing attached dwelling units to
remain where a maximum of 10 attached dwelling units would be permitted under current Code
2) Transfer of Development Riahts (TDR2005-03019) of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater
Drive under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403; and
3) Flexible Development approval to permit 13 attached dwelling units in the Tourist (T) District
with an increase to height from 35 feet to 59.66 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 42 inches
for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to
two feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool
deck), a reduction to the side- (west) setback from 10 feet to 1.5 feet (to pavement), a reduction
to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pool deck), and
to allow five parking spaces to encroach within the required sight visibility triangles along Bay
Esplanade as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net);
Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone:
727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); and Coral Resort Condominium (Peggy
Harnung, 483 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-3711; e-mail:
coraI443@aol.com).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 0.348-acre subject property, which is located on the south side of Bay Esplanade,
approximately 200 feet east of Poinsettia Avenue, has a zoning designation of Tourist (T)
District with an underlying compatible Future Land Use Plan category of Resort Facilities High
(RFH). The subject 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 property at 657
Bay Esplanade consists of seven rental apartments (Sea Chest Inn), while the property at 663
Bay Esplanade consists of four rental apartments. Combined, the site consists of two single-
story buildings and one split-level building with back-out parking into the Bay Esplanade right-of-
way. The immediate vicinity is composed almost entirely of attached dwellings (duplexes and
triplexes) and single-family dwellings farther to the north.
It is noted that on August 16, 2005, the COB denied a development proposal on the
subject property similar to what presently is before the Board. The application has been revised
to reduce the proposed building height and modify the architectural elevations of the building.
These revisions have been deemed substantial enough to bring the revised application before
the Board.
Community Development 2005-11-15 -
17
.
The development proposal consists of the construction of a 59.66-foot high building (to
roof deck) containing a total of 13 attached dwelling units. The first three habitable levels will
contain three dwelling units each, while the upper two levels will contain two dwelling units each.
The dwelling units wiil consist of at least three bedrooms and will range in size between 2,009
square-feet and 4,139 square-feet.
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 and deck at the southeast corner of the property.
Parking will be provided at ground level with the majority located beneath the proposed building,
and a solid waste staging area will be located on the at the northwest corner of the property.
Pursuant to Section 2-803, the Tourist (T) District allows a standard maximum height of
35 feet that may be increased io a maximum height of 100 feet, based upon meeting certain
criteria. However, as the subject property is located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach
by Design special area plan, height is further limited by the standards set forth in the Plan as
being low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Developmeni Code. Analysis with
regard to the proposed building height is part of the Beach by Design analysis.
.
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 proposed building
has been designed to either meet or exceed these setback requirements with the exception of
the rear (south) setback where a reduction to 10 feet has been requested. The reduction to 10
feet will not prevent access to the rear of the building by emergency vehicles and will result in
an improved site plan/design through the provision of a larger front (north) setback. As such,
the requested reduction is consistent with the flexibility criteria associated with reducing the rear
setback.
In addition to the above. reductions have also been requested to the front (north)
setback to two feet and the side (west) setback to 1.5 feet to accommodate the refuse staging
area; and to the side (east) and iear (south) setbacks to zero feet to accommodate the deck
associated with the swimming pool. With regard to the reductions associated with the refuse
staging area, these are necessary in order to accommodate this type of facility and are therefore
supportable. It is noted, however, that this reduction also will allow for the required off-street
parking spaces to be set back f!ve feet from the north property line. These parking spaces will
be screened from view from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way by five-foot wide perimeter
landscape areas. With regard to the reductions to the rear (south) and side (east) setbacks the
reduced area for the deck will constitute approximately 27.7% of the rear yard 22.5% of the side
yard ana similar reductions have been supported in the past.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A., at street or driveway intersections, no structure or
landscaping may be installed within the sight visibility triangle that will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above gmde and eight feet above grade. The development proposal
includes the provision of five parking spaces within the various sight visibility triangles along Bay
Esplanade. While the parking spaces themselves will not encroach into the sight visibility
triangle in a manner conflicting with Section 3-904.A., when the parking spaces are in use, the
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
18
.
visibility will be impacted and the sight visibility triangles reduced from 20 feet to five feet. The
applicant has requested that the sight visibility triangles be reduced accordingly.
Granting the requested reduction to the dimensions of the sight visibility triangles will not
adversely affect the neighboring area or diminish the provision of public facilities. Further, when
the sight visibility triangles are measured from the typical position of the driver in the vehicle to
the edge of pavement for Bay Esplanade,. 22-foot sight visibility triangles will exist. Granting the
rediJctions will not result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions could be
supported elsewhere under similar circumstances. Based upon the above, positive findings can
be made with respect to reducing the sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 3-904.A.
In addition, pursuant to Section 3-904.B., in order to enhance views of the water from
residential waterfront property, no structure or landscaping may be installed, other than a fence
around a swimming pool or any non-opaque fence not exceeding 36 inches within the sight
visibility triangles formed by the rear and side property lines. The development proposal
includes the provision of three Queen Palms at the southeast corner of the property that must
be removed, based upon the above and is attached as a condition of approval.
Pursuant to Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable density within the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) Future Land Use category is 30 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the 0.348-acre
subject property is permitted a maximum of 10 attached dwelling units; however the
development proposal submitted by the applicant is for 13 attached dwelling units.
.
It is noted that the density of the subject property is presently nonconforming with 11
attached dwellings units, and the applicant has submitted an application for Termination of
Status of Nonconformity to retain the excess density. In addition to this, the applicant has
submitted a TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) of two dwelling units to the subject property
from 116 Brightwater Drive. The.requests for Termination of Status of Nonconformity and
Transfer of Development Rights are discussed below.
As noted, the development proposal includes a request for termination of status of
nonconformity to permit 11 existing attached dwelling units to remain on site where a maximum
of 10 attached dwelling units would be permitted under current Code. 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 deveiopment proposal.
Pursuant to Section 4-1402, parcels governed by a special area plan, such as Beach by
Design, may only.receive density transfers from parcels within the same special area plan and
may not exceed the otherwise applicable maximum density by more than 20%. Based upon the
above, the subject property can receive a TOR for a maximum of two dwelling units. The TOR
application submitted proposes the transfer of two dwelling units from 116 Brightwater Drive,
which is located within the Beach by Design special area plan, the same as the subject
property. The maximum number of permitted attached dwelling units for the 116 Brightwater
Drive property is ten dwelling units. It is noted that the site has recently been developed with six
attached dwellings and therefore has four excess dwelling units available for transfer. Based
upon the above, the proposed TOR is consistent with the requirements of Section 4-1402. The
TOR is also consistent with the criteria as set forth in Section 4-1403.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
19
.
.
.
The floor plan submitted for the fifth and sixth levels are supposed to accommodate only
two dwelling units on each level. However, there is a serious concern with the design of one of
these dwelling units. Specifically, the concern is that the unit has been designed with a "mother-
in-law" suite that has its own separate access to the internal lobby. As such, the unit could be
easily subdivided to become two separate sellable or rentable unit:s with separate kitchen and
living facilities. If this were to occur the development would have a density in excess of that
allowable by the Tourist (T) District, or by any Transfer of Development Rights. Therefore, it is
attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development Order the floor
plans for the fifth and sixth levels are redesigned to the satisfaction of staff to eliminate any/all
possibilities of the creation of any additional/illegal dwelling units.
Pursuant to Section 2-803, attached dwellings units require the provision of 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 13 attached dwelling units require a total of
20 parking spaces and the development proposal includes the provision of 23 ground level
parking spaces. 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 "trash room" toward the center of
the building. In addition, a -10-ioot by 1 O-foot trash/recycling staging area will be provided at the
northwest corner of the property. However, it is noted that the development plans depict the
proposed staging area as not abutting any other paved surface; thus for the purpose of access,
the staging area will need to be shifted toward the adjacent drive aisle and is attached as a
condition of approval.
The applicant is not proposing any signage with this development proposal. Any future
signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
All on-site utility facilities (Le. electric and telecommunication lines) are required to be
placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Provisions for the future
undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way must be
completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to
the utility companies and the City.
Pursuant to the definition of Height [ref.: Section 8-102], with regard to flat roofs, height
is measured to the highest finished surface. Further, provisions are made for elevator
equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment enclosures to pr'Ojecl past this above
described point; however no such provision exists for storage facilities. The development
proposal includes the provision of a roof top storage facility, which based upon the above would
increase the building height to approximately 70 feet, which is inconsistent with the current
standards of Beach by Design as well as the proposed revisions to the Old Florida District (see
below). As such it is attached as a condition of approval that the roof top storage facility is
eliminated and that revised plans are submitted depicting such prior to the issuance of a
Development Order.
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
Community Development 2005-11-15
20
.
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 which is defined as "an area of transition between resort uses
in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the iioi1h 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 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 previously interpreted "mid-rise" development as
having a maximum height of 50 feet. Accordingly, the proposed height of the building (59.66
feet to roof deck) would be inconsistent with the above definition of mid-rise development.
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.
.
As stated previously in this staff report, the development proposal provides a front
setback in excess of the code requirements and provides side setbacks that meet the
requirements of code. The rrovision of a larger front setback is consistent with the direction of
the City Council for the increase in building height. In addition, the building elevations
incorporate minor step backs of seven and nine feet along the front elevation and five and 13
feet along the rear elevation. Based upon the above, the development proposal and the
proposed height of 59.66 feet (to roof deck) would seem compatible with the new policy
direction set forth by the City Council.
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the intent and purpose
of the Design Guidelines of BeBch by Design with regard to density, height, scale/mass,
setbacks, and parking areas. Further, the proposed color palette for the development, which
consists of cream (SW6120) for the primary fac;ade, peach (SW6123) for the accents and trim,
and black for the balcony railings, has been found to be consistent with the recommended color
palette set forth in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to permit
13 attached dwelling units in the Tourist (T) District with an increase to height from 35 feet to
59.66 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 42 inches for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to two feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), a reduction to the side (west)
setback from 10 feet to 1.5 feet (to pavement), 2 reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20
feet to 10 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pool deck), to allow five parking spaces to encroach
within the required sight visibility triangles along Bay Esplanade as part of a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.,Termination of Status of
Community Development 2005-11-15
21
.
.
.
Nonconformity for density (11 existing attached dwelling units to remain where a maximum of 10
attached dwelling units would be permitted under current Code) under the provisions of Section
6-109; and a Transfer of Deveiopment Rights (TDR2005-03019) of two dwelling units from 116
Brightwater Drive under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403, based upon the following
recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of
Law: 1) That the 0.348-acre subject property is located 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 according to the City's occupational license records, the subject properties are
currently developed with a total of 11 attached dwelling units; 4) That there are no pending
Code Enforcement issues with the subject property; 5) That the proposed building height is
59.66 feet as measured from base flood elevation to roof deck; 6) That the subject property has
a maximum permissible density of 10 dwelling units (30 dwelling units per acre); 7) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and color palette of Beach by
Design and further that those colors consist of cream (SW6120) for the primary fac;ade, peach
(SW6123) for the accents and trim, and black for the balcony railings; 8) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Termination of Status of Nonconformity criteria as set forth in
Section 6-109; 9) That the deveiopment proposal is consistent with the Transfer of Development
Rights standards and criteria as set forth in Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403, respectively; 10) That
the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development standards as set forth in
Section 2-803; 11) That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment criteria as set forth in Section 2-803.C; and 12) That the development proposal
is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as set forth in Section 3-913.A.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits all Parks
and Recreation fees need to be paid; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
landscape plan is submitted that is acceptable to Planning Department staff; 3) That prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any/all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 4)
That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall
setbacks; 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; 7)
That conduit for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way is
installed along the subject property's entire street frontage prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy and that the applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of
conduits with all affected utility providers (Le. 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, prier to the issuance of any permits; 9) That all Traffic Department
requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That all signage meet the
requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to
the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to
proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved
by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes; 11) All signs fully dimensioned and
coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; 12) All signs be
constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and
architectural style of the building: 13) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work
performed in the public right-of-way; 14) That the first building permit be applied for within one
year of the CDB approval (by November 15, 2006); 15) That the final Certificate of Occupancy
Community Development 2005-11-15
22
.
.
.
be obtained within two years or issuance of the first building permit; 16) That all utility equipment
including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be
screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as
applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 17) That the landscape plan is
revised prior to the issuance of a Development Order to eliminate any/all landscaping proposed-
within the sight visibility triangles formed by the rear and side property lines; 18) That the
staging area is shifted to abut the adjacent drive aisle; 19) That prior to the issuance of a
Development Order the f!ocr plans for the fifth and sixth levels are redesigned to the satisfaction
of staff to eliminate any/all possibilities of the creation of any additional/illegal dwelling units; 20)
That the roof top storage facility is eliminated and that revised plans are submitted depicting
such prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 21) That any/all boats moored at the docks
be for the exclusive use of the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be sub-
leased separately from the condominiums; 22) That "Do Not Enter" signage is provided along
both sides of the egress drive aisle; and 23) That the proposed pond is a dry pond for water
quality treatment only, and that in accordance with City design criteria the dry pond shall be
grassed with slopes no greater than 4:1, and further that cross sections of the pond are
provided to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
See page 42 for motion of approval.
5. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 aild 420 Cleveland Street and 416 Laura Street
Owners: 400 Cleveland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura
Street Development, LLC.
Applicant: TH Management, LLC.
Representative: Mark Rieker (1020 N. Orlando Avenue, Suite 150, Maitland, FL 32751;
phone: 321-206-4123; fax: 407-628-2105; e-mail: mrieker@riekerassociates.com).
Location: 4.06 acres at the northeast and southeast corners of Osceola Avenue and
Laura Street. '
Atlas Page: 2868.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development in the Downtown
(D) District with 245 attached dwelling units (which includes an increase in density of 36
dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive
Pool) and 186,300 square-feet of non-residential floor area (restaurant, retail/movie theater, and
existing office), an increase in the permitted height from 30 feet to 380 feet (to roof deck) with an
additional 27 feet for architectural embellishments as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903. C.
Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (245 attached dwellings, 98,500 square-feet retail/restaurant/movie
theatre, and 87,800 square-feet office).
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 4.05-acre subject property comprises the majority of the block formed by Cleveland
Street on the south, North Fort Harrison Avenue on the east, Osceola Avenue on the west, and
is approximately 200 feet south of Drew Street. The property is within the Downtown (D) District
and the Downtown Core character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Community Development 2005-11-15
23
.
The subject property consists of several existing structures, including the 87,800 square-foot
AmSouth building that is located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola
Avenue. Additionally, approximately one-third of the subject property consists of paved parking.
The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including retail sales and services, business
and professional offices and restaurants.
The development proposal will retain the existing 87,800 square-foot AmSouth building
while the balance of the existing improvements on the subject property will be demolished. The
demolished improvements will be replaced with 245 attached dwelling units, 35,000 square-feet
of retail floor area, 8,500 square-feet of restaurant floor area, a ten-screen movie theatre
showing first-run movies, and a 1,213-space parking garage. It is noted that within the parking
garage, the City, by way of a separate development agreement, will control 360 of the proposed
parking spaces for use as public parking.
The development consists of two components. One component is located at the
northeast corner of Clevelanrl Street and Osceola Avenue, and consists of a proposed 65-foot
tall building (to roof deck) containing the movie theatre and a portion of the overall retail floor
area. This component also includes the provision of architectural improvements to the existing
1 OO-foot tall AmSouth building. The second component is located at the northeast corner of
Laura Street and Osceola Avenue, and consists of a proposed 380-foot tall building (to roof
deck) with an additional 27 feet for architectural embellishments. This component contains all of
the attached dwelling units, the restaurant floor area, the balance of the retail floor area, and the
parking garage.
.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Floor Area Ratio for
properties located within the Downtown Core character district is 4.0. The development
proposal consists of a total of 186,300 square-feet of nonresidential floor area, thereby leaving
2.98 acres to calculate the allowable residential density.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for attached dwellings within the Downtown Core character district is 70 dwelling units
per acre. Therefore, based upon the above with regard to the Floor Area Ratio, the remaining
2.98 acres of the subject property would permit a maximum of 209 attached dwelling units.
However, the deve-Iopment proposal consists of 245 attached dwelling units - 36 dwelling units
more than is allowable. As such, the applicant has requested the use of 36 dwelling units from
the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan. The development
proposal's compliance with the requirements for this additional density from the Pool is
discussed later.
Pursuant to Section 2-903, the maximum allowable height within the Downtown (D)
District is 100 feet. However, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan allows for those
properties within the Downtown Core character district to have no maximum height restriction.
The development proposal consists both a north and a south component. The proposed
height of the southern component is 65 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 13 feet for
architectural embellishments, and the proposed height of the northern component is 380 feet (to
roof deck) with an additional 27 feet for architectural embellishments. it is noted that with regard
to the southern component, the proposed height does not include the existing 1 OO-foot AmSouth
building that is to remain as part of this development proposal. Based upon the above, the
.
Community Development 2005-ti-15
24
.
development proposal is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan with
regard to height.
Pursuant to Section 2-903, parking is required to be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit for attached dwellings, three parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of
gross floor area for office, four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for retail
sales and service, and 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for
restaurants. At the above ratios, the proposed 245 attached dwellings (367.5), 87,800 square-
feet of office floor area (263.4), 90,000 square-feet of retail sales and service floor area (360)
and 8,500 square-feet of restaurant floor area (127.5) requires a total of 1,119 parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-1405, when any land, building or area is used for two or more
uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces
shall be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the
appropriate percentages listed in the table. The development proposal requires a minimum of
809 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 1,213 parking spaces will be provided; thus the
development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. It is noted that of the 404 excess
parking spaces, 360 will be controlled by the City for public parking as part of a separate
development agreement.
.
The components of the development proposal each include a service area accessed
from Laura Street. The service area for the northern portion of the development includes a
recycling holding area and a trash compactor, while the southern portion includes only the trash
compactor. The proposed solid waste facilities have been found to be acceptable by the City's
Solid Waste Department.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
All on-site utility facilities (Le. electric and telecommunication lines) are required to be
placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Provisions for the future
undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way must be
completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to
the utility companies and the City.
The subject property is located within the Downtown Core character district of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
states that a key component to diversify the Downtown Core is to attract residential uses with a
variety of housing types and prices with retail, restaurant and services to follow. The Plan
further states that the Downtown Core shall have the highest density for residential uses and the
highest intensity for reta1!, commercial and office uses.
To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to
live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public
Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non- ..
residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 36 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the
request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of 245 dwelling units
(including those requested from the Pool) in the Downtown Core, the construction of 360 City
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
25
.
.
.
controlled public parking on-site and streetscape improvements on Osceola Avenue, Fort
Harrison Avenue and Laura Street consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of these amenities, which are consistent with the
Clearwater Downtown Hedevelopment Plan, the request for 36 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported.
The development proposal consists of separate northern and southern components.
The southern componei1t, .....hich has frontage along Cleveland Street, is respectful of the
historic building, height and scale patterns along the right-of-way and has a proposed height of
65 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 13 feet for architectural embellishments. The ground .
level of the northern component consists of both nonresidential floor area and a parking garage.
The second through seventh levels will also consist of parking garage floor area, while the
balance of the structure consists of a residential tower with a proposed height of 380 feet (to
roof deck) with an additional 27 feet for architectural embellishments.
The architecture of the two components is consistent with one another and consists of
architectural pre-cast panels of varying appearances throughout the entirety of the southern
component and along the base and mid-section of the northern component with aluminum and
glass window systems, decorative screening, and aluminum and fabric awnings. The tower
section of the northern component is constructed of aluminum and glass window systems with
architectural pre-cast cornices and an aluminum clad roof feature. It is noted that the tower is
not solely comprised of aluminum and glass window systems, but also includes pre-cast panels
providing framing to some elements of the building and comprising a large section of the tower's
east elevation. .
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction
with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of
these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were
identified. Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the
existing street grid pattern shall be retained where it contributes to an active pedestrian
environment, and that blocks should be designed to promote easy pedestrian access and
encourage cross-use. The development proposal consists of two components with one on
either side of the Laura Street right-of-way and proposes to include a covered walkway across
Laura Street between the two portions. As the development proposal includes the retention of
Laura Street as part of the street grid pattern and does not propose to vacate the right-of-way in
order to provide one contiguous development and includes a pedestrian connection between
the two halves, the project is consistent with the above guidelines. Vehicular Circulation/Access
and Parkinq: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the location, number and design of
driveways shall maintain the urban fabric of the downtown; and that interior lot access shall be
limited to the minimum number of curb cuts to adequately serve the site. The development
proposal consists of one curb cut along Fort Harrison Avenue, two curb cuts on Laura Street
and three curb cuts on Osceola Avenue. There are no curb cuts on Cleveland Street, which is
in accordance with the C!emv.'ater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The proposed curb cut on
Fort Harrison Avenue is for ingress/egress to the nonresidential/pub!ic parking portion of the
parking garage, while the curb cuts along Laura Street provide access to the service/loading
areas for both components of the development, and the curb cuts on Osceola Avenue provide
ingress/egress to the residential portion of the parking garage and for a circular drive at the front
of the restaurant and residential tower lobby. Based upon the scale of the development and the
nature/purpose of the proposed curb cuts, the number is adequate to serve the site and
Community Development 2005-11-15
26
.
consistent with the fabric of the downtown. Further, the location and design of the curb cuts will
also maintain the urban fabric of the downtown and are also consistent with the manner in which __
curb cuts have been previously approved in the downtown.
The Downtown Design Guidelines further state that parking lots shall be located behind
the primary fa<;ade of the principal building, and that interiocking pavers, brick or other similarly
textured materials shall be used for parking lot surfacing and/or accents. The parking garage.
associated with the development is located behind nonresidential floor area on those facades
adjacent to Osceola Avenue and Laura Street, and behind a faux storefront fa<;ade along Fort
Harrison Avenue designed for consistency with the balance of the architectural elevations. The
parking garage ingress/egress driveways on Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues as well as the
circular driveway on Osceola Avenue and the western half of the Laura Street right-of-way will
be constructed or reconstructed with interlocking pavers.
.
In addition, the Downtown Design Guidelines state that parking garages accessory to a
principal use shall be architecturally integrated with the design, materials, finish and color of the
principal structure, and that the upper floors of all parking garages shall be designed to visually
screen vehicles from view from rights-of-way and public open spaces. The development
proposal provides a consistent architectural treatment across all of the building fa<;ades; thus
the parking garage fa<;ade blends seamlessly with the balance of the building fa<;ades. With
regard to screening vehicles within the upper levels of the parking garage from view, the exterior
walls have been designed as architectural pre-cast panels with openings for natural ventilation;
however the openings are covered with a decorative grillwork which will visually screen the
parking function while providing visual interest to the building fa<;ade. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines regarding vehicular
circulation/access and parking.
.
Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that clearly
defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways should be provided
between streets, parking areas and buildings. The development proposal includes the provision
of a ten-foot wide pedestrian pathway at the north end of the site with plantings abutting the
adjacent building foundation. The pedestrian pathway will connect Fort Harrison and Osceola
Avenues. Site Elements: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that open spaces should be
provided which function as transitions between the public sidewalks and streets and the use of
the property and that these open spaces shall be visible and inviting to the pedestrian. The
Design Guidelines also states "the type and character of the open space should be influenced
by the desired function of the space, surrounding uses and the potential users of the space".
The development proposal contains three distinct open spaces. One of these open spaces
consists of the area adjacent to the circular drive at Osceola Avenue. The other two open
spaces are located at the northeast and southeast corners of Osceola Avenue and Laura Street.
Each of these open spaces ;nch.:des areas for an outdoor cafe or is to be associated with a
proposed restaurant space. The design of these spaces is such that they are inviting to the
prospective user either enticing them to sit as they walk along the sidewalk or draw them into
the building/tenant space. As such, the development proposal has provided open spaces in a
manner suggested by the Downtown Design Guidelines. Bufferinq and Screeninq: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless communication
facilities, loading and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the site, located in the
most unobtrusive location possible and buffered and screened appropriately. The development
proposal locates the necessary service/loading facilities off Laura Street away from the majority
Community Development 2005-11-15
27
.
.
.
of the storefronts and main pedestrian linkages. The majority of the mechanical equipment for
the northern building will be located within the building on its seventh and eight floors, with
additional equipment located within a mechanical core atop the tower and screened by an 27-
foot high aluminum clad roof feature. The mechanical equipment serving the southern building
will be located within two hubs atop the building. The equipment will be located behind screens
and set back 20 feet from Laura Street, 40 feet from Cleveland Street and 48 feet from Osceola
Avenue. With regard to wireless communication facilities, it has been attached as a condition of
approval that any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or
subsequent to the construction of the subject development are screened from view and/or
painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable. Based upon the above
and subject to the attached condition of approvai, the development proposal complies with
above applicable Guidelines. Coveraqe: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is
appropriate to locate building farther from a build-to line in order to provide a courtyard, steps,
entryway, arcade, plaza or other pedestrian oriented design features maintaining the build-to
line. Further, the Downtown Design Guidelines state that it may be appropriate to provide
separation between buildings to create adequate usable space such as an alley or open space
compliant with these Guidelines. The majority of the proposed building is placed directly
adjacent to the subject property lines; however portions of the building have been set back from
the property line in order to accommodate open spaces for outdoor seating and pedestrian
interaction. In addition, and as previously stated, the development proposal includes the
provision of a ten-foot wide landscaped pathway at the north end of the site providing a
pedestrian connection between Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues. Based upon the above,
the development proposal complies with the above applicable Guidelines. Scale and Heiqht:
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the size and proportions of new development
should be related to the scale of nearby buildings. Even if much larger than its neighbors in
terms of square footage, the building should maintain the same scale and rhythm as the existing
buildings. In addition, the Guidelines state that the apparent height of a building/development
can be influenced and augmented by a combination of step backs, varfing building heights and
horizontal features. With regard to the northern building, the first seven ievels have a height (83
feet) that is similar to that of neighboring buildings, such as the Clearwater Main Library (86
feet) and existing AmSouth building (100 feet). The upper portion of the building, or the tower
portion, is set at an ang!e to the !0'.Ner levels resulting in a building step back that increases from
approximately two feet to 104 feet from north to south along Osceola Avenue. The
angle/orientation of the tower also results in a step back from the property line abutting the Fort
Harrison Avenue right-of-way of approximately 130 feet. Additionally, there are other
developments in the surrounding vicinity that are being proposed or that have been approved by .
the Board with similar heights. The Water's Edge development, which is located at the
southwest corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue, was approved by the Board with a
height of 271 feet, and the Clearwater Bay Club, which is located immediately to the north of the
subject development proposal, :s being proposed with a height of approximately 260 feet. It is
further noted that no height limitation is imposed on development within the Downtown Core _
character district. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the
above referenced Guidelines. Rhvthm/Spacinq: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that
buildings shall have a distinct "base", "middle" and "cap". Further, the Guidelines state that with
regard to high-rise buildings the building levels or step backs should be differentiated by
architectural features such as coping, cornice lines and material changes; and that there should
be a proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions
of step backs used to mitigate the height of the building. The south building and the lower
portion of the north building each have a corresponding and distinct "base", "middle" and "cap"
Community Development 2005-11-15
28
.
.
.
that is identified by materi;::!1 ch;::!nges, cornice lines and coping. Further, the tower portion of the
building also has its own distinct "base", "middle" and "cap" with the "cap" being the upper four
levels of the tower, which are stepped back from the "middle". In turn, the "middle" is
differentiated from the "base" by a distinct cornice line and material change at the fifth level of
the tower.
The proposed height of the building (380 feet to roof deck) is adjudged to be proportional
to the dimensions of the step back being provided to mitigate the height. As previously
discussed, the upper portion of the building, or the tower portion, is set at an angle to the lower
levels resulting in a building step back that increases from approximately two feet to 104 feet
from north to south along Osceola Avenue. The angle/orientation of the tower also results in a
step back from the property line abutting the Fort Harrison Avenue right-of-way of approximately
130 feet. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guidelines.
Additional Requirements for Downtown Core alonq Cleveland Street: The Downtown
Design Guidelines state that buildings along Cleveland Street taller than the predominant height
of other buildings on the project's block should step back at that predominant height. With
regard to the subject block, the development proposal will encompass all but one building along
Cleveland Street (not including the AmSouth building which will remain as part of this
development proposal, but be architecturally modified); thus this development will create the
new predominant height for the block. However, the development proposal will still provide a
step back at the height of the existing building to remain along Cleveland Street. Based upon.
the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines.
Architecture: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that new development shall complement
the architectural heritage of the district in which it is located; however new buildings may use a
variety of architectural styles as appropriate to the intended use of the building. The Guidelines
state further that multiple buildings within a single project shall architecturally relate to each
other and the surrounding neighborhood. There are two distinct architectural styles to the
development proposal; the "base" of the development (Le. the lower seven levels) has a more
traditional style of architecture that closely resembles and is complimentary to the heritage of
the district. The architecture of the tower portion is a more contemporary style, but it is a more
appropriate style for the intended use of the tower as residences. The "base" (levels one
through seven) and tower portions of the building each consist of architectural pre-cast panels,
which serve to tie the two portions together while being consistent with the differing architectural
styles of the two portions. Additionally, the two halves of the development are architecturally
consistent with one another, and the existing AmSouth building will be blended seamlessly with
the balance of the southern half of the project. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines. Primary and Corner Facades:
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary fac;ades shaii be the most highly
designed fac;ades and utilize plane changes (Le. projections and recesses), architectural details,
variety in color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. Further,
the Guidelines state that buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location
through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other
distinguishing features. The development proposal consists of several primary fac;ades each of
which have been given similar highly designed fac;ades that include projections, recesses,
numerous windows of varying styles and sizes, storefront display windows for proposed retail
uses, multiple cornice lines, varying roof heights and material changes.
Community Development 2005-11-15
29
.
.
.
The existing AmSouth building is located at the corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola
Avenue. This existing building measures approximately 100 feet (to roof deck), while the
proposed building making up the balance of this half of the development has a height of 65 feet
(to roof deck); thus the building's prominent location will continue to be emphasized with this
redevelopment. As for the northern portion of the development, the building's prominent
location at the corner of Osceola Avenue and Laura Street is emphasized by the design of the
proposed restaurant space, which will feature a curved exterior wall with an outdoor seating
area located directly at the corner. This design will result in an open space that will be a
distinguishing architectural feature for the development. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines.
Windows and Doors: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is inappropriate for
new development to utilize m!rrored glass and glass curtain walls. Further, the Guidelines state
that storefront display windows should contain both bulkheads and transoms when appropriate
to the architectural style of the building. The architectural elevations of the tower, while
comprised mostly of glass, do not consist of mirrored glass or glass curtain walls. The glass
panes in the tower eievations are framed in aluminum with these sections broken-up vertically
by architectural pre-cast panels and cornices. Further, the northern end of the tower actually
has very little glass with the exception of standard window openings, as it is also comprised of
an architectural pre-cast panel. As proposed, it does not appear that the bulkheads and
transoms deemed appropriate by the Downtown Design Guidelines have been provided for all .
of the storefronts. These elements would certainly be consistent with the architectural style of
the buildings, and it is therefore attached as a condition of approval that the storefront windows
are revised to include both bulkheads and transoms in a manner consistent with the
architectural style. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the
above referenced Guidelines.
Roof Desiqn: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that large buildings shall have
multiple rooftops on varying levels that helps break up the vertical mass of the building. The
proposed architectural elevations consist of several varying rooflines particularly along that
portion of the southern building fronting on Cleveland Street where eight differing rooflines are
proposed. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guidelines. Other Architectural Features: The Downtown Design Guidelines state
that shutters and canvas awnings that are sized to match to corresponding window openings
should be provided. The development proposal includes the provision of three different
styles/appearances of awning aiong the various commercial storefronts and entrances to the
development. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the
above referenced Guidelines. Materials: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that building
materials shall be consistent with and relate to the architectural style of the building. The
Guidelines also state that the storefront level and upper levels should use visually compatible
materials. The nonresidential components of the building (i.e. the lower seven levels) have a
more traditional style of architecture that is complimentary to the heritage of the district, and the
materials of which these areas are constructed convey this. The lower levels are constructed
with architectural pre-cast panels, which the Downtown Design Guidelines states as appropriate
for "the first three floors of all buildings and recommended for all other floors." These pre-cast
panels have been designed to resemble various forms of masonry exteriors, which is consistent
with traditional retail storefronts. The upper levels of the development (i.e. the tower) are of a
more contemporary style and the proposed aluminum, glass, and architectural pre-cast panels
are representative of this. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance
Community Development 2005-11-15
30
.
.
.
with the above referenced Guidelines. Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the
number and type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the
architectural style. The color scheme for the development proposal consists of browns and dark
tans for the lower levels of the buildings along with tans for the upper levels of the buildings.
The cornices and vertical archiiectural pre-cast panels within the tower will be off-white, while
two different storefront fabric awnings will be provided with one being blue and the other a
pattern bronze. The proposed color scheme is consistent with and appropriate for the
architectural style of the buildings. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in
compliance with the above referenced Guidelines.
Additional Requirements for Development Along Cleveland Street Between Myrtle and
Osceola Avenues and Along Fort Harrison Avenue between Drew and Chestnut Streets: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that development shall incorporate an architectural style
indicative of those found in downtown Clearwater between circa 1900 and 1950, such as: 20th
Century Commercial Vernacular, Art-Deco, Art Moderne, Chicago School, Mediterranean!
Mission Influence, or Neo-Classical. The architecture of the lower portions (first seven levels) of
the buildings incorporates aspects of the 20th Century Commercial Vernacular, Art Moderne and
Chicago School architectur;:jl styles, while the upper levels (the tower) is indicative of the Art
Moderne architectural style. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance
with the above referenced Guidelines.
Visions. Goals. Obiectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives
and Policies were identified:
Vision: 1) Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments.
The development proposal includes the provision of 245 dwelling units and 98,500 square-feet
of new retail and restaurant floor area in the Downtown in addition to the 87,800 square-feet of
existing office floor area that is being assimilated into the project. The development proposal
also includes the provision of 360 City controlled public parking spaces within the projects
associated parking garage. As such, the development proposal will further this Vision
statement; 2) Cleveland Street is downtown's "main street" and is valued both for its historic
character/setting and as the major retail street. The historic character of Cleveland Street will
not be negatively impacted by the development proposal in that the project is respectful of the
historic building, height and scale patterns along Cleveland Street. Further, the development
proposal will locate 245 dwelling units downtown and a 10-screen movie theatre fronting directly
on Cleveland Street the provision of which will result in increased pedestrian activity downtown
and the strengthening of the retail environment. As such, the development proposal will further
this Vision statement; 3) Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail,
residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential
projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized
Downtown. The development proposal provides the mix of uses envisioned with the above
statement. Specifically, the project provides 245 dwelling units, 87,800 square-feet of office
floor area, 90,000 square-feet of retail sales and service floor area and 8,500 square-feet of
restaurant floor area. The project includes a 10-screen movie theatre as part of the retail and
service floor area, which will provide the recreational opportunity to the Downtown as specified
by the Vision statement. Based upon the above; the development proposal will further this
Vision statement; 4) Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian
oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core of
Community Development 2005-11-15
31
.
.
.
Downtown. The subject property has a substantial amount of frontage along both Cleveland
Street and Osceola Avenue, and the development proposal includes the provision of 98,500
square feet of new retail and restaurant floor area along these rights-of-way. The building
facades have been designed at a pedestrian scale with large storefronts covered by aluminum
and fabric awnings. As such, the development proposal will provide pedestrian oriented streets
and enhance the retail core of Downtown; thus the project will further this Vision statement; 5)
Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The development
proposal incorporates c!ass!ca! proportions of traditional architecture as well as elements of
more contemporary design. The primary fayades of the development consist of storefronts
designed at a human scale with those levels immediately above designed in a complementary
fashion. The residential tower, as previously stated, has a more contemporary design while still
incorporating some architectural characteristics of the lower levels. The development's lower
levels and the tower have both been designed with a distinct "base," "middle," and "cap" in
keeping with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Further, the tower component has been steps
back substantially from both Osceola and Fort Harrison Avenues based upon its orientation to
the lower levels of the develcpment. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be
consistent with the Vision statement; and 6) An adequate parking supply must be available -
coterminous with new uses. As previously discussed under the Off-Street Parking analysis, the
development proposal requires a minimum of 898 parking spaces as per the shared parking
table [ref.: Section 3-1405] and will provide a total of 1,213 parking spaces within the on-site
parking garage. It is noted that 360 of the proposed 1,213 parking spaces will be control by the
City for public parking as part of a separate development agreement. Thus, the development
proposal exceeds the requirements of code and is consistent with this Vision statement.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to
Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The development proposal
consists of the provision of 245 dwelling units and 98,500 square-feet of new retail (including a
10-screen movie theatre) and restaurant floor area within the Downtown Core. Therefore, the
development proposal is consistent with this Goal.
Obiectives: 1) 1 A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives
and policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the Downtown
Design Guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal will provide for
245 attached dwellings and 186,300 square-feet of new and existing non-residential floor area
as part of an attractive mixed-use development. As such, the development proposal is
consistent with this Objective: 2) 1 F: Cleveland Street shall be maintained as Downtown's main
street, which is valued both for both its historic character and scale of development and for its
function as the major retail street. . The historic character of Cleveland Street will not be
negatively impacted by the development proposal in that the project is respectful of the historic
building, height and scale patterns along Cleveland Street and contains the 20th Century
Commercial Vernacular, Art Moderne and Chicago School architectural styles that are deemed
appropriate by the Downtown Design Guidelines. Further, the development proposal will locate
245 dwelling units within the downtown area as well as a 10-screen movie theatre that will front
directly on Cleveland Street. The provision of these elements will result in increased pedestrian
activity downtown and the strengthening of the retail environment. As such, the development
proposal will further this Objective; 3) 11. The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage
Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate
Downtown. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides for a Public Amenities
Community Development 2005-11-15
32
.
.
.
!ncentive Pool from which development proposals may acquire additional dwelling units in
excess of what the applicable density restrictions would otherwise allow. This development
proposal includes a request to utilize 36 dwelling units from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective; and 4) 21:
Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages
throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the provision of streetscape
improvements along Cleveland Street, Osceola Avenue and Fort Harrison Avenue that are
consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this
Objective has been achieved. .
Policies: 1) Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design
features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in the Downtown with
which all projects must be consistent. As previously discussed, the development proposal is
consistent with the various aspects of the Downtown Design Guidelines including, but not
limited to: Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parl<ing, Scale and Height, Rhythm/Spacing,
Architecture, Primary and Corner Fa9ades, Windows and Doors, Materials and Color. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 2) Policy 2: The
character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process;
Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in
which it is located. As discussed later in this staff report, the development proposal is found to
be in compliance with the poiicies governing development within the Downtown Core character
district. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 3) Policy 3: The
design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian
environment through site and building design. The architectural elevations of the proposed
buildings have been designed with an emphasis on pedestrian scale development. The fa9ades -
include functional storefronts on Cleveland Street, Laura Street and Osceola Avenue as well as
decorative faux storefronts along Fort Harrison Avenue. However, each of the storefront
fa9ades includes aluminum ~nd glass window systems, and aluminum and fabric awnings. The
pedestrian environment wiil also be improved through the provision of 98,500 square-feet of
new retail and restaurant floor area, and 245 new attached dwelling units as well as streetscape
improvements along each of the abutting rights-of-way that are consistent with the City's Master
Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; 4) Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities
Incentive Pool that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character
districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development
potential based on a provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints
affecting redevelopment, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor
area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an
opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the
public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development
proposal will utilize 36 dwelling units from the Pool. The amenities provided by this
development to justify the request include the provision of 245 residential units (including those
from the Pool) in the Downtown Core~ the construction of 360 City controlled public parking
spaces within the development proposal's associated parking garage, and streetscape
improvements on Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue and Laura Street consistent with the
City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, compliance with this
. Policy has been achieved; 5).Policy 12: Drive-thru facilities shall only be permitted as an
accessory use and through a design that minimizes the views of the facility from rights-of-way
and preserves the urban character of Downtown. The development proposal will result in the
Community Development 2005-11-15
33
.
.
.
elimination of a drive-thru facility that is not consistent with the above policy. As such, the
project will further this Policy within the Downtown; 6) Policy 19: Residential development shall
provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities based on the scale of the project. The
development proposal will provide several amenities for the residents, including: a fitness
center, two swimming pools, two clubhouses, paddle courts, and a playground. Based upon the
above, the development proposal has provided sufficient amenities for the scale of the project
and is consistent with the above Policy; 7) Policy 20: Shared parking for commercial, office and
mixed uses should be accompiished wherever possible. The development proposal makes use
of the shared parking table [ref.: Section 3-1405] for the proposed residential, office, restaurant
and retail uses. As such, the project is consistent with the above Policy; and 8) Policy 23: The
City shall evaluate the need, size and location for a parking garage(s) to support entertainment,
retail and/or restaurant uses. The City may support the development of these uses through the
construction of a garage, participation in a public/private partnership to build a garage or
contributions to assist in the construction of a garage. As previously noted, the development
proposal includes the provision of 360 City controlled public parking spaces within the parking
garage associated with the project. These parking spaces will be owned and operated by the
City; therefore the development proposal is consistent with this Policy.
Downtown Core District Policies: The following applicable policies shall govern
development within the District, as well as City actions: 1) Priority shall be given to the
construction of a garage(s) in support of the implementation of the Coachman Park Master Plan.
The garage(s) shall be located to provide convenient access for park, library and marina users.
As previously discussed, the development proposal includes the provision of 360 City controlled
public parking spaces within the parking garage associated with the project. The location of the
parking garage will provide the convenient access sought by this Poiicy to Coachman Park and
the library; 2) To ensure a pedestrian-friendly and safe environment, driveways shall be
discouraged on Cleveland Street between Myrtle A venue and Osceola A venue. The
development proposal is consistent with this Policy as no driveways are proposed on Cleveland
Street; and 3) Redevelopment and new construction along Cleveland Street shall be compatible
with and contribute to pedestrian vitality, human scale and historic fabric. The historic character
of Cleveland Street will not be negatively impacted by the development proposal in that the
project is respectful of the historic building, height and scale patterns along Cleveland Street.
Further, the development proposal will locate 245 dwelling units within the downtown area as
well as a 10-screen movie theatre that will front directly on Cleveland Street. The provision of
these elements will result in increased pedestrian activity downtown and the strengthening of
the retail environment. As such, the development proposal will further this Policy.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the
policies governing development within the Downtown Core character district. There are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005.
The applicant has worked with Staff over the past year 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 improv~ng the character of the area and promoting private sector investment
within the Downtown. Further, the development proposal is in compliance with the standards
and criteria for Flexible Development approval for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, General Applicability Standards, as well as the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Community Development 2005-11-15
34
.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval
to permit a mixed-use development in the Downtown (D) District with ?45 attached dwelling
units (which includes an increase in density of 36 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive Pool) and 186,300 square-feet of non-
residential floor area (restaurant, retail/movie theater, and existing office), an increase in the
permitted height from 30 feet to 380 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 27 feet for architectural
embellishments as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-903.C., based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with the
following conditions of approval: .
Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 4.05-acre subject property is
located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land
Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property and development proposal is subject to the
requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design
Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the Downtown Core character district; 3) That
the development proposal includes the provision of 360 City controlled public parking as part of
a separate development agreement; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and
the Downtown Core character district; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Downtown Design Guidelines; 6) That the proposed use of 36 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool is co!"!s!stent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; 7) That the'develop'ment proposal is consistent with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C;
. 8) That the development proposal is consistent with the Genera! Applicability Criteria as per
Section 3-913; and 9) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area
and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
.
Conditions of ApprQ~9j: 1) That all nonresidential uses proposed to be located on site
are consistent with those permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the final design and color of the
building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB,
and be approved by staff; 3) That a Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed
building) be placed underground; 5) That all utility equipment including but not limited to
electrical and water meters is 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; 6) That
any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the
construction of the subject development are screened from view and/or painted to match the
building to which they are attached, as applicable; 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 any/all future signage meets the requirements of
Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion,
color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior
to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in
terms of including the same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the
highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style
of the building; 10) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the
public right-of-way; 11) That the storefront windows are revised to consist of bulkheads and
transoms to be consistent with the architectural style and the City's Downtown Design
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
35
.
.
.
Guidelines; 12) That the first building permit be applied for within one year of the COB approval
(by November 15, 2006); 13) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within three
years of issuance of the first building permit; 14) That all improvements be constructed in a
single phase, or alternatively that the southern building (theatre) and requisite parking, including
any and all public parking, along with any streetscaping adjacent thereto, be constructed as the
first phase of the development. The streetscape may also be accompiished via a separate
agreement with the City; 15) That the re-c1adding of the office building shall be commenced no
later than the issuance of certificates of occupancy for 85% of the residential condominium units
and shall be substantia!!y complete within 24 months thereafter; and 16) That any dwelling units
obtained from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool that are not built shall be returned to the Pool.
Richard Gillette, representing adjacent property owner of Arno!d Properties, requested
Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Party Status to Richard Gillette. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Robert Tefft as an expert witness.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of Land
Use Planning, Site Plan Review, and Zoning. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Concern was expressed that the staff report did not discuss theatre parking but only
referenced City controlled parking spaces for the Library and Coachman Park. Mr. Tefft
reviewed the project's parking, which will be used for business, retail, and theater uses,
depending on the time of day. The City will control all of the spaces. !n response to a concern
regarding traffic unloading onto Ft. Harrison following a movie, Engineering Manager Scott Rice
said according to the project's traffic impact study, the only projected nearby loss of LOS (Level
of Service) will occur at the intersection of Court Street and Ft. Harrison; but that is due to
northbound traffic. The City did not feel it could force this project to mitigate traffic issues at that
intersection. Mr. Rice reviewed the parking garage's configuration. The City is looking for an
opportunity to add a deceleration lane for southbound traffic. A turning lane is available for
northbound traffic.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Scott Rice as an expert witness.
Member Fritsch moved to accept Scott Rice as an expert witness in the fields of civil
engineering, land development, environmental engineering, and hydraulic. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Rhea Law, representative, reviewed the project, developed in response to a City RFP
(Request for Proposals) for a downtown project with a 10-screen movie theatre. She presented
resumes for Tim Baker, Mark Rieker, Ethel Hammer, and Elias Jafif, requesting that they be
recognized as expert witnesses. She said the COB previously had accepted Robert Pergolizzi
as an expert in the area of transportation. It was stated that the COB also had recognized Ethel
Hammer previously as an expert witnesses.
Community Development 2005-11-15
36
.
.
.
Member Coates moved that the board previously had accepted Robert Pergolizzi as an
expert witness in the area of transportation and Ethel Hammer as an expert witness in the area
of urban planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Johnson moved to accept Mark Rieker as an expert witness in the areas of
development services and architectural engineering. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Plisko moved to accept Timothy R. Baker as an expert witness in the areas of
architecture and urban mixed-use projects. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Fritsch moved to accept Elias Jafif as an expert witness in the area of
development. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member
Dennehy did not vote.
Mark Rieker, representative, reviewed the development proposal and project history.
Tim Baker, representative, reviewed the project's mixed-use concepts, architectural scale,
materials, textures, and colors, designed to minimize the building's impact on pedestrians.
Ethel Hammer, representative, said the project's increased height is justified, as the
development will be a landmark structure, compatible with existing development. Ms. Hammer
entered into the record the City's general applicability and infill criteria. She said the project
conforms to the City's Code and redevelopment guidelines and meets the visions for downtown
and the City.
Steven Colson, representative, said the conceptual agreement for the movie theater is in
place and reviewed Amstar company operations, which show family oriented films. Theatre
lines will not queue on the public sidewalk. He said the theatre will complement downtown
activities for dinner, shopping, stroliing, the libralY, and the park. He said the theatres will
feature high back chairs, stadium seating, and wall to wall screens.
Ms. Law reviewed editorial media support and letters of support for the project. In
response to a question, Mr. Rieker reviewed presentations made on behalf of the project to the
Downtown Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, neighboring property owners, etc.
Party Status Grantee Richard Gillette expressed concern that Acqua project's parking
garage traffic will conflict with traffic from the parking garage for a planned project on the
abutting property, which currently is under design. He said the parking facility entrances will be
only 87 feet apart and recommended that the two projects share a parking facility.
Concern was exprG::;sGd this recommendation is being presented late in the planning
process. Mr. Gillette said this iss.ue had been discussed with staff many times. He said his
proposal would benefit both projects and the City. He said the COB hearing regarding the
abutting project should occur in January 2006.
Twelve people spoke in support of the project.
Community Development 2005-11-15
37
.
.
.
Ms. Law expressed said it is too late to change the parking garage's design and
expressed concern that the recommendation had been presented so late in the planning, which
began in November 2003. Mr. Rieker said he had received formal notification yesterday
regarding a joint access garage. He said the abutting project had been presented to the City
with parking garage ingress/egress off a street other than Ft. Harrison. He said there is no
precedent for projects of this size to share access. He said developments need to stand on
their own, and expressed concern that sharing parking would create a significant number of
safety problems and 'vvould aliiiiinate the pathway from Ft. Harrison to the library.
In response to a question, Mr. Tefft did not think the City could force two property
owners to work together. He expressed concern delaying the piOject to redesign the garage
would slow the City revitalization efforts and may prove detrimental to its success. Planning
Director Michael Delk said this issue should have been broached two years ago, not now, which
is exceedingly late in the development approval process. Staff has found the application to be
complete and sufficient and recommends approval.
The project, its team, and their efforts were complimented.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item 5E, Case: FLD2005-08084 for 400, 410, 418
and 420 Cleveland Street and 416 Laura Street based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law as listed, the Staff report, with Conditions of Approval, as listed. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
The COB recessed from 3:13 to 3:26 p.m.
6. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street Level Three Application
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
Location: 0.18-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of
Springdale Street, between Betty Lane and Rollen Road.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0.18 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Owelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
The subject property is located on the north side of Springdale Street, approximately 110
feet east of Betty Lane. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing
City boundaries on the west, south, and east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent
with Pinellas County requirement::; with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. The subject site
it approximately 0.18 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached
dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Community Development 2005-11-15
38
.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The property already receives City water service. The proposed
annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the
annexation of 0.18-acres to the City of Clearwater; b) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and c) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 42 for motion to recommend approval.
.
7. Case: ANX2005-08027 -1321 Lynn Avenue Level Three Application
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
Location: 0.16-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the east side of Lynn
Avenue, between Gentry Street and Sherwood Street.
Atlas Page: 270B.
Req uest:
r:l) Annexation of 0.16 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and .
c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Ciearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter:Cky Ready, Planner II.
The subject property is located on the east side of Lynn Street, approximately 95 feet
north of Gentry Street. The property is located within an enclave and is contiguous to existing
City boundaries on the south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is
approximately 0.165 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached
dwelling. 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 designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
The proposed ariiiexation.can be served by City of ClearvVater 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.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
39
.
.
.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a)
0.165 acres to the City of Clearwater; b) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and c) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 42 for motion to recommend approval.
8. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830. Carlton Drive Level Three Application
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
Location: 0: 17 -acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Carlton ..
Drive, between Morningside Drive and Woodring Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0.16 acres uf property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
The subject property is lucated on the west side of Carlton Drive, approximately 190 feet
south of Woodring Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to
existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pine lias County
requirements with reg8rd tn vohmtary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. The subject site is
approximately 0.17 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling.
It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the
annexation of 0.17 acre to the City of Clearwater; b) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and c) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 42 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2005-11-15
40
.
9. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
Location: 0.17 -acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Carlton
Drive, between Mornmgside Drive and Woodring Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 0.17 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-3, Sing!e-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
The subject property is located on the west side of Carlton Drive, approximately 120 feet
south of Woodring Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to
existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. The subject site is
approximately 0.17 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling.
It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emeigency 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 Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the
annexation of 0.17 acre to the City of Clearwater; b) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and c) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 42 for motion to recommend approval.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
41
.olIIl
.
.
.
10. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive Level Three Application
Owner: James and Karen Davis.
Location: 0.17 -acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side of Carlton
Drive, between Morningside Drive and Woodring Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 0,17 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (C:ty of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-Family Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
The subject property is located on the west side of Carlton Drive, approximately 50 feet
south of Woodring Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to
existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.17 acre in
area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting
this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is
proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low
(RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pine lias County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the
annexation of 0.17 acre to the City of Clearwater; b) the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use
Plan classification; and c) the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Member Coates moved to approve Item E4, Case FLD2005-08087 for 657 and 663 Bay
Esplanade based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report, with
Conditions of Approval as listed and recommend approval of Item E6, Case ANX2005-08026 for
1304 Springdale Street based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the
Staff report, Item E7, Case ANX2005-08027 for 1321 Lynn Avenue based on Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the Staff report, Item E8, Case ANX2005-08028 for 1830
Carlton Drive based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the Staff report,
Item E9,Case ANX2005-08029 for 1836 Carlton Drive based on Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as listed, and the Staff report, and Item E10 Case ANX2005-08030 for 1842
Carlton Drive based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the Staff report.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel
Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-11-15
42
.
F - LEVEL TWO APPLlCATiO,NS: (Items 1 - 2)
1. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
Representative: Dushyant K. Gulati (186 Bayside Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone:
727-444-4495; fax: 727-444-4496; e-mail: D4444495@aol.com).
Location: 8.5 acres located at the northeast corner of South Highland Avenue and
Belleair Road.
Atlas Page: 315A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit Alcoholic Beverage Sales in the Commercial
(C) District on a parcel of land contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential
in the Zoning Atlas as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Alcoholic Beverage Sales.
Neighborhood Association: Ciearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. The 8.5-acre subject property is the LaBelle Shopping
Plaza, which is located at the northeast corner of South Highland Avenue and Belleair Road.
The Plaza currently has a total of 501 parking spaces on site, which provides 5.7 parking
spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The proposed use (Alcoholic Beverage Sales)
will occupy a 1,800 square-feet tenant space located within the Plaza. There is presently a
mixture of retail and office uses within the plaza.
. Adjacent to the east side of the Plaza are attached dwellings within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District. The first criterion regarding the Alcoholic Beverage Sales
use is that the location of the business is not to be contiguous to a parcel of land designated as
residential in the Zoning Atlas. As the location does not meet this criterion, the application has
being filed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-
704.C.
.
It is noted on January 20, 2004, the COB approved subject to conditions a Flexible
Development application for Alcoholic Beverage Sales on the subject property. This approval
expired on January 20, 2005, necessitating the filing of the application that is presently before
the Board.
The proposed use (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) will occupy a 1,800 square-foot tenant
space within the Plaza, which equates to approximately 2% of the Plaza's total floor area.
Given the scale of the proposed use in relation to the size of the Plaza, the Alcoholic Beverage
Sales use will be subordinate in nature to the balance of the development. Additionally, located
along the east property line is a six-foot high, solid wooden privacy fence that buffers the Plaza
from adjacent residential properties. This buffer along the property line and the scale of the
proposed use in relation to the balance of the Plaza establishes the proposed use (Alcoholic
Beverage Sales) as a compatible use with regard to the adjacent land uses.
The applicant is proposing that the business (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) would be open
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday and between 2:00 p.m.
and 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. These hours are consistent with those previously approved by the
Community Development 2005-11-15
43
.
.
.
CDB for this use at its meeting of January 20, 2004, which are in turn compatible with the hours
of operation for the Publix Supermarket (anchor tenant) within the Plaza. There are no
outstanding code enforceme!"!t issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of September
29, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to permit Alcoholic Beverage Sales within the Commercial (C) District on a parcel of -
land contiguous to another parcel of land that is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-704.C., based upon the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the following conditions of approval:
Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 8.5-acre subject property is
located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use
Plan category; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development
Standards as set forth in Sections 2-701 and 2-704; 3) That the development proposal is
consistent with the Alcoholic Beverage Sales flexibility criteria as set forth in Section 2-704.A.;
4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project criteria as set forth in Section 2-704.C.; 5) That the development proposal is consistent
with the General Applicability Standards as set forth in Section 3-913.A.; and 6) That there are
no pending Code Enforcement issues with the subject property.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That any/all signage meets the requirements of Code and
that any attached signage consists of red channel letters and any tenant panel on the
freestanding signs be compatible with respect to style, color, material and other characteristics
to provide a sense of uniformity within LaBelle Plaza, and 2) That the hours of operation for the
proposed business (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) do not extend beyond 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Monday thru Saturday and 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mr. Tefft reported the City had received two letters of objection.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Robert Tefft as an expert witness.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of Land
Use Planning, Site Plan Review, and Zoning. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Dushyant K. Gulati, representative, said there is sign for this use, but he had not been
able to follow through on his previous application and open the store. He said the location is
easily assessable to traffic. He said this is a resubmission of a previously approved application.
One person spoke in opposition to the request.
In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said the request is for a package store, not a bar.
Member Plisko moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-08082 for 1575 South
Highland Avenue based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report,
wiih Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-11-15
44
.
.
.
2. Case: FLD2005-08089 - 41 Devon Drive Level Two Application
Owner: Dam Devon LLC.
Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Elliot Shoberg, City of Clearwater (100 South Myrtle Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33756-5520; phone: 727-562-4748; fax: 727-562-4755; e-mail:
ell iot. shoberg@myclearwater.com).
Location: 0.38 acre located at the southwest corner of First Street and Devon Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a parking lot in the Tourist (T) District with a
reduction to the minimum lot area from 20,000 square-feet to 16,500 square-feet, a reduction to
the front (north along First Street) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement) and a reduction
to the front (east along Devon Drive/Hamden Drive) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to
pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section
2-803.C. .
Proposed Use: Public parking lot for 25 parking spaces.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: paparhurphy@aoLcom); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.38 acre is located at the southwest corner of First Street and Devon Drive. The
site is a corner lot with dimensions of 110 feet by 150 feet. The site currently is developed with
the two-story, 20-room Sea Air Motel overnight accommodation use. The existing building and
other site improvements will be demolished~
On April 19, 2005, the CDB approved Cases: FLD2005-01016/TDR2005-01017/
PL T2005-00002 for the property at 715 South Gulfview Boulevard. included in that application
was the Transfer of Development Rights of 10 dwelling units from 41 Devon Drive (representing
all development potential). The Development Order included the following condition: ''That the
applicant convey, at no cost to the City, to the City of Clearwater the property located at 41
Devon Drive upon the earlier of (a) 45 days after the applicant's receipt of notice from the City or
(b) the date a building permit is issued for the construction of the improvements for this site.
The applicant shall demolish, at no cost to the City, all site improvements within 30 days notice
from the City. The applicant shall construct, at no cost to the City, a parking lot on the property,
after the City obtains all necessary design approvals and permits (any meters shall be the
responsibility of the City)." Properties to the north, west and south are developed with overnight
accommodation uses. The properties to the east along Devon Drive are developed with
detached dwellings, which are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are
not part of Beach by Design.
The proposal includes the construction of a 25-space public parking lot. The purpose of
this City request is to comply with the above condition of approval to obtain design approval of
the parking lot prior to obtaining construction permits. The parking lot will have driveways on
the north and the east. with parking spaces connecting these driveways in an ilL" shaped
parking lot. All parking spaces will be individually metered. A new public sidewalk within the
rights-of-way will be constructed, increasing pedestrian safety adjacent to this site.
Community Development 2005-11-15
45
.
.
.
The proposal includes a request for a reduction to the minimum lot area from 20,000
square-feet to 16,500 square-feet, a reduction to the front (north along First Street) setback from
25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the front (east along Devon Drive/Hamden
Drive) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement). With regard to the lot area reduction, this
use is deemed a "parking garages and lots," which requires a 20,000 square-foot lot area.
Since the property is being deeded to the City at no cost for the purpose of a parking lot, and
adjacent properties are currently developed, the City does not have any ability to gain additional
property except through purchase, which is unlikely given existing circumstances. The existing
motel on the property is located with buildings as close as 10 feet to the front property line and
five feet to the side property lines. Parking for the existing motel is located either in the right-of-
way or on-site, but in both cases require vehicles to back into the right-of-way for maneuvering.
The proposed parking lot locates the pavement of the parking lot a minimum of 15 feet from the
street rights-of-way and 10 feet to the south and west side property lines. These proposed front
and side setbacks exceed or are consistent with the setbacks of many uses recently approved
within the Tourist District (attached dwellings and overnight accommodation uses). The
proposed parking lot is compatible with the surrounding development and will provide needed
public parking on the beach.
With the removal of the existing buildings and parking that backs into the rights-of-way,
coupled with the proposed setbacks, the site will have a very open appearance from that today.
A retention pond is proposed in the northeast corner of the parking lot adjacent to the rights-of-
way. Landscaping wiil soften the parking iot appearance along all edges and include live oak
and cabbage palm trees, viburnum shrubs and beach sunflower and white fountain grass
groundcovers. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for this parking lot, all existing trees
need to be shown on the survey and construction plans. A right-of-way use permit from the
Engineering Department will be required to be obtained prior to the issuance of any permits for
landscaping within the right-of-way. While lighting of the property is anticipated in the future, the
location of light poles need to be coordinated with proposed canopies to avoid shielding of the
lights. Underground electric is required for this future lighting, as well as electric permits.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-803.C) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated
with this site.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject 0.38 acre is located within the Small Motel District of
Beach by Design; 2) The current use of the site is for a 20-room motel (which is nonconforming
to current density maximums of 14 rooms or 10 dwelling units); 3) The proposal includes the
demolition of the existing motel building and all existing site improvements; 4) Based on 0.355
acre represented in the review and approval of FLD2005-01016nDR2005-01017, all
development potential for this parcel was transferred to 715 South Gulfview Boulevard; 5) The
proposal is to construct a 25-space public parking lot; 6) The lot area is 16,500 square-feet,
which requires a reduct:cn from the 20,000 square-feet required; 7} Setback reductions to
pavement are consistent with the setbacks of many uses recently approved within the Tourist
District (attached dwellings and overnight accommodation uses); 8) The impervious surface
ratio will reduce from the current 0.98 to the proposed 0.57, allO'w...ing for 3 significant increase in
landscaped areas; 9) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development and will
provide needed public parking on the beach; and 10) There are no active code enforcement
cases for the parcel.
Community Development 2005-11-15
46
.
.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2)
Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria
per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and
proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005.
The Planning Department recommends approval for the Flexible Development application to
permit a parking lot in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to the minimum lot area from
20,000 square-feet to 16,500 square-feet, a reduction to the front (north along First Street)
setback from 25 feet toi5 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the front (east along Devon
Drive/Hamden Drive) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 41 Devon Drive
with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approvai: 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; and 3) The development is compatible with the
surrounding area. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That any future lighting of the property obtain
ali required electric permits, be coordinated with site landscaping and all on-site electric lines be
placed underground; 2) That landscaping within the right-of-way obtain a right-of-way use permit
from the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any permits; and 3) That, prior to the
issuance of any permits, all existing trees be shown on the survey and site plans.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Wayne Wells as an expert witness.
Member Fritsch moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
general planning, zoning, site plan analysis, and code administration. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reported staff had received one letter of objection to the
request. In response to a question, he said the City will monitor and maintain the property.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item F2, CaseFLD2005-08089 for 41 Devon Drive
based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report, with Bases of
Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motiol"'! was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
G - LEVEL THREE APPLICATION: (Item 1)
Community Development 2005-11-15
47
.
.
.
1. Level Three Application
Case: TA2005-10002 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding numerous provisions
including revising dimensional requirements for various land uses, limiting Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects to land uses allowed within a particular zoning districts, specifying how .
to determine density/intensity for mixed used development, increasing parking requirements for
attached dwellings, allowing parking reductions for affordable housing projects, revising design
standards for surface parking lots and parking garages, restricting the location of seasonal
sales, revising legal notice requirements, clarifying provisions related to nuisances, tree
preservation, etc. and establishing a temporary use permit fee.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Senior Planner Michae! Reynolds reviewed the request. Since the passage of the
Community Development Code in 1999, the Planning Department has reviewed the Code as it
applies to certain proposed development and the City process of development review
applications. Staff has provided input toward improving the Code based on how staff has
experienced the Code's application toward various circumstances. Staff developed a list of
existing Code provisions that should be amended to better reflect City development patterns,
improve internal process, and improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Countywide
Rules, and Florida Statutes.
As part of the Code update process, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs.
Suggested amendments have been collected from City departments inciuding Planning,
Development Services, and Engineering.
The Planning Department is recommending 53 amendments to the Community
Development Code. Approximately nine amendments present a change in current policy or a
new policy issue. Other amendments are editorial in nature, provide additional flexibility criteria,
or refinements to existing Community Development Code sections.
Below is a summary of the most noteworthy proposed amendments organized by Article.
A brief summary of other amendments is provided. Ordinance #7449-05 includes all specific
amendments.
Article 2 - Zoning Districts
Parking Requirements (Pages 29 - 30 of Ordinance)
Ordinance #7449-05 increases the minimum parking space requirement for attached
dwellings from 1.5 spaces to 2 spaces per unit in the LOR, LMDR, MDR, MHDR, HDR and T
Zoning Districts. This amendment addresses concerns raised by the Planning Departm'ent, the
Council, and the public reg~rd:ng the need for additional parking for new development.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment (Pages 7 - 13, 17 - 19 of Ordinance)
In an attempt to address concerns raised by the City Council regarding the use of the
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application to bypass the rezoning process, the proposed
Community Development 2005-11-15
48
.
.
.
!
ordinance limits Comprehensive Infill uses to only those uses allowed as a Minimum Standard,
Flexible Standard, and Flexible Development uses permitted by the particular zoning district. "At
present, the Code permits any land use allowed by the underlying Future Land Use Plan
category to be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
Article 3 - Development Stf!ndards
Seasonal sales (Page 23 of Ordinance)
In an attempt to preclude temporary seasonal businesses from negatively impacting
permanent businesses, the proposed amendment requires that seasonal business be located at
least 500 feet from any permanent business selling the same type of product.
Affordable Housing Parking Requirements (Page 20 of Ordinance)
An amendment is proposed to provide flexibility with regard to parking requirements for
affordable housing. The amendment will enable the applicant to request a reduction in the
minimum parking requirements to one parking space per unit (this ordinance proposed to
increase the minimum number of spaces to 2). This amendment recognizes the need to assist
in the development of affordable housing by providing flexibility that is not generally afforded to"
market rate housing. Furthermore, it recognizes that many affordable housing developments
are located along public transportation lines and a higher proportion of residents within
affordable housing units rely on public transportation.
Design Standards for Parking Lets and Parking Garages (Page 21 of Ordinance)
This amendment improves design specifications for surface parking lots and parking
garages. The amendment states that parking garage structural supports cannot encroach upon
the required area of parking, and their location needs to take into account vehicular passenger
ingress and egress.
The existing Code does not address or provide requirements for parking garages. The
amendment adds a provision to clarify the placement of structural columns in relationship to the
location of a parking space, providing adequate space for maneuvering vehicles and for
pedestrian safety and movement.
Article 4 - Development Review and Other Procedures
Advertising (Pages24 - 25 of Ordinance)
The amendment states that where an advertising requirement is set forth in Florida
Statutes, notices shall be provided in accordance with that requirement. Where no advertising
requirement is set forth in Florida Statutes, all notices shall be provided at least 10 but not more
than 45 days in advance of the public hearing. This amendment would reduce the number of
days notice is to be provided for cases before the DRC and CDB from 15 days to 10 days.
Transferable development rights (TORs) (Pages 27 - 28 of Ordinance)
The proposed ordinance eliminates the 20% limitation on TDRs for overnight
accommodations in the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District and for all
property within the Central Business District (Downtown). This revision is intended to provide
an incentive for hotel development on the Beach, as well as bring consistency between the
Code and the Downtown Plan.
Community Development 2005-11-15
49
.
.
.
Article 8 - Definitions and Rules of Construction
Definition of "Height" (P~ges 28 - 29 of Ordinance)
Due to concerns about the appearance and use of rooftops, the proposed ordinance
revises the definition of height to include a provision that specifies that permanent structures
may not be constructed on the roof that would support rooftop occupancies. This provision
would prohibit the construction of rooftop pavilions, gazebos, lattice, etc.
Appendix A. Schedule of Fees, Rates and Charqes
Fee schedule (Page 29 of Ord!nance)
Proposed Ordinance #7449-05 creates a new feefor temporary seasonal sales. The fee
is being proposed because these business are allowed to compete with permanent businesses
but are not responsible for paying property taxes, impact fees, etc. Additionally, an amendment
is proposed that eliminates the zoning verification letter fee of $11 listed under Building Fees
because the Land Development fees provides for a $25 zoning verification fee (which has been
implemented since at least 2000).
Other Amendments
Proposed Ordinance #7449-05 includes a significant number of amendments that the
Planning Department believes w!ll assist residents and staff but do not have major policy
implications. These amendments include: 1) Reducing single-family setback requirements side
and rear setbacks; 2) Increasing the maximum Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Surface Ratio
in the Low Density Residential District to reflect the Countywide Rules provisions; 3) Allowing
certain property locations within the High Density Residential District to exceed 80 feet in height
along Old Tampa Bay; 4) Amending minimum lot area and width requirements for certain uses
within the Commercial District; revising outdoor storage provisions in the Industrial, Research
and Technology District; 5) Adding guidelines for "mixed use calculations" and clarifying
allowable density to not include submerged lands; 6) Providing home occupations standards
language compliant to State Law; 7) Clarifying certain property maintenance/nuisance
standards; 8) Clarifying tree survey requirements; 9) Increasing the timeframe from one year to
two years for Certificates of Occupancy issuance for Level One, Flexible Standard Development
projects; and 10) Amending the definition of medical clinic.
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The proposed
amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Below is a selected list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure
neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encou'rage infill development.
Policies: 1) Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by
providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation
and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to
Community Development 2005-11-15
50
.
.
.
approved special area plans and redevelopment plan; 2) Policy 2.3.3 - The City of Clearwater
shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the
Downtown District.; 3) Policy 3.2.1 - Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed
in the table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for
each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment
plan approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning district, as established
in the City's Community Development Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than
those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan
category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment.
Goal 16 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe
neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality,
age, marital status, handicap, or religion. AND Objective 16.1 Objective for Adequate Housing
- Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling
units in a variety of types, costs, and locations to meet the needs of the residents of the City of
Clearwater.
Policies: 1) Policy 16.1.5 - City of Clearwater shall continue to provide information,
incentives, and technical assistance to the private sector in order to achieve housing production
that meets the needs of very low, low, moderate, and middle income households; 2) Policy 16.2.3
- Continue to review new construction techniques, materials, building codes, and housing codes
in order to determine whefe housing costs can be reduced without sacrificing the quality of
housing for very low and low income households; 2) Policy 16.2.5 - The City shall continue to
support the addition of rental housing as needed to meet the needs of very-low, low, and
moderate-income households; 3) Policy 22.3.9 - The City encourages the consolidation of public
surface parking facilities into structure parking facilities open to the public on Clearwater Beach; 4)
Policy 25.1.1 - Require all new residential and non-residential development to provide a specified
amount of Florida native shade trees based on an established desired ratio of pervious to
impervious surface areas. Shade trees will serve to provide heat reduction, noise abatement,
buffering, replenishment of oxygen, and aesthetic beauty; 5) Policy 25.2.7 - Transfer of
development rights should be implemented to provide alternatives to development and
degradation of wetlands and other natural resources.
The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text '
amendments include a biOad range of regulations ranging from permitted uses, numerical
standards, flexibility criteria, procedures, enforcement and definitions. The proposed
amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the
Code. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. Existing
Community Development Code provisions are amended to better reflect City development
patterns, improve internal process, and improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
Countywide Rules, and Florida Statutes.
The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance #7449-05 which
makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Community Development 2005-11-15
51
.
In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said during
discussions at the November 14, 2005, Work Session, the City Council had agreed to increase
the separation between seasonal sales and competing permanent businesses to 750 feet, with
a recommendation still to be considered to increase that distance to 1,000 feet. Support was
expressed for the proposed changes.
Mr. Delk reported changes to comprehensive infill may be delayed for further staff
review. Ms. Clayton reviewed height allowances along Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Delk reviewed
Council discussion regarding rooftop appurtenances for outdoor recreational uses. Concern
was expressed that setbacks be required to be sufficient to provide view corridors, emergency
access, and noise and visual buffers between neighbors. . Ms. Clayton said proposed changes
to setbacks will help with the redevelopment of houses in neighborhoods constructed prior to
1999.
In response to a concern, Mr. Reynolds said staff has proposed extending the expiration
of building permits for level one projects to provide homeowners more time to organize and
complete projects. Ms. Clayton said the change provides after approval, one year to pull
permits and two years to complete construction. Large projects, such as Clearwater Mall,
required significant time to complete. Concern was expressed the City allows another year's
extension beyond that. Concern was expressed that limited comp infill does not encourage the
redevelopment of narrow commercially-zoned lots where warehouses once stood. Staff can
bring forward additional criteria. It was acknowledged that amendments to the Code will be
studied by staff and redrafted to address the use of Comprehensive Infill, where zoning districts
do not allow certain land uses.
. Two people support increasing the separation between seasonal sales and competing
permanent businesses to 1,000 feet.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said other communities typically require a 1,000- -
foot separation between uses.
Member Plisko moved to recommend approval of proposed amendments to the
Community Development Code with exceptions: 1) delete changes to limited comp infill; 2)
increase separation betvv'een seasonal sales and competing permanent businesses to 1,000
feet; and 3) allow rooftop appurtenances that meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
requirements for outdoor recreational uses, as long as appurtenances do not extend higher than
the maximum permitted building height. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
H - CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL: (Item 1)
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
52
.
.
.
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appel!ant: Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756;
phone 727-459-4400)
Representative: Todd Pressman, 28870 U.S. Highway 19 North, #300, Clearwater, FL
33761; phone: 727-726-8683.
Location: 0.48 acre located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cleveland Street
and Lincoln Avenue.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning: Downtown East Gateway Character district (D).
Request: Appeal of an administrative determination denying the ability to apply for an Animal
Boarding Facility use as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the Downtown East
Gateway Character District, per Section 3-502.
Proposed Use: Animal Boarding Use.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I.
This 0.48-acre site is located at the northwest 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 15-space parking lot.
On August 11, 2005, jaycee Roth, filed a written request for an interpretation (Exhibit A)
of the ability to apply for an Animal Boarding Facility use in the Downtown East Gateway
Character District as a Comprehensive Infill Project.
By letter dated September 28, 2005, the following interpretation was issued by the
Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director): In addition to the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the
Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies governing
decisions. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown
shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. The Plan establishes categories of
permitted and prohibited uses. The Community Development Code then enumerates the
specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards
consistent with the Plan.
The East Gateway District Vision for Uses supports the continued development of the
District as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported with neighborhood
commercial and professional offices concentrated along the major corridors of Cleveland Street,
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street, and Missouri Avenue.
Additionally, the District Vision for Development Patterns for the area envisions that new
commercial development should provide employment opportunities for the District's residents as
well as serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood.
Animal Boarding is not a neighborhood commercial use supporting the residential uses
of the area, nor is it professional office. Animal Boarding is also not a use specifically
enumerated in the Downtown Zoning District.
Community Development 2005-11-15
53
I
J
.
.
.
The appellants filed this appeal on October 17, 2005. Section 4-501.A.2 of the
Community Development Code states that the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from
orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the COiTI(rlunity Development Code. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal
of an orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the Community Development Code may be initiated within seven days of the
date of the order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official.
Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail
and by telephone. Pursuant to Section 4-504.B, the CDB shall review the application, the
recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public
hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render
a decision in accordance with tile provisions of Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal, granting
the appeal subject to specified conditions or denying the appeal.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an
appeal, (overturning or modifying the decision under appeal), the CDB shall find that, based on
substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party, all of the following
criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) That the decision will be in harmony with
the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of John V. Schodtler as an expert witness.
Member Johnson moved to accept John V. Schodtler as an expert witness in the areas
of planning, zoning, and site plan""review. The motion was" duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Planner John Schodtler reviewed the administrative determination to deny the
applicant/appellant's ability to apply for an animal boarding facility use as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project in the Downtown East Gateway Character District.
Concern was expressed that Downtown residents use animal boarding facilities. Ms.
Clayton said animal boarding is not a normal neighborhood commercial use, such as a dry
cleaners or drug store. Veterinarian offices also are not permitted uses. Mr. Schodtler said CDB
had approved an outdoor training facility and the DRC had approved the operation of a retail
business on this site. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Code prohibits the requested use. Mr. Delk said
dog training was determined to be an accessory use. Ms. Clayton said staff had determined that
an animal boarding facility use is not a listed use in the Downtown district.
Todd Pressman, representative, said the applicant had made a significant investment in
the site, which previously was vacant for two years. He said animal boarding would be part of the
use, not the primary use, and is integral to the business. He said Code lists animal boarding as
an allowed retail use. He said the proposed use would meet the City's vision to improve this
deteriorating area. He said nearby businesses support the animal boarding use, which will
provide additional neighborhood employment. He said the proposed use is compatible with
surrounding development and fulfills a need, as City residents own more than 50,000 dogs. He
knew of no opposition to the request In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said all dogs will
be inside by 7:00 p.m.
Community Development 2005-11-15
54
.
Jaycee Roth, Owner/Applicant/Appellant, said the concrete enclosed area behind the
dumpster will be resodded and constantly cleaned. Dogs will be moved from area to area. In
response to a question, Mr. Pressman said animal boarding is integral to the business.
Mr. Schodtler said one neighbor had objected to the use with concerns regarding the
potential for noise. Concern was expressed that approval would establish a precedent regarding
neighborhood commercial uses.
Mr. Pressman Downtown development will cause other changes as needs shift. He said
staff's interpretation of the law is incorrect as the Code lists animal boarding as a permitted retail
use. Mr. Delk said animal boarding is not permitted in the context of the Downtown plan. Ms.
Clayton said City criteria prohibit animal boarding next to residentially zoned property.
Member Johnson moved to sustain staff's decision denying the ability to apply for an
Animal Boarding Facility use at 1242 Cleveland Street as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project in the Downtown East Gateway Character District as the decision did
not misconstrue nor incorrectly interpret provisions of the Community Development Code, the
decision is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development
Code, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not
vote.
I - DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: (Items 1-3)
. 1. Expert Witness List Addition - Steven Brown, Long Range Manager
Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted the resume of Steven Brown as an expert witness. No
action was taken.
2. Pinellas Planninq Council presentation reqardinq its analysis of the Community Development
Code.
Mike Crawford, of the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) presented the Council's analysis
of the City's Community Developrnent Code. The Council's task was to assist the City in
assessing its DRP (Development Review Process) for: 1) clarity; 2) user-friendliness; 3)
complexity; 4) organization; and 5) general flow. Major steps were: 1) Assessment of the Code:
a) DRP in the Code; b) Code requirements; c) As it's written; and d) other issues; 2) conduct a
survey of frequent users; and 3) compare the Code with other jurisdictions. The Council did not
review Code application, i.e. how the Code is applied by Staff and board, judge qualitative
aspects of the Code's standards, or assess City staffing levels.
General Observations is that the DRP is designed to be streamlined: 1) more
streamlined than vast majority of Codes; 2) relies heavily on staff; 3) DRP not well explained in
Code; 4) various requirements for development hard to determine and repetitive; 5) design
requirements/time and energy investment are considerable early in process; and 6) numerous
terminology issues and general flow issues.
.
Community Development 2005-11-15
55
.
Assessment of the DRP in the Code included: 1) thorough review of the written Code; 2)
interviews with staff; and 3) observation of DRC and COB meetings. Survey of Frequent Users
include; 1) 15 questions asked of frequent users of the Code - anonymous; 2) six of 33
responses; 'and 3) responses summarized in report. The PPC compared the Code with: 1)
Gainesville, Florida; 2) Sarasota, Florida; 3) Pinellas County, Florida; 4) Portage, Michigan; and
5) Clark County, Washington.
Major conclusions: 1) Code Process: a) shift some requirements for fully engineered site
plans to the construction drawing/building permit stage and b) consider adjusting levels of
review required for application to COB vs. staff - based on the level of intensity or impact; 2)
Code Requirements: a) Review development application requirements to eliminate redundant or
repetitive requirements, clarify requirements that are not specific, and eliminate unnecessary
items; b) reorganize Article 3 so that exact requirements can be located easily; and c) add more
specific and consistent cross-referencing; 3) Code Terminology; a) Replace variety of terms
used to describe uses allowed, associated standards and criteria and approval processes; b)
Use only "Levels 1, 2, and 3" to describe minimum standard development, flexible standard
development, and flexible development; and c) eliminate current use of term "Level Three
Approval" and replace with "Legislative Actions"; 4) Code Management; a) evaluate DRP
applications relative to time and staffing levels - Le. overlap; b) ensure staff comments are
received in timely manner and reduce secondary comments after resubmission; c) coordinate
comments and responses to reduce visits to City Hall, including "walk-ins"; and d) consider
posting of Code as PDF; and 5) Other Items; a) correct miscellaneous minor issues affecting
flow of the Code; b) implement best practices from other communities; and c) consider changes
to website that will better inform users.
. With minor exception, during the PPC analysis, there were positive statements
concerning staff's handling of the DRP and positive comments on the DRP itself. Staff has
addressed some of the exceptions noted since the start of this analysis.
.
Mr. Crawford recommended existing terms to be replaced: 1) Minimum Standard
Development and Permitted Uses: Level One be replaced with "Level One Uses," with the final
approving entity being staff (for building permit); 2) Flexible Standard Development and
Permitted Uses: Level One be replaced with "Level Two Uses," with the final approving entity
being the DRC (staff); 3) Flexible Development and Permitted Uses: Level Two be replaced with
"Level Three Uses," with the final approving entity being the COB; and 4) Level Three Approvals
be replaced with "Legislative Actions," with the final approving entity being the City Council.
Mr. Crawford requested COB members call or write with input on how the Code works
for the COB, what doesn't, and suggestions on improving the DRP. The final step will be to
provide a preliminary draft that includes staff and COB comments for City Council review, and
the finalize the report and present it to the City in December.
It was suggested that filing fees be raised if some site plan related tasks are shifted to
later in the process, thereby providing huge savings for major development. Mr. Delk said fees
can be reviewed to reflect public investment. Ms. Dougall-Sides said a relationship should exist
between the fee and the 8!llOl)nt of work related to it. It was recommended that the City obtain
input from Charlie Siemons, regarding how well the Code is performing and if it is accomplishing
what it was intended to accomplish.
Community Development 2005-11-15
56
.
.
.
3. Community Development Board meetinq'startinq time for December 20.2005.2:00 pm.
The December 20, 2005, COB meeting will start at 2:00 p.m. following an 11 :30 a.m.
holiday luncheon at the Outback restaurant on Clearwater beach. Staff will contact members with
a list of gift needs for the Community Pride charity.
J - ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
Community Development 2005-11-15
57
,
'.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
J yes no
Level Two Application
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
/ no
Level Two Application
yes
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicanty:t\.nthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
./ yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 4007eland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald ;md Karen Kozan.
\/' yes no
Level Two Application
~t
Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
/yes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
J yes no
,
..
8. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
--Lyes no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
/ yes no
Level Two Application
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
/ no
yes
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
Level Three Application
yes
/' no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
Level Three Application
yes
/no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
/ no
Level Three Application
yes
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
/ no
Level Three Application
yes
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen Davis/
yes no
Level Three Application
2
..
C. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
/yeS
no
Signature:
Date: II f fir/O "),/
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
~ Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
,/
yes
no
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
1/ yes
Level Two Application
no
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
G. Owner/Applic7: Anthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 400yeveland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
i3 Owners: Ron7and Karen Kozan.
yes no
Level Two Application
6.
t3
Cv/lt
Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
/
yes
no
5
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
I yes
no
~
Level Two Application
~
/'. yes
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
yes
no
n/t{
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
Level Three Application
yes
~ no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
Level Three Application
yes
./ no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
Level Three Application
yes
v
no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
Level Three Application
yes
v
no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen Davis..
V
Level Three Application
yes
no
2
C. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item I):
I. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
~~es no
Signature: ry~~ ~ Date: tlf'-i00
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
\
Ii
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
~ no
Level Two Application
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
~s no
Level Two Application
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: ~ony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
V yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 400 Cleveland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
~ yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald a1].d Karen Kozan.
-/' yes no
Level Two Application
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
l/ yes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
owner/APp:/,:ter Pan Developments LLC (panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
yes no
8. Case: FLD2005-08088- 685- 689 Bay Esplanade
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
---Lyes
.
"
no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
owners/AP7 Jerry and Teresa Tas.
yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
Level Two Application
Level Two Application
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
ownZ)APPIi~nt: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
~yes no
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Eamel~ueI.
V yes no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: FZ'
yes no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William 7 Michelle Holzhauer.
~yes no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Danie~ Mary Linder.
~ yes no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James ~aren Davis.
V yes no
2
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
..
.
c. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
~
no
Si~ature: 1:!J~
Date: fL -1'1- -p!
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
.
I.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 ~ 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
/ yes no
Level Two Application
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
~ yes no
Level Two Application
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicapt: Anthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
~ yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400,410,418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 40~eland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronalft'and Karen Kozan.
V yes no
Level Two Application
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
Lyes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
~yes no
.
..
8. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/ APPli7 Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
yes no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
owners/AP7ts: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
yes no
Level Two Application
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
~ yes
no
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
Level Three Application
V yes
no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
Level Three Application
V yes
no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
Level Three Application
V yes
no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
~yes
Level Three Application
no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen Davis.
v/ yes
Level Three Application
no
2
.
"
C. CONSIDERA nON OF LEVEL 2 APPEAI~ (Item I):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
Vyes
no
Date:
(S~v' (f) .
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
,
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
~es
no
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner! APPZe:n International, I::
Level Two Application
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner! APPUca~ Anthony Menna, North ClealWater Beach Development LLC
yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 and 420 Cleveland 8t & 416 Laura 8t Level Two Application
Owners: 400~. veland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way Level Two Application
Owners: Rona~nd Karen Kozan.
yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
~es
no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
owner!APPuc~eter Pan Developments LLC (l'anayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
yes no
.
'"
8. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
-X--yes
no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
~3es
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion ofthe Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
~yes
no
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Eamell Samuel.
Level Three Application
yes -4--no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
Level Three Application
yes
X no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
Level Three Application
yes
X no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
Level Three Application
yes
K
no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen Davis.
Level Three Application
yes
~
no
2
.
"
C. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
-4-yes
no
Si_~~ 0,
Date: I \ liE) 10 \'
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
"
I
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
yes
no
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
~es no
Level Two Application
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: J(rlthony Menna, North Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
/ yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400, 410, 418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 400 Jland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald aI),d Karen Kozan.
V yes no
Level Two Application
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
V<es
no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
~es no
..
8. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
0es
no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
~es no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
Level Two Application
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
v- yes
no
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
~
no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler.
V;;s
no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
ths
no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
0es
no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen Davis.
V yes
no
2
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
Level Three Application
..
C. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
~
no
Signature:
,7
~
--
Date: \ \ l \ ry ~
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3
\
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: November 15,2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 8):
1. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
yes
/ no
2. Case: FLD2005-08082 - 1575 South Highland Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc.
Level Two Application
yes
J
no
3. Case: FLD2005-08087 - 657 and 663 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Anthony Menna, N9rth Clearwater Beach Development LLC.
yes t/ no
4. Case: FLD2005-08084 - 400,410,418 and 420 Cleveland St & 416 Laura St Level Two Application
Owners: 400 CI,eland, LLC; Mainstreet Clearwater Development, LLC; and Laura St Development,
yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-08086 - 405 Island Way
Owners: Ronald and Karen Kazan. /
yes I~ no
Level Two Application
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
yes
j no
7. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli).
yes
V no
~
..
8. Case: FLD2005-08088 - 685 ~- 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC.
yes ,/ no
9. Case: FLD2005-07066 - 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owners/Applicants: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Level Two Application
yes
/ no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 6)
1. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department. Level Three Application
/no
yes
2. Case: ANX2005-08026 - 1304 Springdale Street
Owner: Earnell Samuel.
Level Three Application
)
yes
no
3. Case: ANX2005-08027 - 1321 Lynn Avenue
Owner: Fritz Roessler. j
Level Three Application
yes
no
4. Case: ANX2005-08028 - 1830 Carlton Drive
Owner: William and Michelle Holzhauer.
/
Level Three Application
yes
no
5. Case: ANX2005-08029 - 1836 Carlton Drive
Owner: Daniel and Mary Linder.
Level Three Application
yes
/' no
6. Case: ANX2005-08030 - 1842 Carlton Drive
Owner: James and Karen DaViSJ
yes no
Level Three Application
2
.
.
C. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 2 APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone727-
459-4400)
yes
/
no
Signature:
Ii/r)s Date:
S:\Planning Departrnent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
3