12/20/2005
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 20,2005
Present: David Gildersleeve
Alex Plisko
Kathy Miiani
J. B.Johnson
Thomas Coates
Dana K. Tallman
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Danie! 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 2:00 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: November 15, 2005
Member Coates mo'jed to 'approve the minutes of the reguiar meeting of November 15,
2005, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
D. REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL: (Item 1)
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
1
.
.
.
1. Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 South Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Lenny Cristino.
Representative: Mark A. Jonnatti (21021 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL 33765;
phone: 727-725-2724; fax: 727-725-2603; e-mail: mjonnatti@jarch.com).
Location: 0.297 acre located on the east side of South Fort Harrison Avenue,
approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of South Fort Harrison Avenue and
Jeffords Street.
Atlas Page: 295B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Deve!opment cpprova! to permit the expansion of a restaurant with a
reduction to lot width from 100 feet to 96 feet, reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 feet
to 15 feet (to existing outdoor seating deck), from 25 feet to 22 feet (to canopy), and from 25
feet to nine feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 5.8 feet
(to existing building), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing
pavement), reductions of the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 14.3 feet (to building), from 20
feet to four feet (to existing pavement) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and
a reduction of parking spac~5~,0m 43 spaces to 9 spaces, under the provisions of Section 2-
704.M, and a reduction to the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to nine feet (along
South Fort Harrison Avenue), and a reduction to the rear (east) landscape buffer from five feet
to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net); and
Harbor Oaks Association (301 Druid Road, Clearwater, FL 33756, phone 727-447-8081).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
In his December 15, 2005 letter, representative Mark Jonnatti requested that this item be
withdrawn.
E. REQUESTS FOR CO~.JINU~NCE: (Items 1 - 7)
1 Level Three Application
Case: Amendment to Beach 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 Old Florida District provisions set forth in Section II, Future
Land Use, Subsection A. ;:mrUhat deletes the reference to a live/work product in the Marina
Residential District set forth in Section II, Future Land Use, Subsection C.
Neighborhood Association: 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, Alep, Planner III.
In her December 15, 2005, memorandum, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton
requested that this case be continued to January 17, 2006.
Community Development 2005-12-20
2
.
.
.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item E1, Case: Amendment to Beach by Design
Special Area Plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Dennehy did not vote.
. 2. . Level Two Application
Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 1470 and 1480 South Missouri Avenue
Owners/Applicants: Peter and Kelly L. Nascarella and KP23 Enterprises; Inc.
Representative: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire (2550 Permit Place, New Port Richey, FL
34655; phone: 727-942-0733; fax: 727-944-3711; e-mail: fig@fhlaw.net).
Location: 2.31 acres located on the west side of South Missouri Avenue, south of
Bellevue Boulevard and 200 feet north of Woodlawn Street.
Atlas Page: 314A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District and Low Medium Density Residential District.
Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit vehicle sales/display and an automobi!e
service station in the Commercial District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet
to five feet (to pavement), from 25 feet to 13.7 feet (to existing building) and from five feet to
zero feet to retain existing signage (to the leading edge of the sign), reductions to the side
(south) setback from 10 feet to 5.8 feet (to carport) and from 10 feet to 3.9 feet (to pavement),
reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 3.5 feet (to pavement and existing
building), a reduction to required parking from 55 spaces to 30 spaces, an increase to sign
height from 14 feet to 15 feet (for existing signage), a deviation to allow vehicle sales/display
contiguous to residentially-zoned property, a deviation to allow the display of vehicles for sale
outdoors and a deviation to allow direct access to a major arterial street, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and reductions to the
landscape buffer width along South Missouri Avenue from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and
from 15 feet to 13.7 feet (to existing building), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along.
the south property line from five feet to 3.9 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape
buffer width along the wesi pI ufJerty line adjacent to single family dwellings from 12 feet to 5.8
feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the west property line
adjacent to a nonresidential use from five feet to 3.5 feet (to pavement and existing building), a
reduction to the foundation landscaping adjacent to buildings from five feet to zero feet and a
reduction to reduce the interior landscape area from 10% to 7.45% of the vehicular use area, as
a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (2) to
permit non-residential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential District, with a
deviation to allow landscaping on the inside of a perimeter fence, as a Residentiallnfill Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-204.E.
Proposed Use: Vehicles display and sales.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120
Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; e-mail: duketieman@aol.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.
This case was continued, at the request of the applicant, by the CDB (Community
Development Board) from the September 20 and October 18, 2005, meetings to this meeting.
The applicant has submitted no new information or plans.
In his December 15, 2005 letter, Represemtative Gerald Figurski -requested a ninety-day
continuance, due to iss!2e~ r~~=ted to the property owner's health and a Chapter 11
Community Development 2005-12-20
3
.
.
.
reorganization, currently underway in bankruptcy court, which may result in the sale of the three
parcels that do not front Missouri Avenue.
Two residents spoke in opposition to the requested continuance.
Mr. Figurski reviewed problems experienced by the property owner and reasons why the
item should be continued.
In response to a question, Senior Planner Wayne Wells said the MCEB (Municipal Code
Enforcement Board) previously had ordered the property owner to resolve Code violations,
which required some COB approvals. Withdrawal of this case could invoke Code enforcement
fines.
Discussion ensued with comments that the request is reasonable and concerns
. expressed that the property's future is uncertain. Staff reviewed a condition in the COB's
October 18, 2005 motion to continue, that the continuance would be the last one granted by the
COB for reasons within board purview.
There was no motion to continue the item.
Mr. Figurski withdrew Item E2, Case: FLD2003-08039 for 1460, 1470 and 1480 South
Missouri Avenue.
Community Development 2005-12-20
4
.
.
.
3. Case: FLD2005-07062 - 125-143 Island Way Level Two Application
Owners: Miriam L. Cebula and Harley P. and Sharon R. Evans.
Applicants/Representatives: Frank Salvo and Greg Singleton, GFB Development, LLC.
(4208 W. Corona Street, Tampa, FL 33629; phone: 813-786-8087; fax: 813-805-7283; e-
mail: gfbdeveiop@grnaii.com).
Location: 0.91 acre located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 350 feet north
of Windward Passage.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District; Island Estates Neighborhood
Overlay District. .
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 27 attached dwelling units in the High
Density Residential (HDR) District with an increase to height from 30 feet to 79 feet (to roof
deck) with an increase to the height of the parapet from 30 inches to 90 inches (from roof deck),
a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building) and 12 feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the side (north) setback from ten feet to three feet (to pavement), and a reduction to
the side (south) setback from ten feet to seven feet (to building) and eight feet (to pavement) as
part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504.F.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings. .
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, 2544 Frisco
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33731; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Dolphin Cove
Condo Association (255 Dolphin Point, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail:
dlphincove1 @netzero.com), Village on Island Estates (Tom Baiocci, 240 Windward Passage,
Unit 803, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-3861; e-mail: narctom@msn.com). and Island
Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #239, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone:
727 -442-2237).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Due to an advertising error, this case must be continued to January 17, 2006.
Member Plisko moved to continue Item E3, Case: FLD2005..07062 for 125-143 Island
Way to January 17, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-12-20
5
.
.
.
4. Case: FLD2005-07077 - 107 McMullen-Booth Road Level Two Application
Owners/Applicants: Patrick and Toni Hickey.
Representative: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA (701 Enterprise Road East, Suite 404, Safety
Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; e-mail:
keith@keithzayac.com).
Location: 0.264 acre located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
100 feet south of Bay Lane.
Atlas Page: 2928.
Zoning District: Office (0) District.
Request: Flexible DO'v'e!c;:;:nent 3pproval to permit a docter's off:ce in the Office (0) District with
a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 64.08 feet, a reduction to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 16 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20
feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 20 feet to
five feet (to sidewalk) and reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 7.1 feet (to
existing building), from 20 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 7.3 feet (to
sidewalk), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
1004. B, and reductions L0 lilt:: idndscape buffer along the north property line fiOm 12 feet to 10.7
feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 12 feet to five feet (to
sidewalk), reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 12 feet to 7.1
feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 12 feet to 7.3 feet (to
sidewalk) and a reduction to foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Doctor's office.
Neighborhood Associations: 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.
This case was continued at the applicant's request at the October 18, 2005, COB
meeting to this meeting. The applicant is revising the application material to address staff
concerns outlined in the Staff Report and to provide a joint access diiveway with the property to
the north, which will require re-aqvertisement of the request. As such, the applicant is
requesting a continuance to February 21, 2006. In his December 20, 2005, memorandum, Mr.
Wells stated that the case must be continued to February 21, 2006.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item E4, Case: FLD2005-07077 for 107 McMullen-
. Booth Road to February 21, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
A!ternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-12-20
6
.
.
.
5. 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, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.30 acre iocClied 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 reductloi-dotl.e landscape buffer along Somerset Stieet 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.G.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (eight condominiums).
Neighborhood Associat!Qns: C!earw3ter Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coaiition (uoug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 3376.1;
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.
This case was continued at the applicant's request at the November 15, 2005, COB
meeting to this meeting in order to address staff concerns. While there was some initial
discussion after the last COB meeting regarding how the site and building plans were going to
be revised, revised site and building plans were submitted this week. In order to provide staff
adequate time to review the revised proposal, staff recommends this application be continued to
January 17, 2006.
Member Fritsch moved to continue Item E5, Case: FLD2005-08090 for 693 - 699 Bay
Esplanade to January.17, :2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
CO((lmunity Developm8f1i 2005- i 2-20
'7
I
.
.
.
6. Case: FLD2005-09094 - 1091 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Carlouel Yacht Club.
Representative: Robert M. Thompson Jr. (1230 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 301,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-446-2200; fax: 727-447-6524; e-mail:
rcompan3@tampabay.rr.com).
Location: 2.813 acres located on the east side of Eldorado Avenue, approximately 300
feet north of Bay Esplanade.
Atlas Pages: 227A and 238A.
Zoning District: Institutional (I) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the expansion of an existing commercial dock (10-
foot x 107 -foot floating dock addition to an existing; O-foot x 250-foot floating dock for transient
vessel mooring), with a reduction in side (north) setback from 226.13 feet to 3.3 feet, under the
provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Expansion of an existing commercial dock.
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: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest.
To address concerns posed by neighbors, staff requested that this item be continued.
Member Coates moved to continue Item E6, Case FLD2005-09094 for 1091 Eldorado
Avenue to January 17, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Plisko abstained.
7. Level Three Application
Case: T A2005-1 0003 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, City Attorney's Office
Request: Amendments tc Commt.:nity Development Code ~pprcving 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 in(;18d::>t::6, 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, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney. '
In her December 15, 2005, memorandum, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton
requested that this case be continued to January 17, 2006.
Community Development 2005-12-20
8
.
.
.
Member Plisko moved to continue Item E7, Case TA2005-i0003, Amendments to the
Community Development Code to January 17,.2006. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
F. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owneiS, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting. (Items 1 - 14)
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302, 303, 304, 308 and 309 North Osceola Avenue; 410 Jones
Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue
Owner: Triangle Old Bay Holdings.
Applicant/Representative: Thomas Coates, Triangle Development Company, LLC. (305
N. Fort Harrison Avenu8, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-446-0020; fax: 727-446-
0020; e-mail: thomas@triangledevelopment.com).
Location: 5.14 acres generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue
bound by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor
to the west.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development (324 attached
dwelling units and 26;124 squtirc..feet of non-residential floor area}, an increase in the permitted
height from 30 feet to 169 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 28 feet for architectural
embellishments (from roof deck) for that portion of the development on the west side of North
Osceola Avenue, an additional 21 feet (from roof deck) for architectural embellishments for that
portion of the development on the east side of North Osceola Avenue as a Comprehensive Infill
. Redevelopment Project, under thepmvisions of Section 2-903.C.
Proposed Use: Mixed-use.
Neighborhood Associatioll::i: Ci8diWater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, 2544 Frisco
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). and North Myrtle
Avenue Association (Tom Sehlhorst, 1010 Blanche B Littlejohn Trail, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-443-3699).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates declared a conflict of interest.
At its meeting of July 19, 2005, the COB approved a Flexible Development application to
permit a total of 324 attached dwelling units (including 119 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool) and 18,893 square-feet of nonresidential floor area with a reduction to
the required nonresidential parking requirement as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project.
Prior to approving the c;J~yelopment proposal. the COB expressed some concerns
regarding the amount of on-site parking provided by the development. As such, the applicant
has made modifications to the development proposal resulting in the provision of an additional
130 parking spaces, which has eliminated the need for a parking reduction. The additional
parking spaces resulted in the need to provide an additional access point (Le. platform) to the
garage to maintain acceptable time!ra.mes for "processing" vehicles within the robotic parking
garage.
Community Development 2005-12-20
9
.
.
.
The development proposal also consists of two further changes. First, the provision of
an additional 7,231 square-feet of nonresidential floor area, which was accomplished by
relocating the seven ground ievel dwelling units within the Harrison Village development
component into the Island View component. Second, a 0.11-acre parcel located at the southern
end of the development was deemed superfluous to the development proposal and was sold off
to an adjacent property owner for future development. The trash compactors and generators for
the Island View component, which previously were located on this parcel, have been relocated
within the base of the Island View structure.
The 5.06-acre subject property generally is located on the west side of North Fort
Harrison Avenue and is bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north, and
Clearwater Harbor to the west The subject property currently is bifurcated by North Osceola
Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east) and
Island View (west). It is noted that a 0.1995-acre portion of the site is located within the
Preservation (P) Future Land Use category and does not yield any density; thus this portion of
. the site has not been included as part. of any density calculations.
The Harrison Vinay~ lJiuperty, which generally is bounded by North Fort Harrison
Avenue to the east and North Osceola Avenue to the west and Georgia and Jones streets to the
north and south, respectively, presently is vacant. However, the southwest corner of the
property previously consisted of four, two-story buildings constructed between 1925 and 1939
that totaled approximately 11,139 square-feet, and the balance of the property consisted of
eight buildings constructed between 1924 and 1992 by the Salvation Army.
The Island View property, which is located on the west side of North Osceola Avenue
approximately 150 feet north of Jones Street, was most recently developed with eight buildings
between two and three stories in height that originated from the period between 1900 and 1955.
All of these buildings were in varying states of disrepair prior to their recent demolition.
The development piOposal consists of the construction of 324 attached dwelling units,
26,124 square-feet of nonresidential floor area, and a 637-space iObotic parking garage. The
proposal also consists of the. ~a~,a_tion of the existing and inadequate North Osceola Avenue
right-of-way, and the dedication of a new, relocated North Osceola Avenue.
As previously stated, the development proposal consists of two components: Harrison
Village and Island View. The Harrison Village development component is approximately 38 feet
in height (to roof deck) with an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments and will
consist of 26,124 square-feet of nonresidential floor area at the ground level and 39 attached
dwelling units within the !3esnnrj, third and fourth levels. The Island View development
component is approximately 169 feet in height (to roof deck) with an additional 28 feet for
architectural embellishments and will consist of the remaining 285 attached dwelling units, the
637 -space robotic parking garage, and the amenities associated with the development
(swimming pool, billiard room, game room, and unit storage facilities).
Pursuant to the CiearvVater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
for properties located within the Old Bay character district is 0.5. The development proposal
consists of a total of 26, 'j 24 square-feet of nonresidential floor area, thereby leaving 3.67 acres
with which to calculate the allowable residential density.
Community Development 2005-12-20
10
. Pursuant to the C!ear'.^!ate~ Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for attached dwellings on a parcel of land greater than two acres in size that is located
west of North Garden Avenue within the Old Bay character district is 50 dwelling units per acre.
Therefore, based upon the above with regard to the FAR, the remaining 3.67 acres of the
subject property would permit a maximum of 183 attached dwelling units. However, the
development proposal consists .of 324 attached dwelling units - 141 dwelling units more than is
allowable. As such, the applicant has requested the use of 141 dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive POG: c;:;;-;-;c;dn available by the Plan. The development proposal's
compliance with the requirements for this additional density from the Pool is discussed later.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay
character district the maximum allowable height is based upon a property's geographic location
within the district. The Harrison Village development component is located east of North
Osceola Avenue; therefore the maximum allowable height is 40 feet. The Island View
development component is located west of North Osceola Avenue and between Drew and
Georgia Streets; therefore the maximum allowable height is 150 feet.
.
As proposed, the height of the Harrison Village development component is
approximately 38 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments,
which is consistent with the maximum allowable height as per the Plan. The Island View
development component is approximately 169 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 28 feet for
architectural embellishments, which exceeds the maximum set forth in the Plan. However,
pursuant to the Plan, the Ct>B n:.ay consider granting an increase in the maximum building
height specified in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides a major
public amenity, and the increase in height does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted
height. With regard to the Island View development component, the maximum permitted height
within its geographic region of the Old Bay character district is 150 feet; therefore an increase in
building height may not exceed 30 feet.
The development proposal requires only 19 of the additional 30 feet permissible by the
Plan. To obtain the additional 19 feet of height, the development proposal will provide major
public amenities including: residential dwelling units within the Downtovvn area, a mixed-use
project that will further the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision, as
well as significant contributions to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon
the provision of the above <::menities, the requested additional 19 feet of building height for the
Island View development component is supportable.
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, and four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet
of gross floor area for retail sales and service. Based upon the above ratios, the proposed 324
attached dwellings (486) and 26,124 square-feet of retail sales and service floor area (104.49)
requires a total of 591 parking spaces.
Pursuant to Seciion 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
.
Cor:nmunity Development 2005-12-20
11
.
532 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 637 parking spaces will be provided on-site within
a robotic parking garage; thus the development proposal will exceed its parking requirement.
Within the Harrison Village development component, trash compactors will be provided
at the north and south ends of the development with access taken from North Osceola Avenue.
With regard to the IslCind View development component, refuseliecycling rooms are provided
within the north and south ends of the building with adjacent staging areas located outside the
building footprint and accessed from Georgia Street and North Osceoia Street, respectively.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be deslgnsd to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
All on-site utility faCIlities (i.e. 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 development proposal includes the vacation of the existing abutting portion of the
North Osceola Avenue right-of-way and the subsequent rededication of right-of-way for a
realigned North Osceola Avenue. North Osceola Avenue presently is a substandard 40-foot
right-of-way with a pavement width of approximately 20 feet. It also makes three, roughly 90-
degree, bends within close proximity of each other between Jones and Georgia Streets. The
realignment of North Osceola Avenue will eliminate the northernmost bend and increase the
distance between the two remaining bends. The rededicated right-of-way will be 50 feet in
width with a pavement width of 24 feet; thus permitting two-way traffic to traverse this section of
the road.
The subject property is located within the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan identifies the
Old Bay character district as a transitional area between the Downtown Core and the low
density residential areas to the north.. Further, th~ Plan envisions the district to be a mixed-use
neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited
neighborhood commerc:a! ~~= 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 appl!cant is proposing the use of 141 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 324 dwelling units
(including those requested from the Pool) in the Downtown Plan area, and contributions to the
Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan along North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola
Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street (valued at approximately $1.83 million). Further, the
development proposal itself is a mixed-use project that will further the Plan's major
redevelopment goals and ch8racter district vision, which is also an eligible amenity from which
to enable the use of the Pool. Based upon the provision of these amenities, which are
consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 141 dwelling
units from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported.
Community Development 2005-12-20
12
.
.
.
As previously discussed, the development proposal consists of two distinct components:
Harrison Village and Island View. Harrison Village is approximately 38 feet in height (to roof
deck) with an additional 21 feet for architectural embellishments and will consist of 26,124
square-feet of nonresidential floor area at the ground level and 39 attached dwelling units within
the second, third and fourth levels. Island View is approximately 169 feet in height (to roof
deck) with an additional 28 feet for architectural embellishments and will consist of the
remaining 285 attached dwelling units, the 637 -space robotic parking garage, and the amenities
associated with the development.
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction
with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of
these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were
identified: 1) Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the
.. existing street grid pattern shall be .r~tained where it contributes to an active pedestrian
environment, and further that new vehicular and pedestrian access/circulation that effectively
serves the proposed de\.:~l~~:-:;ent and vicinity shall be provided if a vacation of right-of-way is
requested. As previously discussed, the development proposal includes the vacation of that
portion of the North Osceoia Avenue right-of-way that abuts the subject property. The existing
right-of-way is of substandard width and consists of two approximately 90-degree turns between
Jones and Georgia Streets. The development proposal also includes the dedication of a new
50-foot wide right-of-way for North Osceola Avenue that is approximately 90 feet east of the
present location of the right-of-way. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the above Guidelines; 2) Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parkinq: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that residential uses along Clearwater Harbor shall be
designed with parking garages or parking areas internal to the site/building and screened from
Clearwater Harbor and abutting rights-of-way. Further, the Guidelines state that parking
garages shall be architecturally integrated with the design, materials, finish and color of the
balance of the building. The development proposal includes a 637-space robotic parking
garage within the Island View development component. The parking garage is screened from
Clearwater Harbor and the adjacent Georgia Street and Jones Street rights-of-way by the
balance of the building; thus the parking garage has no northern, southern, or western
exposure. The ingress/egress points of the parking garage, which consists of seven platforms
accessed by two driveways, takes access from North Osceola Avenue and as such is visible
from said right-of-way. However, the visibility of the parking garage is limited to these
ingress/egress points, as that portion of the east elevation associated with the parking garage
has been designed in a manner that is architecturally consistent with the balance of the building.
Ba~ed upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines; 3)
Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it isappropriate to
provide pedestrian passageways that go through buildings, such as arcades. The development
proposal includes the provision of arcades along the east and west elevations of the Harrison
Village development component. The provision of these arcades, which are interconnected
through walkways internal to the building, will provide for improved pedestrian circulation along
the retail storefronts of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the above Guideline; 4) Site Elements: The Downtown Design Guidelines state
that open spaces that function as transitions between the public sidewalks/streets and the uses
of the property shall be provided. The development proposal includes open spaces at the four
corners of the Harrison Village development component as well as two internal open spaces
adjacent to fountains toward the north and south ends of the development. Based upon the
Community Development 2005-12-20
13
.
.
.
above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guideline; 5) 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 buildings have been designed with the associated mechanical equipment located within the
interior of the buildings. The primary loading and service areas for the development are located
at the northeast and southeast corners of the Island View development component. These
areas are located on curved/circular driveways and are screened by structural columns,
fountains and landscaping. 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 mCltch the building to which they are attached, as applicable. Based
upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the development proposal
complies with above applicable Guideline; 6) Orientati9n: The Downtown Design Guidelines
state that building shali be oriented toward the street and that the orientation of the front fa<(ade
along the streetscape shall contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. The Harrison Village
development component is bounded on all sides by various rights-of-way and has been
designed with storefronts opening onto each right-of-way with arcades providing shelter for
pedestrians. In addition, the Island View development component has been oriented toward the
North Osceola Avenue right-of-way. Based upon the above, the development proposal
complies with above ~pr!i~::!hl~ Guideline; 7) 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 and that new development should respect the vertical height of
existing or approved adjacent buildings and contribute to a pedestrian scale. The Guidelines
further state that the apparent height of a building/development can be influenced and
augmented by a combination of step backs, varying building heights and horizontal features.
The more notable building ht:ights in the surrounding area include the Church of Scientology's
Sandcastle, which is approximately 70 feet in height, the 60-foot tall Osceola Inn, and the 70-
foot tall Belvedere Apartments. The balance of the surrounding development ranges in height
between 15 and 35 feet. The Harrison Village development component, which has a proposed
height of 39 feet, will be consistent with the heights of the surrounding buildings and the
architectural embellishments such as the clock towers and parapet walls, which extend an
additional 21 feet above the roof deck, will provide further visual interest and reinforce the
Mediterranean influenced architectural style of the development. The Island View development
component, while taller than the surrounding developments will be complimentary and relate to
their scale through the use of step backs and various architecturai features. Specifically, the
development includes two distinct step backs: an 11-foot step back between the first two levels
and the mid-rise section of the building, and a 58-foot step back between the mid-rise and high-
rise sections. Building articulation consists of cornice lines, balconies and coping to differentiate
the building levels. Additionally, while the principle roof has a height of 169 feet, architectural
embellishments, including a cupola and parapet "'.tails extend an additional 28 feet will provide
further visual interest. The height is also mitigated as it is split between two towers rather than a
solitary monolithic structure. This creates extensive negative and positive space on all sides of
the building, thereby adding to the visual aesthetics. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines; 8) 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 trlt:ie should be a proportional relationship between the height of a
Community Development 2005-12-20
14
.
.
.
building and the number and dimensions of step backs used to mitigate the height of the
building. Both development components consist of a distinct "base", "middle" a'1d "cap." The
arcades define the "base" of Harrison Village, the.varying roof styles and towers define the "cap"
and the area in between, which consists of windows and balconies, defines the "middle." .With
regard to the aforementioi'lI::u ;".igh-rise criteria, the building consists of numerous step backs
and vertical plane changes that not only create visual interest and mitigate the height of the
building, but also serve to define the "base," "middle," and "cap" of the building. These step
backs and plane changes are accented by cornices and pre-cast trim bands, which also add
aesthetic value to the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent
with the above applicable Guidelines; 9) Architecture: The Downtown Design Guidelines state
that multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally to each other and the
surrounding neighborhood. The fayades of the two development components will complement
and visually support each other as they incorporate similar arched elements, canopies, and
balconies as well as an extensive use of windows in keeping with the Mediterranean influenced
architectural style. The Mediterranean style of the development is consistent with the intent of
the Guidelines as it is complementary to the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines;
10) Primary and Corner Facades: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary
fayade is to be the most highly designed facade and utilize plane changes (Le. projections and
recesses), architecturaldetaiis, 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. As previously stated, the fayade of
the Island View development component consists of numerous step backs and vertical plane
changes that create visual interest. . The elevations also consist of architectural details, such as:
decorative balconies, awnin~~. r.opper and barrel tile roofs, decorative pre-cast trim and
cornices. The fayades of the Harrison Village development component are architecturally
consistent with those for Island View with the exception of the copper roofs. The Harrison
Village development component effectively encompasses an entire block; therefore it consists of
four corners. Each of these corners will consist of a decorative clock tower that rises above the
balance of the building and serves to set the development apart from the surrounding
properties. The fayades an:: also heavily detailed and incorporate an arcade along the east and
west elevations, which provide the plane changes desired by the Guidelines. Based upon the
above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines; 11)
Windows and Doors: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that windows shall be provided
along all streets; that windows in commercial.areas are appropriately sized to allow for display
and views into the building; and that bulkheads shall be provided below and transoms above
display windows. The buildings have been designed with appropriately sized windows along all
streets; however the windows associated with the nonresidential element of the Harrison Village
development component do not include the required bulkheads or transoms. As these elements
would be consistent with tn'e" architectural style of the buiiding, it is 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 and subject to the
attached condition of approval, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guidelines; 12) Roof Desiqn: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that multiple
rooftops shall be provided en vaiying-Iavels of large buildings so as to break-up the massing ef
the building. The Island Vieyv development component consists of numerous building step
backs and a 124-foot horizontal separation between the two towers. This results in multiple
rooftops at varying heights and of varying styles (pitched and flat). Based upon the above, the
Community Development 2005-12-20
15
.
.
.
development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Gu!delines; 13) Other
Architectural Features: The.l?owntown Design Guidelines state awnings shall be provided that
protect pedestrians from inclement weather. While awnings have not specifically been provided
in a manner that would protect pedestrians, the development proposal does provide an arcade
along the storefronts of the Harrison Village component that will effectively accomplish the same
task. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guideline; 14) Materials: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the building
materials utilized shall be consistent with and relate to the architectural style of the building.
The proposed building materials consist of both smooth and scored stucco walls, concrete
barrel tile roofs, casement windows, raised stucco bands, ornamental railings, and decorative
balconies with trellises as well as pre-cast decorative columns, medaiiions, and trim. Based
upon the utilization of the above building materials, which are all consistent with the
Mediterranean influenced architectural style; the development proposal is in compliance with the
above referenced Guidelines; 15) 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 applicant has identified the proposed color scheme as consisting of
"tones of terracotta, cream, ochre and mustard, offset by accents of a deeper hue. Lighter
tones will be used to accentuate advancing planes with the color tone becoming progressively
stronger on the building planes away from the street. The entrance porticoes will signal their
function and importance with the strongest, or most contrasting color. Window and doorframes
will be darker. Pediments and parapets will be the lightest color to outline the building against
the sky. Contrasting color awnings will provide accent points. Trellises will be a lighter color to
set off the greenery growing over them. The base of the building will have a finish of contrasting
three-dimensional color8d bandin!:l which will have the appearance of horizontal stone coursing
(blocks)." As stated by the applicant, 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;
AND
16) Visions, Goals, uOlectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Vis!ons, Goals, Objectives
and Policies were identified: Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of
retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of
residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized
Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban
residential uses, and streetscc:pes consistent with the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding
Plan, as well as buildings located along and oriented towards all abutting streets. As such, the
project is consistent with the above Vision; Vision: Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should
be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the
major retail core Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail
uses, urban residential uses as well as the streetscape improvements consistent with the City's
Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with the above
Vision; Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The
proposed buildings incorporate a Mediterranean-influenced style of architecture. The building
utilizes high-quality materiais such as stucco and a terra cotta barrel tile roof. Attractive
architectural detailing, including the use of coping and trim bands, will add to the aesthetic
quality of the building. The buildings will be painted attractive bright earth-tone colors and will
include an extensive use of step backs and articulation of the fenestration. As such, the project
Community Development 2005-12-20
16
.
.
.
will be consistent with the above Vision; Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people
for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract
residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination.
This project will provide a density of 66.66 units per acre and is a pioneering mixed-use project
for downtown within the Old Bay character district. As such, the project will be consistent with
the above Goal; Obiective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the
design guidelines and the Dowritown zoning district. The development proposal provides 324
attached dwellings and 26,124 square-feet of nonresidential floor area as part of an attractive
mixed-use development. As such, the project will be consistent with the above Objective;
Obiective 1 E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to
provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown
. residents. The development proposal provides for 26,124 square-feet of new nonresidential
floqr area, which will further the provision of a stable employment center and additional
employment opportunities. As such, the project will be consistent with the above Objective;
Obiective 1 H: The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and
shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides a pool of development potential from
which projects may acquire additional dwelling units. This development proposal includes a
request to utilize 141 dwelling units from the Pool to achieve the desired density for the site and
thereby increasing the viability and vibrancy of the project. The proposal includes approximately
$1.83 million in streetscape improvements for North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola
Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street, which will be consistent with the City's Master
Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with the above
Objective; Obiective 1 K: Downtown shall be a safe environment for both residents and visitors
by addressing real and perceived public safety issues. The immediate area, with some notable
exceptions, is characterized by low-quality, attached dwellings generally poorly maintained
which contribute to a real and perceived impression of a lack of safety. The redevelopment of
this site with attractive high-quality structures and the influx of additional residents and shoppers
will improve the appearance of the area, contributing to a safer environment. As such, the
project will be consistent with the above Objective; Obiective 2A: The Downtown street grid
should be maintained to provide multiple access points in and through Downtown, to assist in
dispersing traffic on various routes and contribute to improved traffic operations. Vacation of
streets shall be evaluated based en redevelopment potential provided alternative access exists
or can be provided. The existing grid system will be improved by the development proposal.
The existing North Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the project will be vacated and a
new right-of-way for North Osceola Avenue with a standard width of 50 feet and a pavement
width of 24 feet will be dedicated approximately gO feet to the east of its present location. The
result will be the elimination of one of the three existing gO-degree turns and greater spacing
between the remaining two gO-degree bends. The street also takes advantage of a relatively
low traffic volume along North Osceola Avenue by locating the principle access points to the
project from that street. As su(:h, the project will be consistent with the above Objective;
Obiective 2H: A variety of parking solutions for motorized and non-motorized vehicles shall be
pursued to support redevelopment while maintaining ease of access and parking throughout the
Downtown. The development proposal includes a new concept in structured parking called
"robotic parking." The particular system proposed with this development works essentially by
the user driving onto a platform. The driver exits the vehicle and the vehicle is then moved
automatically into the most convenient space within the garage. The vehicle will not leave that
platform until the driver retrieves the vehicle; Obiective 21: Redeveiopment and public
Community Development 2005-12-20
17
.
.
.
improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throu.ghout the Downtown. The
development proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements along North Osceola
Avenue, North Fort Harrison /~.venue, Jones Street and Georgia Street that are consistent with
the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has
been achieved; Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents
and visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built
environment and history. The development proposal will increase density and set a new design
standard within the Old Bay character district while providing for an attractive streetscape
through commercial uses, striking buildings, new streetscaping and landscaping. As such, the
project will be consistent with the above Goal; Obiective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to
create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that
respect Downtown's char ':1cter and heritage. The development proposal consists of buildings
that will complement the existing pattern of development along North Fort Harrison and North
Osceola Avenues incorporating arched elements, canopies, balconies and an extensive use of
windows as part of a Mediterranean-revival style of architecture. The step backs will result in
the appearance to passersby of a building in harmony with other buildings in the area. As such,
the project will be consistent with the above Objective; Policy 1: The Downtown Design
Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment
and new construction in Uowntown with which ail projects must be consistent. The
development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it incorporates a detail rich
Mediterranean-:revival style architecture that utilizes high-quality materials, such as stucco and
terra cotta barrel tile roofs. The proposed design also incorporates an extensive use of step
backs and articulation of the fenestration and a variety of architectural details such as balconies,
railings, awnings, a covered arcade, coping, parapet walls, etc. As such, the project will be
consistent with the above Policy; Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced
through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and
contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. The Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan envisions the Old Bay character district as a mixed-use
neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited
neighborhood commercial and office uses. Staff has worked diligently with the applicant to
create a development that is consistent with this vision. It is specifically noted that the Island
View development component is consistent with that portion of the character district vision,
which provides for an opportunity for higher-density residentialusp.s along Clearwater Harbor
west of Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent
with the above Policy; Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful
contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The proposed
design of the site and buildings contributes to the pedestrian environment by providing an active
streetscape including wide sidewalk.s,. fountains, ~eating, lush landscaping, shade provided by
awnings and an arcade, and ground floor nonresidential floor area. As such, the project will be
consistent with the abO'.:c PC~::::::i;. 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 will
utilize 141 dwelling units from the pool. The proposal includes approximately $1.83 million in
Community Development 2005-12-20 .
18
.
.
.
streetscape and wayfinding improvements for N()rth Osceola Avenue; North Fort Harrison
Avenue, Jones Street, rind r,pnrgia Street. These improvements will be consistent with the
City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with
the above Policy; Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site
recreation facilities based upon the scale of the project. Amenities forthe site include a
swimming pool, hot tub, billiard room, game room, and unit storage facilities. As such, the
project will be consistent with the above Policy; and Policy 25: The City shall give priority to
sidewalk construction within Downtown that enhances pedestrian linkages and/or completes a
continuous sidewalk system on all streets. The development proposal includes sidewalks along
North Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues as well as Jones and Georgia streets. The sidewaiks
will include interlocking pavers, benches, shaded arcades, solid waste containers and
streetlights matching the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project
will be consistent with the above Policy.
Old Bay Character District Policies: The following applicable policies shall govern
development within the District, as well as City actions: 1) The Public Incentives Amenities Pool
shall not be available to any property located on the west of Osceola Avenue between Eldridge
Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay character district. Tile subject property is
located south of Eldridge Street; therefore it is eligible for the Public Amenities Incentive Pool
from which the project proposes the use of 141 dwelling units; 2) New development on North
Fort Harrison Avenue shall be oriented toward the street to encourage pedestrian activity and a
dynamic street life. The development proposal includes new development oriented towards a:1
abutting streets including North Fort Harrison Avenue. Nonresidential uses are proposed to be
located along North Fort Harrison Avenue with residential uses facing all streets; 3) Mixed-use
development that has office and retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses above are
encouraged along North Fort Harrison Avenue. As stated above, the development proposal
includes the provision of nonresidential floor area on the ground fibor along North Fort Harrison
Avenue with residential uses above; and 4) Preferred housing styles east of Osceola Avenue
are single-family detached and townhouses. Attached dwellings in this area may be considered
upon assembly of at least one acre and preferably one city block. The development proposal
includes a land assemblage of just over five acres and more than 90% of a city block. As such,
the development proposal will be consistent with the intent of this Policy.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the
policies governing development within the Downtown Core character district. There are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC revic'....e;! .the application and supporting mater~a!s on November 3, 2005, and
found the application to be sufficient. In addition, the basic concept and form of the
development proposal is consistent with the site plan and architectural elevations previously
approved by the COB. The development proposal will further the City's goals of improving the
character of the Downtown as well as promoting private sector investment within the Downtown
area.
The Planning O€:pdl-ll-'It::iit recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit a
mixed-use development with 324 attached dwelling units (141 from Public Amenities Incentive
Pool) and 26,124 square-feet of nonresidential floor area, an increase in the permitted height .
from 30 feet to 169 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 28 feet for architectural embellishments
(from roof deck) for that portion of the development on the west side of North Osceola Avenue,
Community Development 2005.12-20
19
.
.
.
an additional 21 feet (from roof deck) for architectural embellishments for that portion of the
development on the east side of North Osceola Avenue as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C., based upon the following
Findings of Fact and Conc!us:ons cf Law and with the following Conditions of Approval:
Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 5.06-acre subject property is
located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and
Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan categories; 2) That the portion of the subject property
(0.1995 acre) located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category and does not
generate density; 3) That this application for Flexible Development is an amendment to a
Flexible Development application that was previously approved by the COB at its meeting of
July 19, 2005; 4) That the SUbj8Ct 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 Old Bay character district; 5) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay character district; 6) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 7) That the use of
141 dwelling units from the Pubiic Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 8) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Flexible Develop!T1ent criteria as a Comprehensive Infi!! Redevelopment Project as per
Section 2-903.C; 9) That ttie development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability
Criteria as per Section 3-913; and 10) That the development proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions of. AJ?Q[oy~l: 1) T.h~t all nonre~idential uses proposed to be located on site
are consistent with those permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and
the Clearwater Downto';;;; rz.:'::&velopment Plan; 2) 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; 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 whi.ch includes: a} All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in
terms of including the sarne 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, and that separate right-of-way permits are obtained for all paver brick
sidewalks along City streets; 11) That the storefront windows associated with the Harrison
Village development component are revised to include both bulkheads and transoms in a
manner consistent with the ;:lrchitectural style; 12) That evidence oUiling of a Unity of Title with
Pinellas County is submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 13)
Community Development 2005-12-20
20
.
.
.
That any dwelling units obtained from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool that are not built are
returned to the Pool; 14) That all streetscaping within the North Fort Harrison Avenue, North
Osceola Avenue, Georgia Street and Jones Street rights-of-way is installed pursuant to the
City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan and to the satisfaction of staff prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 15) That if the conditions of approval associated
with the development are not meet, then the incentives gained from the Public Amenities
Incentive Pool are returned to the Pool; 16) That the newly dedicated North Osceola Avenue
right-of-way between Jones and Georgia streets will be improved as per City standards prior to
the issuance of the firstCertif:cate of Occupancy; 17) That if the proposed project necessitates
infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements
and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant
and at their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the
installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire
Department requirements; 10j That all fire hydrant assemblies installed at a distance greater
than 10 feet from a water main are constructed with ductile iron pipe and have a gate valve at
the tee on the branch line and at the fire hydrant assembly; 19) That the applicant coordinates
with the City's Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a Development Order to assure
that adequate sanitary sewer service will be provided to the subject property and surrounding
properties based upon the relocation of utilities associated with the new North Osceola Avenue
right-of-way; 20) That the first building permit be applied for within one year of the COB approval
(by December 20, 2006); and 21) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two
years of issuance of the first building permit.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2005-09098 for 302,
303,304,308 and 309 North Osceola Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison
Avenue based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, with Conditions of
Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Coates
abstained.
2.
Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Townhomes, 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@minrlsrring.com). .
Location: 0.478 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800
feet east of Haclluell UI ive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a pool to a previously
approved attached dwelling project (FLD2002-11 042, approved January 21, 2003) in the Tourist
District with a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (2)
Preliminary Plat approval revising the previously recorded plat to provide for the proposed pool
(PL T2005-00026).
Proposed Use: Addition of pool to townhomes.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Community Development 2005-12-20
21
.
.
.
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 0.478 acre is located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800 feet
east of Hamden Drive. Ti-It: - ~;i.e has 180 feet of frontage on Brightwater Drive and currently is
being developed with 10 town home attached dwellings of two stories over ground level,
individual garage parking. -
On January 21, 2003, the COB approved Cases FLD2002-11 042/PL T2002-11 005, with
six conditions of approval, permitting the redevelopment of this site with the 10 townhomes,
replacing the existing overnight accommodation uses. On April 20, 2004, the COB approved
Case FLD2003-11 058, with eight conditions of approval, permitting the construction of docks
with 10 slips for the townhomes. The construction of these docks presently is being completed.
The property to the direct north across Brightwater Drive presently is developed with
overnight accommodation use, but a redevelopment proposal has been submitted for attached
dwellings. The property to the east is presently developed with attached dwellings in two-story
buildings, with a parking lot adjacent to the subject property. The property to the west presently is
under construction with nine town home attached dwellings.
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 application approved by the COB. This proposal includes
a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 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 deck ;;!t? ?",r0 setback. The townhome project to the west at 145 Brightwater
Drive also was approved by the COB with a pool in a similar location and setback as this proposal,
as well as most of the redevelopment projects on Brightwater Drive. The applicant has submitted
a request to the City (BCP2003-05509E) to modify the site development permit to construct the
retention pond within a smaller area at the rear of these townhomes to accommodate the
proposed pool and pool deck. A permit has been issued to construct 60 feet of a new seawall
adjacent to this proposed pool (BCP2005-10059). While not indicated, pool fencing will need to
be non-opaque within the waterfront sight visibility triangle. The landscape plan presently
indicates oleander shrubs proposed within the waterfront sight visibility triangle. In accordance
with Section 3-904.8, there can be no landscaping within the waterfront sight visibility triangle.
The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks is still justified by the benefits to an
upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding
development. The setback reduction requested is to a non-building structure and would have
most likely been approved at the requested setback if it had been included in the original request
for this property (FLD2002-11 042).
The modification requested to the plat for the property is to provide for the pool within the
easement at the rear of the townhome lots. 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 associCited 'vvlth this site.
Community Development 2005-12-20
22
.
.
.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The subject O. 478 acre is zoned Tourist District and has 180 feet of
lot width; 2) The site currently is being developed with 10 attached dwellings (townhomes),
approved by the CDB on January 21, 2003 (Cases FLD2002-11 042/PL T2002-11 005), in a two-
story over ground-level, individual garage parking; 3) 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; 4) The proposed pool meets the required side (east) setback (to pool
deck); 5) Current development practices place the pool area at the rear of the property; 6) Other
properties along Bright....ater Drive have been approved by the CDB 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 Comprehensive Infill R~development 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" oii ler 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 November 3, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Flexible Development application to
permit the addition of a pool to a previously approved attached dwelling project (FLD2002-
11042, approved Januarj21, 2003) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the rear (east)
setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (2) Preliminary Plat approval revising the
previously recorded plat to provide for the proposed pool (PL T2005-00026), for the site at 161
Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive InfHI Redevelopment
Project per Section 2-804. 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 surrouoding)3rea and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That all conditions of approval adopted by the CDB for Cases.
FLD2002-11 042/PL T2002-11 005 are still in effect; 2) That pool fencing be non-opaque within
the waterfront sight visibility triangle; and 3) That there be no landscaping (other than sod)
within the waterfront sight visibility triangle.
See page 58 for motion of a"il'proval.
Community Development 2005-12-20
23
.
.
.
3. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2005-091 01/TDR2005-09027.- 170,174,180, 184 and 188 Brightwater
Drive
Owner/Applicani: fianiingo Bay of Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.781 acre located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 1,200
feet east of Harnden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 27 attached dwellings in the Tourist
District with a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging
area), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building) and from 20 feet
to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 45.67
feet (to roof deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16
feet for a rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C (retaining five existing boat docks for sole use
by the property owners); and (2) the Transfer of Development Rights for two units from 28
Idlewild Street and two units from 321 Coronado Drive; under the provisions of Section 4-1403
(TDR2005-09027).
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (27 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 Coa!itio!1 {!}~~g VVilliams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.781 acre is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 1,200
feet east of Harnden Drive. The site has 267 feet of frontage on Brightwater Drive and is
currently developed with a totai of 27 attached dwellings (apartments). It is located along a
highly developed area within Clearwater beach and has frontage along Clearwater Harbor. The
site is located within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which provides for the
redevelopment of Brightwater Drive with town homes and timeshares between two and four
stories above parking.
The property to the south across Brightwater Drive presently is developed with overnight
accommodation uses on the east side, and is otherwise presently developed with, or being
developed with, attached dwellings (condominiums and townhomes respectively). The property to
the east presently is vacant, but .vas approved by the COB on Ju'ne 15, 2004 (FLP2003-
12069/TDR2003-12005, 190 Brightwater Drive) to be redeveloped with "10 attached dwellings in a
four-story building over ground-level parking. The property to the west presently is developed with
overnight accommodation uses, but a request has been filed to redevelop that property with
attached dwellings (condominiums), also in a four-story building over ground-level parking.
The proposal includes constructing a 27-unit, four-story (over ground-level parking)
residential condominium building. A total of 23 dwelling units are permitted for the subject
property, based on the maximum of 30 units per acre. The applicant is proposing the utilization of
Community Development 2005-12-20
24
.
.
.
four dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights from 28 Idlewild Street (two units)
and 321 Coronado Drive (two units) (which is the maximum of 20% of the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed by Section 4-1402 of the Code). The first two levels will contain seven units
on each floor. The third level will have six units, while the fourth level will have five units. The
building is designed with town home-style units on both the east and west ends of the building.
The units on the first two levels will be approximately 1,881 square-feet each, the units on the third
level will be approximately 2,219 square-feet each and the fourth level will be approximately 2,500
- 3,000 square-feet each. The town home-style units will be approximately 2,500 square-feet
each.
Section C.2 of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design requires no plane of a building to
continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of greater than five feet. During
the review of this project, the Planning Department identified noncompliance with this requirement
for the rear of the building. The proposed building plans submitted for review by the CDB include
the applicant's attempt to address the requirement with two five-foot wide by five-foot deep
cutouts on the rear of th~ bl_lilrlina. This proposal does not meet the intent of the Design Guideline
provision to avoid the appearance of a linear rear plane of the building. Prior to the issuance of
the building permit, the building plans need to be revised to meet this provision, acceptable to the
Planning Department.
The proposal includes 42 parking spaces under the building, whereas a total of 41 parking
spaces are required (1.55 spaces per unit). Parking under the building will be gated, with owners
provided with remote gate opening devices. Due to a pending Code amendment increasing the
parking requirement for attached dwellings from 1.5 to two spaces per unit, parking for this project
will be nonconforming upon adoption of the Code amendment.
The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to
permit attached dwellings within the Tourist District due to the rear setback reductions being
requested to the pool deck and boardwalk. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south)
setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the rear (north) setback
from 20 feet to 18 feet (to bui!dihgi and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk).
Due to the slightly irregular, arc-shape of the property, the building has been designed on the
property to meet the required east and west side setback of 10 feet and the required front setback
of 15 feet. The main portion of the building is located a minimum of 23.4 feet from the front
property line. With regard to the front setback reduction from Brightwater Drive related to the
trash staging area, the buiid;i"ig vvlll have both a refuse collection and recycling room on the
ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters or recycling carts will be rolled out to the
staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is
necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many
newer developments. The building has been designed, however, where a rear setback reduction
is necessary. The 18-foot rear setback proposed to the building is consistent with some of the
other attached dwelling projects approved on Brightwater Drive and will still comply with the
Building Code requirement of an 18 feet setback from the seawall. The rear setback reduction is
otherwise to the pool and pooi deck, which is consistent with other approved projects on
Brightwater Drive. 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 the pool deck at a zero
setback. Adjustments to the Building Code setback (less than 18 feet) also are reviewed by the
Building Official prior to building permit issuance. The requested flexibility in regard to required
setbacks is justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and
Community Development 2005-12-20
25
.
the proposal is compatible with surrounding development. The proposal is consistent with the
attached dwelling character of the immediate vicinity, specifically the projects already approved at
190 and 205 Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at 193, 199 and 201 Brightwater Drive
(Cases FLD2005-091 02/TDR2005-09026) on the same agenda as this project.
.
The proposai inducies an increase to buiiding height from 35 feet to 45.67 feet (to roof
deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16 feet for a
rooftop pavilion (from roof deck). The proposed building of four stories over ground-level
parking is consistent with that envisioned by Beach by Design for this street and with heights
approved for 190 and 205 Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at 193, 199 and 201
Brightwater Drive (Cases FLD2005-091 02fTDR2005-09026) on the same agenda as this
project. Code provisions allow parapet walls to extend a maximum of 30-inches above the roof
deck. The applicant is requesting to increase the parapet to a total of 5.5 feet from the roof
deck. The majority of the parapet located on the front, east and west sides of the building is at a
height of approximately four feet. The 5.5-foot height for the parapet is only at two locations at
the rear of the building, where the parapet arches up around medallions. The parapet will
screen from view rooftop air condensing units and will be in proportion with the building fac;:ade.
The proposal also includes arl open pavilion at the rear of the building that will be 16 feet in
height (from roof deck to peak of the pavilion roof) as a common recreational element for the
condominiums and adds wchiter.tllral embellishment to the rear of the building. The waterside
portions of the north side of the roof will be enclosed for safety and Building Code purposes with
a 3.5-foot high railing, which will not block water views from residents and guests while on the
roof deck. Code provisions allow, and the proposal includes, the elevator towers to be a
maximum of 16 feet above the roof deck. The top of the proposed stair towers will be
approximately 11 feet above the ro.C?Ldeck.
The Mediterranear: ~t~'!e of architecture of the building will include shrimp tint stucco for
the main building color, accented by pink salmon, and a soft yellow on the elevator and stair
towers. The parapet walls will contain a Florida-blend of barrel tile roofing. The windows, door
frames and railings will be white in color.
The landscape plan utilizes a colorful groundcover (parsonii juniper and society garlic),
shrubs (nora grant ixora, siiver buttonwood, green pittosporum and petite pink oleander) and
trees (sable palmetto palm, Mexican fan palm, date palm, pigmy date palm, ligustrum tree and
pink trumpet tree). The front and most of the side areas will be heavily planted, which will
provide a pleasing appearance for this project. The landscape plan presently indicates green
pittosporum and silver buttonwood shrubs, as well as sable palmetto palm trees, proposed
within the waterfront sight visibility triangle. In accordance with Section 3-904.B, there can be
no landscaping within the waterfront sight visibility triangle.
.
The applicant is not proposing any signs with this development. Any future freestanding
sign should be a monument'-styleO sign of a maximum four feet in height and designed to match
the exterior materials and color of the building. On-site utility facilities (electric and communication
lines) will be required to be placed underground as part of the site redevelopment. Provisions for
the placement of conduits for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in
the public right-of-way should be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy in a manner Clccepiabie to-the utility companies and the City. A special warranty deed,
specifying the number of dwellinq units being conveyed or sold from 28 Idlewild Street and 321
Coronado Drive and being transferred to this site, must be recorded prior to the issuance of any
Community Development 2005-12-20
26
.
.
.
permits for this project. This special warranty deed also must contain a covenant restricting in
perpetuity the use of 28 Idlewiid Street and 321 Coronado Drive due to the transfer of
development rights.
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 3L:bject 0.781 acre is zoned Tour:st District and has 267 feet of
lot width; 2) The site is currently developed with a total of 27 attached dwellings (apartments); 3)
The proposal includes constructing a 27-unit, four-story (over ground-level parking) residential
condominium building; 4) The proposal includes the utilization of four dwelling units through the
Transfer of Development Rights from 28 Idlewild Street (two units) and 321 Coronado Drive
(two units); 5) The building has been designed on.the property to meet the required east and
west side setback of 10 feet and the required front setback of 15 feet. The main portion of the
building is located a miilillllJi"11 UI 23.4 feet from the front property line; 6) The proposal includes
a reduction to the rear setback to the building from 20 feet to 18 feet, which is consistent with
some of the other attached dwelling projects approved on Brightwater Drive and will still comply
with the Building Code requirement of an 18 feet setback from the seawall; 7) The setback
reductions are otherwise to the trash staging area, the pool and pool deck and the boardwalk
along the seawall, which aie consistent with other approved projects on Brightwater Drive; 8)
The proposed building of four stories over ground-level parking is consistent with that
envisioned by Beach by Design for this street and with heights approved for 190 and 205
Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at 193, 199 and 201 Brightwater Drive (Cases
FLD2005-091 02/TDR2005-09026) on the same agenda as this project; 9) The proposal is
consistent with the attached dwelling character of the immediate vicinity, specifically the projects
already approved at 190 and 205 Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at 193, 199 and
201 Brightwater Drive (Cases FLD2005-091 02/TDR2005-09026) on the same agenda as this
project; 10) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; 11) The proposal is
not in complete compliance with .Section C.2 of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design; and
12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.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, st;:!ff r'=('0ITlmends approval of this application...
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on November 3,2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Flexible Development application to
permit 27 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with a reduction to the front (south) setback
from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20
feet to 18 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk), an
increase to building height from 35 feet to 45.67 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for
parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16 feet for a rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as
part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C
(retaining five existing boat docks for sole use by the property owners); and (2) the Transfer of
Development Rights for two units from 28 Idlewild Street and two units from 321 Coronado
Community Development 2005-12-20
27
.
.
.
Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (TDR2005-09027), for the site at 170, 174,180,
184 and 188 Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1)
The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other
standards in the Code inciuding tile General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts. AND Conditions of Approvai:. .1) That the. final design and color of the building be
consistent with the concepturll 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 a
special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 28
Idlewild Street and 321 Coronado Drive and being transferred to this site, be recorded prior to
the issuance of any permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall also contain a
covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 28 Idlewild Street and 321
Coronado Drive due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending
site (28 Idlewild Street and 321 Coronado Drive) shall consent to the transfer of development
rights prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a
monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building; 6) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the
exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be
sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 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 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 applic:::nt'z eng:near.and the City's Engineering Department prior to the
commencement of work; 9) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance
of any permits; 10) That all construction comply with FEMA requirements; 11) That there be no
landscaping (other than sod) within the waterfront sight visibility triangle; and 12) That, prior to
the issuance of the building permit, the building plans be revised to meet Section C.2 of the
Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, acceptable to the Planning Department.
Robert Lafferty requested Party Status.
Member Fritsch moved to grant Party Status to Robert Lafferty. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Don Brinson requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Party Status to Don Brinson. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
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.
Community Development L:UUO- i 2-20
28
.
.
.
Party Status Grantee Robert Lafferty opposed the project as it is too tall, will diminish his
property's value, block his views, and establish a precedent that will allow nearby properties to
build with similar setbacks.
Party Status Grante6 Don Brinson said construction will negatively impact residents'
access to their homes as workers and delivery trucks block Brightwater, the project provides
inadequate parking, and further Brightwater development should be staggered to minimize
impacts to residents.
Troy Perdue, representative, said the applicant had obtained permits necessary to raze
the structure on a nearby, applicant-owned property to provide a staging area for this project.
He said the project's condominium association will prohibit parking in the street. It was
recommended that residents contact the City regarding neighborhood parking infractions.
Mr. Wells reported that construction on BeachWalk, scheduled to begin in January 2006,
will impact south beach traffic for up to four years. Much beach construction will occur
simultaneously during the next years. The City is trying to work with developers regarding
parking and staging issues. Thus project's proposed setback is to the rear for a pool deck. In
response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Parks & Recreation fees previously had been
assessed.
In response to a question, Roland Rogers, applicant, said he is working to construct a
600-space parking garage at the end of Brightwater between Hamden and Coronado.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Item F3, Case FLD2005-09101/TDR2005-09027 for
170, 174,180, 184 and 188 Brightwater Drive based on the staff report, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-12-20
29
.
.
.
4. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2005-091 02fTDR2005-09026 - 193, 199 and 201 Brightwater Drive
Owner/Applicant: LaBella Vista of Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: nestech@mindspring.com).
Location: 0.513 ecre !c-ceted on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 1,500
feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Pages: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 18 attached dwellings in the Tourist
District with reductions to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to 10.8 feet (to building) and
from 15 feet to zero feet (to ~idewalk and dumpster staging area), a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to seven feet (to pavement and wall), reductions to the side (west) setback
from 10 feet to 8.8 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to pavement and wall),
reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to
zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk) and increases to building height from 35 feet to 45.67 (to
roof deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 14.25 feet
for a rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C (retaining three existing boat docks for sole use by the
property owners); and (2) the Transfer of Development Rights for three units from 200
Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (TDR2005-09026).
Proposed Use: Attached dweliings (18 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).
Piesenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.513-acre is located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 1,500
feet east of Hamden Drive. The site has 193 feet of frontage on Brightwater Drive and currently
is vacant (formerly developed with a total of 12 attached dwellings [apartments]). It is located
along a highly developed area within Clearwater beach and has frontage along Clearwater
Harbor. The site is located within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which provides
for the redevelopment of Brighiwater Drive with town homes and timeshares between two and
four stories above parking.
On December 14, 2004, the COB denied a request to construct 18 attached dwellings on
this property with greater setback reductions than proposed with the subject application, but a
similar building design and building height (Cases FLD2004-09070fTDR2004-09013).
The property to the north at 210 Brightwater Drive presently is developed with overnight
accommodation use and the property at 200 Brightwater Drive is -developed with 10 town home
attached dwellings in a building two stories over ground-level parking. The property to the
northwest at 190 Brightwater Drive presently is vacant, but has been approved for a 10-unit
attached dwelling building (condominiums) of four stories over ground-level parking. The property
to the east at 205 Brightwater Drive presently is being developed with 20 attached dwellings
Community Development 2005-12-20
30
.
(condominiums) in a four-story building over ground-level parking. The property to the west
presently is developed with overnight accommodation uses.
The proposal includes constructing an 18-unit, four-story (over ground-level parking)
residential condominium building. A total of 15 dwelling units are permitted for the subject
property, based on the maximum of 30 units per acre. The applicant is proposing the utilization of
three dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights from 200 Brightwater Drive
(which is the maximum of 20% of the maximum number of dwelling units allowed by Section 4-
1402 of the Code). The first two levels will contain five units on each floor. The third and fourth
levels will have three units each. The building is designed with townhome-style units on both the
east and west ends of the building. The units on the first two levels will be approximately 1,534
square-feet each, while the units on the third and fourth levels will be approximately 2,802 square-
feet each. The townhome-styie units will be approximately 2,933 square-feet each. The proposal
represents a significant change over that prior project denied by the CDB in 2004.
.
Section C.2 of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design requires no plane of a building to
continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of greater than five feet. During
the review of this project, the Planning Department identified noncompliance with this requirement
for the rear of the building. Thp. f)roposed building plans submitted for review by the CDB include
the applicant's attempt to address the requirement with a three-foot deep by five-foot wide cutout
on the first and second levels and a five-foot wide by five-foot deep cutout on the third and fourth
levels on the rear of the building. This proposal does not meet the intentof the Design Guideline
provision to avoid the appearance of a linear rear plane of the building. Prior to the issuance of
the building permit, the building plans need to be revised to meet this provision, acceptable to the
Planning Department.
The proposal inciudes 28 parking spaces under the building, whereas a total of 27 parking
spaces are required (1.5 spaces per unit for the center 16 condominium-flat attached dwellings).
Parking under the building will be gated, with owners provided with remote gate opening devices.
Both town home units on the ends of the building will have their own garage parking of two spaces
per unit. Due to a pending Code amendment increasing the parking requirement for attached
dwellings from 1.5 to two spaces per unit, parking for this project will be nonconforming upon
adoption of the Code amendment
.
The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to
permit attached dwellings within the Tourist District due to the rear setback reductions being
requested to the pool deck and boardwalk. The proposal includes reductions to the front (north)
setback from 15 feet to 10.8 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to sidewalk and
dumpster staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to seven feet (to
p3vement and wall), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.8 feet (to building) and
trom 10 feet to seven feet (to.pavement and wall), reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20
feet to 18 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deek. and boardwalk). The
property is irregularly shaped, due to the cul-de-sac on the eastern portion of the property, with a
corresponding arced "bulge" at the southeast corner of the property; and the angle of the western
property line, which presents site design challenges. The basically rectangular building has been
designed on the property to meet the required east side setback of 10 feet and a rear setback of
18 feet (a reduction from the Code required 20-foot setback). The positioning of the building
produces a front setback at the northeast corner of the building at the cul-de-sac of 10.8 feet, a
side (west) setback at the northwest corner of the building of 11.2 feet and a side (west) setback
Community Development 2005-12-20
31
.
.
.
at the southwest corner of the building of 8.8 feet. The main portion of the building has been
designed at a front setback of 22.3 feet, however, the trash room tower has been designed at a
12.6 feet front setback and the elevator tower has been designed at a 14.6 feet front setback.
With regard to the front setback reduction from Brightwater Drivereiated to the trash staging area,
the building will have both a refuse collection and recycling room on the ground floor within the
parking garage. Dumpsters or recycling carts 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. With
regard to side setback redLictk)i1s, the'proposal includes side (east and west) setback reductions
to seven feet to a backup flair for the parking area for the town home units and a wall enclosing the
backup flair. These reductions to the side setbacks basically for the pavement are common for
parking lot design, providing improved turning movement for vehicles exiting the end spaces. The
building has been designed, however, where a rear setback reduction is necessary. The 18-foot
rear setback proposed to the building is consistent with some of the other attached dwelling
projects approved on Brightwater Drive and will still comply with the Building Code requirement of
an 18 feet setback from the seawall. The rear setback reduction is otherwise to the pool and pool
deck, which is consistent with other approved projects on Brightwater Drive. 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 the pool deck at a zero setback. Adjustments to the
Building Code setback (less than 18 feet) are also reviewed by the Building Official prior to
building permit issuance. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks is justified by the
benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area and the proposal is compatible
with surrounding development. The proposal is consistent with the attached dwelling character of
the immediate vicinity, specifically the projects already approved at 190 and 205 Brightwater Drive
and'the proposed project 3t 170,174,180,184 and 188 Brightwater Drive (Cases FLD2005-
09101!TDR2005-09027) on the same agenda as this project.
The proposal includes an increase to building height from 35 feet to 45.67 feet (to roof
deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 14.25 feet for a
, rooftop pavilion (from roof deck). The, proposed building of four stories over ground-level
parking is consistent with that envisioned by Beach by Design for this street and with heights
approved for 190 and 2GG i3ii~illvVater Drive and the proposed project at 170,174,180,184 and
188 Brightwater Drive (Cases FLD2005-09101!TDR2005-09027) on the same agenda as this
project. Code provisions a"lIow parapet walls to extend a maximum of 30-inches above the roof
deck. The applicant requests to increase the parapet to a total of 5.5 feet from the roof deck.
The majority of the parapet is actually railings located on the front, east and west sides of the
building at a height of approximately 3.5 feet, which is a height required by Building Codes. The
5.5-foot height for the parapet is only at two locations at the front of the building and two
locations at the rear of the building, where the parapet arches up around medallions. This 5.5-
foot parapet height is also at two locations at the rear of the building for "bay" window features.
The parapet will be in proportion with the building fac;ade. The proposal also includes an open
pavilion at the rear of the building that will be 14.25 feet in height (from roof deck to peak of the
pavilion roof) as a common recreational element for the condominiums and adds architectural
embellishment to the rear of the building. The proposal includes the elevator tower and trash
tower at a height of 15.67 feet above the roof deck (Code maximum is 16 feet above the roof
deck). The top of the propose.ci stair towers will be approximately 11 feet above the roof deck.
The Mediterranean-style of architecture of the building will include sun beige stucco for
the main building color, accented by pampas sand at the base, and a soft yellow on the elevator
Community Development 2005-12-~O
32
.
and trash towers. The roofs over the elevator, trash and stair towers, as well as part of the
iownhome-style end units .wiiicontain a Florida-blend of barrel tile roofing. The windows, door
frames and railings will be white in color.
The landscape plan utilizes a colorful groundcover (minima jasmine and dwarf
arboricola), shrubs (yew podocarpus, croton mammy, bush allamanda and dwarf oleander) and
trees (sable palmetto palm, Mexican fan palm, Senegal date palm, Christmas palm, ligustrum
tree and magnolia). The front and most of the side areas will be heavily planted, which will
provide a pleasing appearance for this project. The landscape plan presently indicates yew
podocarpus shrubs proposed within the waterfront sight visibility triangle. In accordance with
Section 3-904.B, there can be no landscaping within the waterfront sight visibility triangle.
The applicant is not proposing any signs with this development. Any future freestanding
sign should be a monument-style sign of a maximum four feet in height and designed to match
the exterior materials and color of the building. On-site utility facilities (electric and communication
lines) will be required to be placed underground as part of the site redevelopment. Provisions for
the placement of conduits for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in
the public right-of-way should be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. A special warranty deed,
specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 200 Brightwater Drive and
.. being transferred to this site, must qe recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project.
This special warranty deed also must contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of 200
Brightwater Drive due tc.the~~~!:sfer of development rights.
.
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 0.513 acre is zoned Tourist District and has 193 feet of
lot width; 2) The site is currently vacant, but was previously developed with a total of 12
attached dwellings (apartments); 3) On December 14, 2004, the CDB denied a request to
construct 18 attached dwellings on this property with greater setback reductions than proposed
with the subject application, but a similar building design and building height; 4) The proposal
represents a significant change over that prior project denied by the CDB in 2004; 5) The
proposal includes constructing a 18-unit, four-story (over ground-level parking) residential
condominium building; 6) The proposal includes the utilization of three dwelling units through
the Transfer of Development Rights from 200 Brightwater Drive; 7) The property is irregularly
shaped, due to the cul-de-sac on the eastern portion of the property, with a corresponding arced
"bulge" at the southeast corner of the property, and the angle of the western property line, which
presents site design challenges; 8) The basically rectangular building has been designed on the
property to meet the required east side setback of 10 feet and a rear setback of 18 feet (a
reduction from the Code requifed 20-'(00t setback); 9) The positioning of the building produces a .
front setback at the northeast corner of the building at the cul-de-sac of 10.8 feet, a side (west)
setback at the northwe'st corner of the building of 11.2 feet and a side (west) setback at the
southwest corner of the building of 8.8 feet. The main portion of the building has been designed
at a front setback of 22.3 feet, however, the trash room tower has been designed at a 12.6 feet
front setback and the elevator tower has been designed at a 14.6 feet front setback; 10) The
front setback reduction to the northeast corner of the building is due to the curvature of the cul-
Community Development 2005-12-20
33
.
.
.
de-sac; 11) Side (east and west) setback reductions are basically to pavement for backup flairs
for the town home units, providing improved turning movement for vehicles exiting the end
spaces; 12) The proposal includes a reduction to the rear setback to the building from 20 feet to
18 feet, which is consistent with some of the other attached dwelling projects approved on
Brightwater Drive and wili still comply with the Building Code requirement of an 18 feet setback
from the seawall; 13) SetbackredlJctions to the trash staging are;:), the pool and pool deck and
the boardwalk along the seawall are consistent with other approved projects on Brightwater
Drive; 14) The proposed building of four stories over ground-level parking is consistent with that
envisioned by Beach by Design for this street and with heights approved for 190 and 205
Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at 170, 174,180, 184 and 188 Brightwater Drive
(Cases FLD2005-09101rrDR2005:0~027) on the same agenda as this project; 15) The
proposal is consistent with the attached dwelling character of the immediate vicinity, specifically
the projects already apprc';::= ~t 190 and 205 Brightwater Drive and the proposed project at
170, 174,180, 184 and 188 Brightwater Drive (Cases FLD2005-091 01 rrDR2005-09027) on the
same agenda as this project; 16) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development;
17) The proposal is not in complete compliance with Section C.2 of the Design Guidelines of
Beach by Design; and 18) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of La~: 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 November 3, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Flexible Development application to
permit 18 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with reductions to the front (north) setback
from 15 feet to 10.8 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to sidewalk and dumpster
staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to seven feet (to pavement and
wall), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 8.8 feet (to building) and from 10 feet
to seven feet (to pavement and wall), reductions to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 18
feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk) and increases to
building height from 35 feet to 45.67 (to roof deck) with an additional 5.5 feet for parapets (from
roof deck) and an additional.14.25 feet for a rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C (retaining
three existing boat docks for sole use by the property owners); and (2) the Transfer of
Development Rights for three units from 200 Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of Section
4-1403 (TDR2005-09026), for the site at 193, 199 and 201 BrightWater Drive, with the following
bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as G 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 will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval:
1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations
submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public
records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a special warranty deed, specifying the
number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 200 Brightwater Drive and being
transferred to this site, be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The
special warranty deed Si-18il also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted
Community Development 2005-12-20
34
.
.
.
lots at 200 Brightwater Drive due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holder of
the sending site (200 Biightwatei Drive) shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior
to the issuance of any permits; 4) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign
a maximum four feet in height and designed to match the exteriOi materials and color of the
building; 6) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the
residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the condominiums; 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 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;
9) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That
all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 11) That all
construction comply with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) requirements; 12)
That there be no landscaping (other than sod) within the waterfront sight visibility triangle; and
13) That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the building plans be revised to meet
Section C.2 of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, acceptable to the Planning
Department.
Don Brinson requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Party Status to Don Brinson. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Tallman 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.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. In response to a question, he said since the COB had
denied the request in December 2004, the applicant had redesigned the project to more closely
meet setbacks. The project meets Code requirements for use of TORs (Transfer of
Development Rights).
Party Status Grantee Don Brinson opposed the project, stating it will create a canyon-
affect along Brightwater and. requested the same considerations be granted his family when
they sell their Brightwater property.
Concern was expressed that the project's design is not innovative and the rear elevation
is a large rectangle. Opposition was expressed to setback reductions.
Member Tallman moved to approve Item F4, Cases FLD2005-09102ITDR2005-09026
for 193, 199 and 201 8r!Qht\A!?!er Drive based on the staff report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2005-12-20
35
.
.
.
5. Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2005-0707 4/PL T2005-00027 - 907 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Owners: Magnolia Park Realty, LLC and BKB Properties, Inc.
Applicant: Magnolia Park Realty, LLC.
Representative: Scott Lincoln, PE, or Steve Allen, PE, LA Civil, Inc. (1446 Court Street,
Clearwater, FL 33756: phone: 727-446-9000; fax: 727-446-9050; e-mail:
slincoln@lacivil.com).
Location: 0.827 acre located on the east side of South Ft. Harrison Avenue
approximately 50 feet north of Magnolia Drive and on the north side of Magnolia Drive
approximately 200 feet east of South Ft. Harrison Avenue.
Atlas Pages: 295B.
Zoning Districts: Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts.
Request: (1) Flexible DevE:ioprflE:nt to permit a Mixed Use of offices (5,250 square-feet) and
nine attached dwellings in the Commercial and Office Districts with, a reduction to the minimum
lot width in the Commercial District from 100 feet to 79.5 feet, a reduction to the front (west)
setback in the Commercial District from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), reductions to the front
(south) setback in the Office District from 35 feet to 8.18 feet (to building) and from 35 feet to
16.34 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback in the Commercial District from
10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback in the Office District
from 20 feet to 8.02 feet (to building), reductions to the side (south) setback in the Commercial
District from 10 feet to seven feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from
10 feet to three feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (east) setback in the Commercial
District from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback in the
Office District from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) in the Office
District from 20 feet to one foot (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback in the Office
District from 20 feet to 7.3 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 5.4 feet (to pavement) and from 20
feet to 4.2 feet (to sidewalk), an increase to building height for offices in the Commercial District
from 25 feet to 31 feet (to flat roof), an increase to building height for townhomes in the Office
District from 30 feet to 37.5.feet (to midpoint of mof) and to permit buildings within the visibility
triangles, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-
704.C and 2-1004.B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line along
South Ft. Harrison Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the landscape
buffer along the south property line along Magnolia Drive from 10 feet to 8.18 feet (to building),
a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north property line in the Commercial District from
five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north property
iine in the Office Districi: fromi 0 feet to 8.02 feet (to building), a reduction to the landscape
buffer along the south property line in the Commercial and Office Districts from five feet to zero
feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line in the
Commercial District from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer
along the west property line in the Office District from 10 feet to one foot (to pavement) and
reductions to the landscape buffer along the east property line in the Office District from 10 feet
to 7.3 feet (to building), from 10 feet to 5.4 feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.2 feet (to
sidewalk), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G;
and (2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 10-lot subdivision.
Proposed Use: Mixed Use of offices (5,250 square-feet) and nine attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Harbor Oaks Association (Margaret Hightower, 301 Druid Road
West, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-447-8081); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
(Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-
mail: Djw@gte.net).
Community Development 2005-12-20
36
.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.827 acre is located 01") the east side of South Ft. Harrison Avenue approximately
50 feet north of Magnolia Drive and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 200 feet
east of South Ft. Harrisor. -.^:.'~:-:~e. The site has 79.5 feet of lot width along S. Ft. Harrison Ave.
and 160.94 feet of lot width along Magnolia Drive and currently is developed with a one-story
office building oriented toward S. Ft. Harrison Avenue.
The area along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue between Druid Road and Jeffords Street is a
mixture of commercial, office, and attached dwelling uses. The property to the south on the north
side of Magnolia Drive presently is developed with an office building located at a zero front
setback to S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, with the eastern portion of that property entirely a parking area.
The property to the south across Magnolia Drive presently is vacant, but a proposal has been filed
recently with the Planning Department to develop it with a mixed-use project. The property to the
east presently is vacant, and is part of the property to the south across Magnolia Drive. Property
farther east is developed with the Pinellas Trail and an office complex. The property to the west
across S. Ft. Harrison Avenue presently is developed with offices. The property to the north,
fronting on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, presently is developed with an office and shares driveway
access with the subject property. The property to the north, toward the rear, presently is being
developed with the Harboi Oak9 townhomes (45 attached dwellings).
.
The proposal includes a mixed-use of offices (5,250 square-feet) and nine attached
dwellings. Through a mixed-use calculation involving the FAR and maximum density for both the
Commercial and Office Districts, the proposal maximizes the development potential for the subject
property. The proposed uffice buiiding wili be a two-story building of a total of 5,250 square-feet of
Grqss Floor Area (GFA). The townhomes will be three stories in height, with a four-unit building
fronting on Magnolia Drive and a five-unit building along the north property line, adjacent to the
Harbor Oaks townhome project. The town home units will be approxirnateiy 2,425 square-feet of
floor area each.
The proposal for this mixed-use project includes a reduction to the minimum lot width in
the Commercial District from 100 feet to 79.5 feet along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Office uses and
many commercial uses in the Commercial District require a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The
applicant has attempted to purchase the office properties to the north and south, to combine with
the subject property, but has been unsuccessful. The requested reduction does not produce a lot
out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The flexibility requested regarding lot width is
justified by the benefits to the community character of the immediate vicinity by providing an
upgraded building and site design.
.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback in the Commercial District
from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), reductions to the front (south) setback in the Office District
from 35 feet to 8.18 feet (to building) and from 35 feet to 16.34 feet (to pavement), a reduction to
the side (north) setback in the Commercial District from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the side (north) setback in the Office District from 20 feet to 8.02 feet (to building),
reductions to the side (south) setback in the Commercial District from 10 feet to seven feet (to
building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to three feet (to sidewalk), a .
reduction to the side (east) setback in the Commercial District from 10 feet to zero feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback in the Office District from 20 feet to zero feet
(to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) in the Office District from 20 feet to one foot (to
Community Development 2005-12-20
37
.
pavement) and reductions to the side (east) setback in the Office District from.20 feet to 7.3 feet
(to building), from 20 feet to 5.4 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 4.2 feet (to sidewalk).
.
The property is irregularly shaped, with a narrow lot width at points of the site. It is due to
this irregular shape, and the proposed site design, that the request includes the numerous
setback and landscapG buffer rcdt.:ctions. The proposed two-story office building basically
replaces the existing one-story office building in the same location in regard to the front setback to
the S. Ft. Harrison Avenue property line. The character of development (commercial, office and
attached dwelling uses) along this stretch of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue is with buildings between a
zero to 1 O-foot front setback. The proposed office building location increases the south side
setback over that existing adjacent to the office building at 909 S.Ft. Harrison Avenue and
increases the north side setback overthat existing adjacent to the office building at 905 S. Ft.
HatTison Avenue with the liviut:::llt:::d driveway. The site design for the office building produces a
corner of the office building within the sight visibility triangle for the driveway on S. Ft. Harrison
Avenue. This driveway is being doubled in size over that existing. Due to the widening of the
driveway and the small building encroachment into the sight visibility triangle, it was determined
the encroachment maintains a safe exiting circumstance for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Due
to the width of the lot east of the proposed office building, where the existing conditions are with a
zero-foot side setback to pavement, and the dimensional requirements for parking lots, the
proposal includes a zero-foot side setback on the north and south sides of the parking lot. This is
not the ideal situation, but the requested flexibility is necessary for this proposal. The applicant
has introduced interior landscaping areas into the parking lot at the required 10% of the vehicular
use area, breaking up the parking lot and instituting areas for trees and other landscaping. The
conditions for the existing parking lot has pavement at a zero-foot front setback along Magnolia
Drive and a zero-foot side (vv'est) setback adjacent to the parking lot for the office building at 909
S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. The proposal includes maintaining the zero-foot side (west) setback to
the parking lot for the qffice puilqi[lg at 909 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, but increases the front setback
to 16.3 feet to pavement adjacent to Magnolia Drive.
In order to provide townhome units of adequate size, meet the dimensional requirements
for parking areas, maintain safe exiting from the individual garages for the townhomes, and deal
with the lot depth from Magnolia Drive, the proposal includes a front setback reduction to the
- town home building adjacent to Magnolia Drive to 8,4 feet and to the side (north) setback of eight
feet. While this rear are::! Of !h~ ~!te has been only a parking lot, the proposed setback to
Magnolia Drive is consistent and compatible with the front setbacks for the offices farther east on
Magnolia Drive, the office building at 909 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the town homes recently
constructed to the north (Harbor Oaks). The site design for the townhomes and the driveway on
Magnolia Drive produces a corner of the townhome building within the sight visibility triangle.
Magnolia Drive is not a through roadway, ending at the office complex to the east of this site. Due
to the minimal traffic on this roadway and the small building encroachment into the sight visibility
triangle, it was determined the encroachment maintains a safe circumstance for vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. The proposal inciudes a reduction to the side setback to the proposed
buildings, pavement and sidewalks along the east side of the property.
There is a vacant lot to the east of the subject property, which is part of the property to the
south across Magnolia Drive. The proposed setbacks are consistent and compatible with those
approved for the Harbor Oaks townhome project to the north, where those town homes were
approved 7.5 feet from this project's north property line and 5.5 feet from the east property line.
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
38
.
.
.
The proposal includes an in9rease to building height for offices in the .Commercial
District from 25 feet to 31 feet (to flat roof), an increase to building height for townhomes in the
Office District from 30 feet to:::;7.5 feet (to midpoint of roof). The proposed office building
appears to have a pitched roof, but actually has a flat portion to which the height is measured.
The center roofed portion of the office building houses the elevator equipment, and is permitted
to extend higher than the requested building height. The proposed townhome height is
consistent and compatible with that approved for the Harbor Oaks town home project to the
north at 36.6 feet.
The Florida vernacular-style of architecture for both the office and town home buildings
will include soft yellow stucco for the base of the buildings, a light green beveled siding for the
second and third floors, accented by a darker shade of green for shutters and other architectural
features. The roof material will be standing seam metal.
The proposal includes providing the required 21 parking spaces for the office building and
providing two garage parking spaces for each town home unit. The office parking spaces will be
shared with the townhomes (after hours) as guest parking. The proposal includes increasing the
width of the driveway from S. Ft. Harrison Avenue from the existing 12-foot width to the required
24-foot width, increasing the accessibility and safety for this access. The proposed site design
also increases the accessibility to and from the rear parking lot for the office property to the north
at 905 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. A driveway also is proposed on Magnolia Drive, providing a more
direct and closer access for the proposed town homes. The site plan will need to be revised prior
to the issuance of any permits to show this driveway on Magnolia Drive with a 3D-foot radius for
Fire Department apparatus. The site plan indicates the proposed installation of a sidewalk along
the lot frontage for the office building at 909 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Code requirements do not
require the installation of sidewalks beyond the subject property, and due to the existence of
parking spaces for this adjacent office building, the City cannot authorize this sidewalk
construction. Since the shared driveway with the property to the north is being widened with this
proposal, a cross access easement, binding upon successors in title to the affected properties, will
need to be recorded and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any
permits. To promote cross access between properties in an effort to reduce the number of
driveways, a cross access easement, binding upon successors in title to the affected properties,
located as an extension of the north/south drive aisle east of the office building should be
recorded, upon request of the Planning Department, with the property to the south.
The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line
along South Ft. Harrison Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the
landscape buffer along the south property line along Magnolia Drive from 10 feet to 8.18 feet (to
building), a reduction to the iandscape buffer along the north property line in the Commercial
District from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the
north property line in the Office District from 10 feet to 8.02 feet (to building), a reduction to the
landscape buffer along the south property line in the Commercial and Office Districts from five
feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line
in the Commercial Distr:ct from f:ve feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape
buffer along the west property line in the Office District from 10 feet to one foot (to pavement)
and reductions to the landscape buffer along the east property line in the Office District from 10
feet to 7.3 feet (to building), from 10 feet to 5.4 feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.2 feet
(to sidewalk). These reductions parallel to a great degree the setback reductions requested and
Community Development 2005-12-20
39
.
are compatible and consistent with the reductions approved for the Harbor Oaks townhomes to
the north.
The project will be adequately landscaped. The landscape plan utilizes a colorful
groundcover (parson's juniper, aztec grass and confederate jasmine), shrubs (hibiscus, burford
holly, podocarpus Indian hawthorn and viburnam) and trees (dahoon holly, crape myrtle, wax
myrtle, cabbage palm and elm). The front and most of the side areas will be heavily planted,
which will provide a pleasing appearance for this project. The landscape plan presently
indicates wax myrtle trees to be planted along the east and north sides of the townhomes.
These trees are more spreading than upright trees, are prone to fungus that reduces its life
span and is weak-wooded, allowing its trunks to break easily in high wind conditions. Prior to
the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan needs to be revised to show these trees to be
replaced with trees acceptable to the Planning Department, such as Southern Red Cedar or
Washingtonian palms.
The applicant is indicating a monument-style sign for the office building arid no signage for
the townhomes at this time. Due to the character of this area of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the
front setback proposed, the monument-style sign should not exceed the permitted height of six
feet and should be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. On-site
utility facilities (electric and communication lines) will be required to be placed underground as
part of the site redevelopment, including those for outdoor lighting. To improve the visual aspect
of this area and the properties involved, the existing overhead utility lines traversing this site to
.feed the office building at 905 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue should be placed underground, if feasible
and acceptable to adjacent property owners.
.
The proposal includes subdividing the property to provide for the fee simple sale of the
town homes and the office building. The parking, retention and landscaped areas will be in a
common area to all lot owners. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not
limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project criteria (Sections 2-704.C Cind 2-1004.B) have been met.. There are no outstanding
enforcement issues associated with this site.
.
Findinos of Fact: 1) The subject 0.827 acre is zoned both Commercial District and Office
District and has 79.5 feet of lot width along S. Ft. Harrison Ave. and 160.94 feet of lot width
along Magnolia Drive; 2) The site is currently developed with a one-story office building oriented
toward S. Ft. Harrison Avenue; 3) The proposal includes constructing a mixed-use project with a
5,250 square-foot (GFA), two-story office building and nine dwelling units (townhomes); 4) The
proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot width in the Commercial District to 79.5 feet
along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue; 5) The property is irregularly shaped, with a narrow lot width at
points of the site where this irregular shape, and the proposed site design, produced numerous
setback and landscape buffer reductions as part of the proposal; 6) The character of
development (commercial, office and attached dwelling uses) along this stretch of S. Ft.
Harrison Avenue is with build!ngs between a zero to 1 a-foot front setback; 7) Due to the width of
the lot east of the proposed office building, the proposal includes a zero-foot side setback on the
north and south sides of the parking lot, which is consistent with existing conditions, however,
the proposal includes interior landscaping areas in the parking lot meeting Code requirements to
mitigate pavement setback concerns; 8) The proposed setbacks for the townhomes are
consistent and compatible with those approved for the Harbor Oaks town home project to the
north, the front setbacks for the offices farther east on Magnolia Drive and the office building at
Community Development2005-12~20
40
.
.
.
-,-, ". ,-
909 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue; 9) The proposed office and townhome height is consistent and
compatible with that approved for the Harbor Oaks townhome project to the north; 10) The
proposal provides the Code required number of parking spaces; 11) The proposed landscape
buffer reductions parailei io a great degree the setback reductions requested and are
compatible and consistent with the reductions approved for the Harbor Oaks town homes to the
north; 12) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 13) There are no
active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Sections 2-704.C
and 2-1 004.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.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 1 and
November 3, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Flexible
Development application to permit a Mixed Use of offices (5,250 square-feet) and nine attached
dwellings in the CommPorr.ial and Office Districts with a reduction to the minimum lot wfdth in the
Commercial District from 1 00 feet to 79.5 feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback in the
Commercial District from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), reductions to the front (south) setback
in the Office District from 35 feet to 8.18 feet (to building) and from 35 feet to 16.34 feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback in the Commercial District from 10 feet to
zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback in the Office District from 20 feet
to 8.02 feet (to building), reductions'to the side (south) setback in the Commercial District from
10 feet to seven feet (to b:..::!:::!::;g), from 10. feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to
three feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (east) setback in the Commercial District from 10
feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback in the Office District from
20 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) in the Office District from 20
feet to one foot (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback in the Office District from 20
feet to 7.3 feet (to building), from 20 feet to 5.4 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 4.2 feet
(to sidewalk), an increase to building height for offices in the Commercial District from 25 feet to
31 feet (to flat roof), an increase to building height for townhomes in the Office District from 30
feet to 37.5 feet (to midpoint of root) and to permit buildings within the visibility triangles, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C and 2-
1004. B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line along South Ft.
Harrison Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the landscape buffer along
the south property line along Magnolia Drive from 10 feet to 8.18 feet (to building), a reduction
to the landscape buffer along the north property line in the Commercial District from five feet to
zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north property line in the
Office District from 10 feet to8~02 feet (to building); a reduction to the landscape buffer along
the south property line in the Commercial and Office Districts from five feet to zero feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line in the Commercial
District from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the
west property line in the Office District from 10 feet to one foot (to pavement) and reductions to
the landscape buffer aiung the 8asI property line in the Office District from 10 feet to 7.3 feet (to
building), from 10 feet to 5A feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 4.2 feet (to sidewalk), as a
. . .
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (2)
Preliminary Plat approval for a 1 O-Iot subdivision, for the site at 907 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, with
the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the
Community Development 2005-12-20
41
.
.
.
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Sections 2-
704.C and 2-1004.B; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code
including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. 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 COB; 2) That, prior to the issuance of
any permits, a Unity of Title or Final Plat be recorded in the public records; 3) That all proposed
utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground, including those
for outdoor lighting. The existing overhead utility lines traversing this site to feed the office
building at 905 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue shall be placed undergroLi(ld, if feasible and acceptable
to adjacent property owners; 4) That the monument-style sign for the office building not exceed
six feet in height, be designed to match the exterior materials and colors of the building and be
coordinated with site landscaping; 5) That the site plan be revised prior to the issuance of any
permits to only show sidewalk construction for the subject site frontage along Magnolia Drive; 6)
That the site plan be revised pr:cr t;:) -the issuance of any permits showing the driveway on
Magnolia Drive with a 30-foot radius for Fire Department apparatus; 7) That the landscape plan
be "revised prior to the issuance of any permits to replace the wax myrtle trees along the east
and north sides of the property with trees acceptable to the Planning Department, such as
Southern Red Cedar or Washingtonian palms; 8) That a cross access easement, binding upon
successors in title to the affected properties, be recorded and submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That a cross access easement, binding
upon successors in title to the affected properties, located as an extension of the north/south
drive aisle east of the office bui:ding be recorded, upon request of the Planning Department,
with the property to the south, as feasible and agreed to by both property owners; 10) That all
Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 11) That all
Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits.
See page 58 for motion of approval.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: ATA2005-~0001 - 2380 Northeast Coachman Road Level Three Application
Owner: George V. Tagaras.
Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III, City of Clearwater (100 South
Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4836; fax: 727-562-4865; e-mail:
mike. reynolds@myclearwate~ ..com).
Location: 1.085-acre property consisting of two parcels, located on the east side of Old
Coachman Read CiiiG .::iii the north side of Northeast Coachman Road.
Atlas Page: 272A.
Req uest:
a) Annexation of 1.283-acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Commercial General (CG) Category (County) to
the Commercial General (CG) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from the C-2, General Retail Commercial and Limited Services District (County) to
the Commercial (C) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Produce stand.
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.
Community Development 2005-12-20
42
. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Northeast
Coachman Road and Old Coachman Road. The property is located in an enclave and is
contiguous to existing City bouiidar ies to the north and south. On December 1, 1999, George
V. Tagaras, the property owner, signed an. Agreement to Annex (ATA), which is considered an
application to annex. The subject site is approximately 1.283 acres in area and is occupied by
an existing fruit stand. The fruit stand comprises a new permanent building and a dirt parking
area. A concrete pad was constructed to support a handicap parking space. It is proposed that
the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG) and
a zoning category of Commercial (C).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) annexation
of 1.283 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Commercial (C) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community
Development Code.
Member Fritsch moved to accept Mike Reynolds as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
.
Senior Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed the request. The property owner had signed
the AT A in 1999 to reCE:iv8 CiLY Bewer service. A new building for retail sales, constructed on
the site in 2005, replaces a temporary, open-air fruit market.
Elihu Berman, representative, opposed the request. He said the property is on the
opposite side of a state road and across the railroad tracks from City boundaries. He said this is
a selective annexation as other property owners, who signed the same agreement, have not
been forced to be annexed.
Ms. Clayton reviewed AT A requirements, as agreed to by the PPC (Pinellas Planning
Council) and Pinellas County Planning Department. State law specifically precludes
considering right-of-way when determining contiguity.
Two people spoke iii opposition to the request.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the court had determined that the City
is permitted to require annexation as a condition of providing sewer service.
Member Milam moved to recommend approval of Item F6, Case ATA2005-10001 for
2380 Northeast Coachman Road based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law. The motion was duly seccmded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member
Dennehy did not vote. . .. .
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
43
.
.
.
7. Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: L & L Wings, Inc.
Representative: Fowler Associates Architects, Inc. (1421 Court Street, Suite D,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-449-2710; fax: 727-447-5339; e-mail:
fowlerarch@aol.com).
Location: 0.68 acre located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Poinsettia
Avenue and Marianne Street.
Atlas Page: 267 A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval (FLS2003-09046) for redevelopment of an existing
retail sales establishment and inciudes a reduction to front (south along Marianne Street)
setback from 25 feet to 10.75 feet (to building) and a reduction to front (south along Marianne
Street) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to pavement), per Section 2-803.K.
Proposed Use: Remode! of existing Retail Sales Store.
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: John Schodtler, Planner I.
The subject property is located within the Tourist zoning district and also within the
Beach by Design Retail and Restaurant Character District. The 0.68-acre (29,647 square-foot)
site is located on the northwAst corner of the intersection of the Poinsettia and the Pier 60 Drive
(roundabout). The site is a corner lot with dimensions of 250 feet deep by 118 feet wide and
has entrances directly off the roundabout and Poinsettia Avenue. The site's landscaping is in a
state of decline. The current parking lot is non-conforming with regards to the required number
of off-street parking spaces and to setbacks. It currently accommodates 30 parking spaces
where 51 are required. The parking lot also appears to be in need of refurbishment. The site
currently is developed with a 9,960 square-foot, retail sales establishment with an outdated
building fa<;ade. The building fa<;ades facing the street rights-of-way are very simple in design
with curtain wall windows running the entire length of the facades and shaded by a bright red
awning. The remaining f:::::;:ades hGve an exterior finish that is stucco with a natural sand color
and shows signs of fading and water runoff stains from the flat roof system. The pair of
dumpsters on the site are not enclosed, but did appear to be in good working condition. The
existing freestanding sign is in character with the current building's architecture style, scheme,
and color. No attached signage appears to exist.
Properties to the west (Destination Resort Character District) and north (Marina
Residential Character Di::.ixk.l) .:iie developed with a mixture of retail sales and service,
restaurants, and overnight accommodation uses. The area to the east is within the Beach by
Design Marina Residential Character District and developed with overnight accommodations
uses. The area to the south is within the Beach by Design Marina Residential Character District
and is the City of Clearwater's Municipal marina.
The proposal includes ;:l complete exterior fa<;ade remodel, a 170 square-foot entrance
addition (tower) and site work, including parking lot, landscaping, and dumpster enclosure
improvements. The proposed redevelopment of the building has an estimated construction cost
of $130,155 and the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office indicates that the building
structure is valued at $534,620, which would put their proposal at 24.3% of the value of the
Community Development 2005-12-20
44
.
building. The proposal remains under 25% of the valuation of the building, which is essential in
not requiring the parking, landscaping, and signage to be brought into full compliance with the
Code, thus creating a hardship with regards to the minimum number of required off street parking
spaces.
The building addition (tower) is proposed at a front setback of 10.75 feet a reduction of just
over 10 feet from the existing building (21.75 feet). It enhances the exterior fayade and eliminates
a freestanding sign that is almost invisible to vehicles traversing the roundabout. The tower
addition will be constructed to a maximum building height of 35 feet. The proposed setback
reductions are characteristic of the immediate area. The increases in building height create an
improved building design and appearance.
The existing building exterior remodel includes an increase of approximately one foot to
the buildings parapet walls. The proposed building enhancements provide a greater level of
interaction between the use of the site and pedestrian activities. It also meets the intent of Beach
by Design with a new attractively designed retail building fac;ade and addition. Staff is still working
with the applicant regarding the colors of the building. One retail tenant within the building is
proposed. The hours of operation will be between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m., seven days per week and
closing at 9 p.m. during the off-season. The delivery and solid waste staging area will be located
on the north (side) of the building at the northwest corner of the site. Should additional tenants be
requested, staff will nE:ed iu review the overall operational characteristics of the proposed
businesses including the target market, maximum number of employees, the hours of operation,
delivery hours, parking demand, etc. to ensure compatibility, prior to issuance of any permits or
Occupational Licenses.
.
According to the City's Land Resource staff the proposed development will have an impact
on existing trees and vegetation due to improvements proposed to the parking lot system. It also
should be noted that the trees and landscaping are in a state of decline and should be replaced.
The proposed parking lot accommodates 27 parking spaces, a reduction of three spaces
from previously approved site plans. Staff believes the reduction of two parking spaces is
necessary to accommodate the solid waste containers and required enclosures. The remaining
parking space reduction is necessary to eliminated pedestrian and vehicular conflict at the
driveway entrance and sidew3lk. The parking lot setback reduction along the roundabout
(Marianne Street) is proposed to be reduced to provide improve vehicular traffic circulation and
turning radii when entering the property from Marianne Street. The parking lot setback along
Poinsettia will be maintained at an existing five-foot setback.
A single, attached sign approximately 36 square-feet in area will be located above the
southeast entrance to the buiiding, contributing to an overall simple, unique, and creative
character of the building. Code permits an attached sign of 24 square-feet (1 % of the building
facing Mandalay Avenue with a maximum of 24 square-feet) as part of a Minimum Development
Review. The proposed sign constitutes approximately 0.99% of the building fayade and will
require a review as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program to exceed the 24 square-foot
maximum area requirement. The applicant has not provided a finalized sign package with this
proposal.
.
The proposed development will aesthetically improve the immediate area and
Clearwater as a whole. Th:: ;;:-::posed development results in a development in keeping with
Community Development 2005-12-20
45
.
the existing character of the neighborhood, as surrounding properties include similarly
developed tourist oriented businesses.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Flexible Standard Development criteria (Section 2-
803.K), and Beach By Design have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues
associated with this site.
FindinQs of Fact: 1) The 0.67-acre subject property is located within the Tourist (T)
District; 2) The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as
part of the "Retail and Restaurant" District; 3) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as retail sales & service use per Section 2-803.K; 4) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; 5) The proposal is consistent with and encouraged by Beach by Design; 6)
Adjacent uses are zoned Tourist District; 7) The development is compatible with the surrounding
area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; 8) The immediate area is developed with a
mixture of retail sales & service, restaurant, and overnight accommodations; 9) The proposed
setback reductions aia chala~~t;iistic of the immediate area and create a more active and
dynamic street life; 10) The proposed structure height is 33.66 feet from Base Flood Elevation
(BFE); 11) The parking reductions are justified by reduced pedestrian/vehicular conflict at the
driveway entrances, as well as the dumpster enclosure improvements; 12) The signage is
creative and simple and will contribute to the overall character of a place; and 13) There are no
pending Code Enforcement issues with this property.
.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development
criteria per Section 2-803.K; 2) The proposal is in compliance with Beach By Design guidelines;
3) The proposal is consistent with the "Retail and Restaurant" character district of Beach by
Design; 4) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 5) The development is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
The DRC reviewed the C!pplication and supporting materials on November 3, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development for redevelopment of
an existing retail sales establishment located in the Tourist Retail and Restaurant Character
District. The request includes a reduction to front (south along Marianne Street) setback from
25 feet to 10.75 feet (to building) and a reduction to front (south along Marianne Street) setback
from 25 feet to zero feet (to pavement), per Section 2-803.K. based upon the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design of the buildings be
consistent with the conc.p.rtll;:J1 p-Ievations submitted or as modified. by the CDB; 2) That
corrections to the building coverage, front, side, and rear setbacks located within the site data
table be corrected, prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 3) That the proposed
dumpster enclosure be constructed to City specifications; 4) That the landscaping be installed
and maintained according to the plan approved or modified by the Community Development
Board; 5) That the landscape plan be revised to show all existing trees on the site be replaced,
prior to issuance of a building permit; 6) That the color scheme be reconsidered prior to the
issuance of a Development Order; and 7) That all signage be consistent to the design/colors
submitted and comply with the requirements of the signage portion of the Community
Development Code and Beach By Design, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
46
.
See page 58 for motion of approval.
8.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
.
Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
Owner: Parkdale, LLC -- Maria Nikolova
Applicant: Belleair Harbor, LLC
Representative: Bret Krasman, P.E.(31564 US Highway 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL
34684; phone: 727-787-4684; fax: 727-781-3345; e-mail: bret@krasengr.com).
Location: 0.19 acre located on the east side of East Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet
south of the intersection of East Shore Drive and Baymont Street.
Atlas Page: 267 A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to construct a two unit attached dwelling building in the
Tourist Marina Residential District and includes a minimum lot area reduction from 10,000
square-feet to 8,171 square-feet, a minimum lot width reduction from 100 feet to 60 feet, the
rear, waterfront (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), and the rear, waterfront
(east) setback from 20 feet to ten feet (to pool), as a Comprehensive Infill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-803.C
Proposed Use: A two unit attached dwelling.
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); Coral Resort Condominium (Peggy Harnung, 483
East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-3711; e-mail: coraI483@aol.com);
Cabana Club Condo Association Inc. (Kay Korwin, 1582 Gulf Blvd, #1705, Clearwater, FL
33767; phone: 727-595-3800: e-mail: cabanaclub@aol.com).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I.
The 0.19 acre is located on the east side of East Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet
south of the intersection of East Shore Drive and Baymont Street. The site is vacant and is
fronted by Clearwater Harbor to the east and East Shore Drive to the west. The East Shore
Resort motel is to the south. An attached residential unit building is located to the north.
According to City records, a building permit for demolition was issued in November 2004 to raze
a concrete block motel on this site. Records indicate that seven rental units were housed on
this property.
The parcel is zoned Tourist (T) District. This property is relatively flat. East Shore Drive
is a north - south street, parallel to the Poinsettia Avenue and Mandalay Avenue, which are
heavily traveled north - south corridors to the west. East Shore Drive saves both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. Adjacent uses are located within the Tourist Zoning District. Surrounding
land uses include overnight accommodations, attached dwellings, retail, and restaurants.
The proposal inciudes constructing two attached dwellings with two living floors over one
level of parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot area requirement from
10,000 square-feet to 8,171 square-feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width requirement from
100 feet to 60 feet, and reductions to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool
deck) and from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pool). The proposed building height is 33.66 feet above Base
Flood Elevation (BFE), which conforms to Code. The Beach by Design Marina Residential District
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
47
.
restricts height to two stories over ground level parking for the east side of East Shore Drive, for
parcels less than 2.5 acres.
The application seeks four variations from the Community Development Code. Two of the
requests are for the rear, waterfront (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), and the
rear, waterfront (east) setback from 20 feet to ten feet (to pool). The project, as proposed, would
allow for visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East Shore Drive right-of-way. The
applicant has narrowed the building to provide the required side setbacks of ten-feet. Both the
north and south sides have retention ponds with a 4: 1 slope, allowing for utility maintenance
access, building maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance.
The site is located within the Beach by Design Marina Residential District. Beach by
Design promotes significant lot consolidation within the Marina Residential District. The
proposal is not consistent with the lot consolidation goal. The lot size and width fall below
baseline requirements. The minimum lot width and lot size, per Code, for this site is 100 feet for
width and 10,000 square-feet for lot area. The proposal includes a reduction of the minimum lot
area requirement to 8,171 square-feet, and a reduction of the minimum lot width requirement to
SO feet. The lot size aiid vviiJt;-. limit development potential beyond the requested two residential
dwelling units. The reduction of unit sizes and layout from the prior submittal contribute to a
building width that is acceptable for this lot while providing the above-mentioned visual access.
.
Given the constraints imposed on development specific to this site, staff supports this
proposed development application. Staff offers this support despite Beach by Design
envisioned ideals of "significant lot consolidation" and "Pedestrian access should be provided
through each block to the Intracoastal waterway and terminate at a public boardwalk located
along the shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay Avenue." Existing and apparently thriving
adjacent uses make consolidation unlikely.
This proposal is potentially the first Flexible Development application for the Beach by
Design Marina Residential District that may be approved, and as such the decision will set
precedent. Its approval will postpone if not make unlikely that somG of the ideals of the Marina
Residential District will be attained. The applicant's request is reasonable within the specifics of
this circumstance, as the potential allowed density for the site is five units and only two are
being requested. No outstanding enforcement issues are associated with this site.
.
Findinqs of Fact: 1) The 0.19-acre subject property is located within the Tourist (T)
District; 2) A building permit for demolition was issued in November 2004 to raze a concrete
block motel on this site; 3) Currently, the site is vacant; 4) The maximum permitted density for
this site is five dwelling lJnit~ ~hased on 30 dwelling units per acre); 5) Adjacent uses are zoned
Tourist District; 6) The immediate area is developed with a mixture of attached dwellings and
overnight accommodations; 7) The proposed structure height is 33.66 feet from Base Flood
Elevation (BFE); 8) There are no pending Code Enforcement issues with this property; 9) The
site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the
"Marina Residential" District; 10) The Beach by Design Marina Residential District restricts
height to two stories over ground level parking for the east side of East Shore Drive, for parcels
less than 2.5 acres; 11) A goal of the Beach by Design Marina Residential District is to attain
significant lot consolidation and pedestrian access through consolidated blocks that terminate at
a public boardwalk. The proposal is not consistent with the lot consolidation intent of the Marina
Residential District and will ultimately preclude the development of a public bayside boardwalk;
Community Development 2005-12-20
48
.
.
.
12) The project as proposed will allow for visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East
Shore Drive right-of-way; 13) Both the north and south sides, with very minimal open space
land, have retention ponds with a 4:1 slope, allowing for utility maintenance access, building
maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance; 14) Staff finds the proposal s meets the
following General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913); and 15) Staff finds the proposal meets
the following Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria (Section 2-803.C).
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal does comply with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project under the provisions of 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; 3) The project as proposed
would allow for visual access to Clearwater Harbor from the East Shore Drive right-of-way; 4)
Both the north and south sides, have retention ponds with a 4:1 slope, allowing for utility
maintenance access, building maintenance, and dock construction/maintenance; 5) The
proposed off street parking has been met in excess of the minimum requirements of 1.5 space
per unit; 6) The proposed maximum building height is in keeping with the character of the
immediate vicinity; and 7) Based on the analysis of this proposal and the above findings, staff
recommends approval of this application.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That all proposed
utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building), as well as the existing overhead electric
for streetlights within East Shore Drive, be placed underground. The Utility Plan shall be
revised to indicate compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That
the Landscape Plan be amended prior to the issuance of any permits to indicate landscape
u materials and design for thp. fivp.-foot area between the pool deck and the seawall; 4) That the
storage units on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal
Emergency Management AUfllir listration (FEMA) rules and guidelines. Evidence of this
restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed
restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That the Landscape Plan be amended prior to the issuance of
any permits to indicate that the pool deck be placed at a rear, waterfront setback of five feet to
allow for the required landscaping between the seawall and pool deck. An access walkway to
any proposed dock system at a width required/allowed by the building department will be
acceptable; 6) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits; 7) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be
assessed and paid; and 8) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of
any permits.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on November 3, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to construct
a two-unit attached d'^!elling puiJcjing in the Tourist, Marina Residential District with a minimum
lot area reduction from; 0,000 square-feet to 8,171 square-feet, a minimum lot width reduction
from 100 feet to 60 feet, the rear, waterfront (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool
deck), and the rear, waterfront (east) setback from 20 feet to ten feet (to pool), as a
Comprehensive Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. based upon the above
stated Recommended Findings of Fact, Recommended Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of
Approval. . ..
Community Development 2005-12-20
49
.
.
.
William Johnson requested Party Status.
Member Johnson moved to grant Party Status to William Johnson. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Johnson moved to accept John Schodtler as an expert witness in the areas of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner John Schodtler reviewed the request. Since the previous application, the
applicant has submitted a new request, which addresses previous staff and board concerns.
Member Tallman 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.
In response to a qu~siiun, Engineering Manager Scott Rice said City Traffic Operations
had reviewed the request. and considered parking maneuverability and the public right-of-way.
The structure's inside dimensions meet City criteria. Staff recommended approval as long as
the public right-of-way is not affected. He said sufficient room exists io execute three-point
turns.
Discussion ensued with concern expressed that back-in parking is being considered due
to the lot's substandard s!ze and that related ordinances should be changed to permit back-in
parking, if that is the case. Mr. Delk said the project provides sufficient parking without counting
the back-in spaces.
Concerns were expressed that approval of the request would establish an awkward
precedent as this is the first application for the Marina District and that development, such has
occurred on Brightwater, should not be repeated in this location. Mr. Schodtler said this request
meets recommendations for development in this district, when multiple lots cannot be
consolidated.
Troy Perdue, representative, said the applicant had slimmed the structure's width, as
recommended by staff and the CDB. He said the only variance request relates to the lot's size.
The rear setback is being requested for a non-building use. He said although it is not required
by Code, the applicant had made an effort to purchase abutting properties to consolidate lots.
Party Status Grantee William Johrison opposed the project as it does not meet the vision
for ihe area which encourages iot consolidation and will discourage redevelopment on the west
side of East Shore, and stated that the applicant could have purchased the abutting
condominiums had he made a fair offer.
Harlen Heshelow, representative, spoke in support of the project.
Mr. Purdue reviewed Code language, stating it favors lot consolidation with incentives,
but does not require it.
Community Development 2005-12-20
50
.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that while it does not meet Beach by
Design's vision for the Marina District, the project meets Code.
Member Tallman moved to approve of Item F8, Case FLD2005-1 01 05 for 475 East
Shore Drive based on the staff report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Bases for
Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
The COB recessed from 4:17 to 4:24 p.m.
.
9. Pulled from Consent Agenda .
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: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
Location: Approxirnateiy 8 acres generaliy 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.
Req uest:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort
Facilities High (RFH) Category; and
b) Rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential (iviHDR) District to Tourist (T) District.
Proposed Use: Residential and Overnight Accommodations.
Type of Amendment: Small Scale.
Neighborhood Association(s): 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.
The Planning Department undertook a study of the Old Florida District on Clearwater
Beach to clarify the vision of the District and to eliminate any discrepancies between Beach by
Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach and the underlying land use and
zoning. As a result of the ideas generated by four public meetings, as well as policy direction
provided by City Council on August 29, 2005, the Planning Department is developing
amendments to Beach by Design.
Currently the Plan specifies that the "preferred form of development" include town homes
and single-family dwellings mid-rise in height. The proposed amendments being developed
specify that all forms of new development be in the form of attached dwellings and overnight
accommodations throughout the District, as well as commercial uses along Mandalay Avenue.
Additionally, the amendments currently under discussion provide for a maximum building height
of 65 feet in areas located 60 feet -south of Somerset Street.
.
At present, the Old Florida District has major future land use plan (FLUP) designations of
Resort Facilities High and High Density Residential and primary zoning categories of Tourist
and Medium High Density Residential. In order to implement the proposed revisions to Beach
by Design, it is necessary to amend the residentially designated area of the District.
Community Development ~Uuo- i 2-20
51
. This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves 43
parcels of land, approximately 7.94 acres in area generally located on Clearwater Beach
between Mandalay Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico between Kendall Street and the north side of
Somerset Street. A mix of single-family residential, multi-family residential and overnight
accommodation uses currently occupies the area. The site has a FLUP designation of
Residential High (RH) and is zoned as a Medium High Density Resigential (MHDR) District.
These designations allow residential uses up to 30 units per acre and up to 50 feet in height. In
order to allow the additional use of overnight accommodations and development standards that
are being considered for Beach by Design, the Planning Department is requesting to amend the
FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification and to rezone it to
the Tourist District.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential High (RH) category to the Resort
Facilities High (RFH) category and a rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) to the Tourist (T) District for the subject site is requested. This 7.94-acre site is
compatible with the propu5c~ usa of the property for multi-family attached dwellings and
overnight accommodations, and the proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is
compatible with the existing neighborhood. The remainder of the Old Florida District consists of
multi-family residential dwellings, overnight accommodations, retail and public uses.
.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Residential High (RH) Classification to the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Classification and rezoning from the Me'dium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the
Tourist (T) District based on the recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions
of law.
Member Johnson moved to accept Sharen Jarzen as an expert witness in the fields of
comprehensive planning, environment planning, land use zoning, and historic preservation. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Sharen Jarzen reviewed proposed changes.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the change would permit overnight
accommodations throughout the district. Proposed height restrictions will be presented in
January.
Four residents spnk*:, in opposition to the change.
Ms. Clayton said the change would legalize current overnight uses in the district. She
reviewed proposed height restrictions, which are not a part of this application.
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
52
.
.
.
Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Item F9, Case LUZ2005-10013
regarding a portion ofthe Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach, based on the Staff Report,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
10. Case: ANX2005-09034 - 1551, 1555, 1559 Union Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Paul Danley & George and Bertha Albert.
Representative: David. Jaye (2856 Shady Oak Court, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-
644-6822; fax: 727-791-7878). .. .
Location: 7.33 acres located between Powde(horn Drive and Highland Avenue on the
south side of Union Street.
Atlas Page: 252A.
Request:
a) Annexation of 7.33 acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County) to
Residential Low Medium (RLM) Classification (City of Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-09034);
and
c) Rezoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) District (County) and Agricultural Estate
Residential (A-E) District (County) to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (City of
Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-09034).
Proposed Use: Multi-family residential and single family residential.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Cleai....ater,..FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, Planner III.
This annexation involves a 7.33-acre property consisting of the right-of-way and three
parcels, located on the south side of Union Street between Highland Avenue and Powderhorn
Drive, approximately 615 fAAt e~st of Highland Avenue. The property is located at a site that is
contiguous to the existing City boundary on three sides; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Pinellas COUliiy requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The
applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and water service, as
well as solid waste service, from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a zoning category
designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR).
The proposed annexat!on can be served by City oj Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1)
Annexation of 7.33 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low Medium (RLM) Future
Land Use Plan c1assificatiQn; .al1Q 3) Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district pursuant
to the City's Community Development Code.
See page 58 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2005-12-20
53
.
.
.
1'1. Case: ANX2005-G9G33 - 2190 NE Coachman Road Level Three Application
Owner: Light of Christ Church.
Representative: Bryan Zarlenga; TBE Group, Inc
Location: A 1.95-acre parcel of land located on the north side ofNE Coachman Road
approximately 240 feet west of North Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 280B.
Request:
a) Annexation of 1.95-acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial General (CG) Category (County) to
Institutional (I) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Institutional (I) District (City
of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: 7,200 square-foot educational/daycare facility.
Neighborhood Associations: Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association (PO Box 7626
Clearwater, FL 33758); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544
Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. .
The subject property is located on the north side of NE Coachman Road, approximately
240 feet west of North Belcher Road. The property is an enclave and is contiguous to existing
City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard tc,\./~!~!"!tary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to build a 7,200 square-foot religious/educational facility. The subject site is
approximately 1.95 acres in area and is vacant.
A companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of this site from
Commercial General (CG) to Institutional (I), and to rezone it from C-2, General Retail,
Commercial and Limited Services District (County) to the (I), Institutional District is being
processed concurrently with this annexation request in LUZ2005-09011.
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined that it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance #63(1 )(b) provides for the voluntary annexation of property thatis
located within and reduces an enclave on the effective date of the ordinance. The subject site is
located within an enclave, and reduces the enclave.
The property proposedfcir annexation is located within an enclave and its annexation will
reduce such enclave; therefore, the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas
County Ordinance #00-63.
There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on
this site. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, water, solid waste, police, fire, and emergency medical services without any
adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation
of 1.95 acres to the City of Clearwater.
Community Development 2005-12-20
54
.
.
.
See page 58 for motion to recommend approval.
12. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2005-09012 - 1551, 1555 and 1559 Union Street
Owner/Applicant: Paui Daniey & George and Bertha Alben.
Representative: David Jaye (2856 Shady Oak Court, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-
644-6822; fax: 727-791-7878).
Location: 7.01 acres located between Powderhorn Drive and Highland Avenue on the
south side of Union Street.
Atlas Page: 252A.
Reque~: .. _. .
a) land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County) to
Residential Low Medium (RLM) Classification (City of Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-09034);
and
b) Rezoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) District (County) and Agricultural Estate
Residential (A-E) District (County) to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (City of
Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-09034).
Proposed Use: Multi-family residential and single family residential.
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, Planner III.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves
approximately 7.01 acres in area located on the south side of Union Street between Highland
Avenue and Powderhorn Drive, approximately 615 feet east of Highland Avenue and is included
in a companion applicatlcr: tc ar.:nex the overall property into the City of Clearwater (Case
ANX2005-09034). The site is composed of three separate lots; each lot currently occupied by
one single-family dwelling. The northern one-third of the entire site is piimarily cleared of trees,
with the amount of trees increasing as the property runs south. The site has a FLUP
designation of Residential Suburban (RS) Classification and is within the Single Family
. Residential (R-1) District (County) and Agricultural Estate Residential (A-E) District (County).
The RS Classification only allows 2.5 dwelling units per acre; the applicant desires to develop
two lots of the parcel into dlloched dwellings at the density of 10 dltv'elling units per acre. The
applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential Low
Medium (RLM) Classification (City) and to rezone it to the Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District (City) in which 10 dwelling units per acre are permitted.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Suburban (RS) category to the
Residential Low Medium (RLM) category and a rezoning from the Single Family Residential (R-
1) District and the Agricultural Estate Residential (A-E) District to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District for the subject site is requested. This 7.01 acre site is compatible
with the proposed use of the property to be developed as townhouses as attached dwelling
units, and the proposed future.l~pd use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the
existing neighborhood. This consists of multi-family residential dwellings to the west, and single
Community Development 2005-12-20
55
.
family dwellings to the south end east. The proposed changes are in conformance with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request based on
the recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law: 1) Approval of the
Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) Classification to the
Residential Low Medium (RLM) Classification (pending ANX2005-09034); and 2) approval of
the rezoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) District and the Agricultural Estate
Residential (A-E) District to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (pending ANX2005-
09034).
See page 58 for motion to recommend approval.
.
13. Case: LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Light of Christ Church
Representative: Bryan Zarlenga; TBE Group, Inc.
Location: A 1.85-ac.re parc.el of land located on the north side of NE Coachman Road
approximately 240 feet west of North Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 280B.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Commercial General (CG) Category (County) to
the Institutional (I) Category (City of Clearwater); and
b) Rezoning from the C-2 (County) District to Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: 7,200 sq:.:::::;'"~ f~ct educational/daycare facility.
Type of Amendment: Small scale
Neighborhood Association(s): Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association (PO Box 7626
Clearwater, FL 33758); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544
Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one
parcel of land approximately 1.95 acres in area included in a companion application to annex
the property into the City of Clearwater (Case ANX2005-09033). It is located on the north side
of NE Coachman Road, approximately 240 feet west of North Belcher Road. The site is
currently vacant and has a FLUP classification of Commercial General (CG) and a Pine lias
County zoning designation of General Retail Commercial and Limited Services District (C-2).
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Institutional (INS)
classification and to rezone it to the Institutional (I) District in order to construct a 7,200 square-
foot educational facility on the-site.
This FLUP amendment consolidates the Diocese of St. Petersburg's adjoining property,
which currently is Light of Christ Catholic Church, into the same land use/ zoning categories as
the subject parcel.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the property and the classification
requested, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
.
Community Development 2005-12-20
56
.
.
.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Commercial General (CG) category to the
Institutional (I) category and a rezoning from the County C-2 District to the Institutional (I)
District for the subject site is requested. This 1.95-acre site exceeds the minimum requirements
for the proposed use of the property as a religious/educational facility. The neighborhood is
characterized by offices to the north, commercial uses to the east, and institutional uses to the
west and south. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible
with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Institutional (I) Future Land Use Plan classification and Institutional (I)
zoning district is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is
compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public
services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development
regulations of the City.
. Based on its analysis. the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) The Future
Land Use Plan amendment from the Commercial General (CG) Classification to the Institutional
(I) Classification and 2) The rezoning to the Institutional (I) District.
See page 58 for motion to recommend approval.
14. Level Three Application
Case: TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Tourist Zoning District provisions in the Community Development
Code to recognize that the uses, height, setbacks, etc. for the Old Florida District on Clearwater
Beach are governed by the provisions in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coaiiiio!l (Doug 'vVilliams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
e-mail: Djw@gte.net).
Presenter: Sharen Jarien, AICP, Planner III.
As directed by the City Council, the Planning Department began a study of the Old
Florida District in 2005. The purpose was to address the discrepancy between the area's
zoning and land use patterns, and that which was recommended for development in Beach by
Design. As a result of ideas generated by four public meetings held in the Old Florida District,
several options were developed. Subsequent to Council input at the City Council Work Session
on August 29,2005, recommendations were developed that included a zoning and future land
use map change, changes to Beach by Design, and changes to tile Community Development
Code.
Proposed Ordinance #7576-06 includes the following amendments: 1) Amendment to
the Zoning District Regulations, Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to amend use, maximum height and
minimum setback requirements to clarify that standards pertaining to the Old Florida District are
set forth in Beach by Design and 2) Amendment to Section 3-1202.D to clarify that landscaping
requirements for the Old Florida District are set forth in Beach by Design.
Community Development 2005-1-2-20
57
.
.
.
-Ui
I
Criteria for Text Amendments: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria
for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The
proposed amendments are consistent with and further the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The foiiowing objective and policies are furthered by the proposed
amendments to the Code: policv _~.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be
encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater beach, the
establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified
geographic areas of Clearwater beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of
public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-
beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to
Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines; Obiective
2.2 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and
mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent
and compatible with the surrounding environment; Policy 2.2.1 - On a continuing basis, the
Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting
infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible and 2) The proposed
amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City
ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan; The amendments implement changes
proposed to Beach by Design, the special area plan for Clearwater beach.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance #7576-06 which makes
revisions to the Community Development Code.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item F2, Cases FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 for
-i6'i Brightwater Drive basea on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, with
Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed; Item FS, Cases FLD2005-07074/
PL T2005-00027 for 907 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, and
Conclusions of Law, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of ApPiOval as listed; and Item F7,
Case FLD2005-09096 for 400 Poinsettia Avenue based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact,
and Conclusions of Law, with Conditions of Approval as listed; and recommend approval of Item
F10, Case ANX2005-09034 fer 1551,1555,1559 Union Street based on the Staff Report,
Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law; Item F11, Case ANX2005-09033 for 2190 NE
Coachman Road, based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law; Item
F12, Case LUZ2005-09012 for 1551, 1555 and 1559 Union Street based on the Staff Report,
Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law; Item F13, Case LUZ2005-09011 for 2190 NE
Coachman Road based on the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law; and Item
F 14, Case TA2005-11004 regarding Amendments to the Community Development Code. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not
vote.
G. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: (Item 1):
Community Development 2005-12-20
58
.
.
.
1. Case: APP2005-00002 - 1242 Cleveland Street
Owner/ApplicantJAppe!lant: Ms. Jaycee Roth (1242 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL
33756; phone727-459-4400)
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: Downtowr1 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 Schodt:ai, r:o,-.ilar I.
Representative Todd Pressman requested CDB reconsideration of its November 15,
2005, decision related to his 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. In his December 6, 2005,
request, Mr. Pressman repudiated staff's contention that animal boarding is not a neighborhood
commercial use supporting the residential uses of the area.
Mr. Pressman reviewed his request for reconsideration, stating the Code does not define
the zoning category, "neighborhood commercial." He said the proposed animal boarding
business supports residential uses. He said the CDB had based its previous denial on staff's
contention that the term was defined. He said the Code permits animal boarding as long as there
are no outdoor cages, runs, or pens. He said the business owner had made significant
improvements to the site aqd i1aci hired neighborhood residents. He requested a one-year
contingency approval for animal Doarding.
Discussion ensued with comments that the applicant previously had testified that outdoor
runs would exist and the CDB previously had expressed concerns regarding related noise issues.
Mr. Pressman said the applicant's previous presentation was wrong, and that no outdoor runs are
contemplated. .
.:
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said animal boarding with outdoor runs is a
permitted use in the industrial district. Ms. Dougall-Sides said uses not enumerated in the
Downtown plan are prohibited. The Downtown Plan does not list animal boarding as a permitted
use. Mr. Pressman said staff direction is based on subjective interpretation of the Code, which he
said does not provide clear direction.
Discussion ensued with comments that the Downtown Plan is clear, and that no
information provided indicates that staff made a mistake, misrepresentation, nor committed fraud.
Member Johnson moved to deny the request for reconsideration. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 200?-.12-20
59
.
.
.
Mr. Delk thanked the COB for their support and wished all a Merry Christmas.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Community Development 2005-12-20
60
"
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
/' Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
~ yes no
2. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
/" yes no
3. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
/' yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-07077 - 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
/ yes no
"
5. Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
yes no
/ Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
yes no
7. C""", TA2~3 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes no
/:. Case: FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
yes no
Level Two Applications
1. Case: FLD2005-09094 - 1091 Eldorado Drive
./ yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-07062 -125-143 Island Way
./ yes no
.
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones St & 410 l'
/Harrison Avenue
/" yes no
/' Case: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 -170,174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
--Lyes no
)/Case: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 - 193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
-Lyes no
6. Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
yes ./' no
7. Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
yes /no
8. Case: FLD2005-07074 / PL T2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
yes
/' no
,
Level Three Applications
/1. LUZ20005-09012 - 1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes no
/ 2. ANX2005-09034 - 1551, 1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes
no
3. ATA2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
/yes no
/ 4. LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes no
/.5. ANX2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes no
6. TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes ./ no
Date: IZ-j /7/VJ-
Signature:
S:\Planning D
en C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
,
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
1. Case: FLD2003-08039 -1460, 147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
*yes no
2. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
yes
x
no
3. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
yes 4-no
~es c...: FID200S-07::7 ~ 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
\ / 5. Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
-+-yes no
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
+s
no
7. Case: TA2~_10003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes no
8.
Case: FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
~es
no
Level Two Applications
\ / 1. Case: FLD2005-09094 - 1091 Eldorado Drive
-A-yes no
2. Case: FLD2005-07062 -125-143 Island Way
--*yes no
It
,
;,
.
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones St & 410 l'
Harrison Avenue
----X-yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 -170,174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
~yes no
5. Case: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 - 193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
~es no
6. Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
X yes no
V 7. Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
~es no
8. Case: FLD2005-07074 / PLT2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
~es
no
Level Three Auulications
1. LUZ20005-09012 -1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
~es no
2. ANX2005-09034 - 1551, 1555 & 1559 Union Street
--4?s no
3. ATA2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
~ yes no
. 4. LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
~es
5. ANX2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
4yes
no
no
6. TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
no
Signature:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Date: l~uJ~'\
2
III
,
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
~
1. Case: FLD2003-08039 -1460,147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
yes
no
yes
Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
-/' no '\?,~
2.
3.
Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
yes
no
4.
yes
Case: FLD2005-07077 - 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
/ no
5.
Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
./
yes
no
6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
/ yes no
7. Case: TA2005-10003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes V no /~/A
/
8. Case: FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
yes
no
Level Two Applications
1. Case: FLD2005-09094 - 1091 Eldorado Drive
l no
yes
2. Case: FLD2005-07062 -125-143 Island Way
yes ,/ no
..
"
,
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones Sf & 410 l'
Harrison Avenue
/' yes no
4. Case: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 - 170, 174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
Lyes no
5. Case: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 -193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
/
j 6.
yes
no
Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
yes
no
7. Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
yes
no
8. Case: FLD2005-07074 / PLT2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
./ yes
no
Level Three Applications
1. LUZ20005-09012 - 1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes ,/ no
2. ANX200~-0?034 - 1551, 1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes vi no
3. ATA2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
yes ./ no
4. LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes .V' no
5. ANX2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes ~/ no
6. TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes V' no
~~-
Date: I ~/1~
Signature:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
N\r . ~lohn SY"\
\i
w~.~.~_~__,..______
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
y Case: FLD2003-08039 - 1460, 147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
~es no
;;:,-c..., Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
es no
0se: LUZ2005-1 00 13 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
~es no
~se: FLD200S-07077 - 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
~es no
V Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
~es no
6~se: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
~ yes no
~e: TA2005-10003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
~es no
~e: FLD2005-09095/PL T2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
~yes - - no
Level Two Applications
~ase: FLD2005-09094 -1091 Eldorado Drive
~yes J no
~~se: FLD2005-07062 - 125-143 Island Way
~~es-- no
.
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones St & 410 l'
~rison Avenue
~es no
4:/ase: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 -170,174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
~yes no
5/ase: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 -193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
~es no
y Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
~es no
/Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
~es no
8~ase: FLD2005-07074 / PL T2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
V yes no
Level Three Auulications
YLUZ20005-09012 - 1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
~es no
.0NX2005-09034 - 1551, 1555 & 1559 Union Street
~es no
- ~A2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
~es no
~UZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
~yes,. no
~~X2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
---t.L-yes /' no
6 TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes
no
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Date: Id~/b-6r
2
\.
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
1. Case: FLD2003-08039-1460, 147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
cJJ. yes J no
2. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
V yes no
3. Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
~ yes no
<.. 4. Case: FLD2005-07077 - 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
v/~-- no
.
wltjY\rvQ.A ~ ?!~;Y'r"._) --
\./""5. Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
yes no
. ,L6. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
~es J no
7. Case: TA2005-10003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
V yes no
J 8.
Case: FLD2005-09095/PLT2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
yes
no
Level Two Applications
!/. Case: FLD2005-09094 -1091 Eldorado Drive
yes no
~ 2. Case: FLD2005-07062 -125-143 Island Way
Wyes V no
..
.
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones St & 410 l'
1.1 Harrison Avenue r Uv\1t 10t)
/' yes no ~ '\ I
4. Case: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 -170,174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
J
V
yes
no
5. Case: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 - 193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
yes
no
/6.
V yes
Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
no
~. Case: FLD2005-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
yes J no
/8. Case: FLD2005-07074 / PLT2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
V yes no
Level Three Avvlications
~ 1. LUZ20005-09012 -1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes V no
~
2. ANX2005-09034 - 1551, 1555 & 1559 Union Street
yes v' no
3. ATA2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
V yes
no
4. LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
V
yes
no
V 5. ANX2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes no
J 6. TA2005-11004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning Department\C D
DB, property inves~eCk list.doc
Date: ~~ ~ ~)
2
~
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
1. Case: FLD2078039-1460, 147 & 1480 S Missouri Ave
yes no
2. Case: Amen7ent to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
yes no
3. Case: LUZ200S-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
yes j no
4. Case: FLD20qs-07077 - 107 Me Mullen Booth Road
yes ~ no
J 5.
Case: FLD2005-06053 - 1101 S Ft Harrison Ave
yes
no
J 6.
Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade
yes
no
7. Case: T^fOOS-lO003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes no
8. Case: FLD2005-09095/PLT2005-00026 - 161 Brightwater Drive
yes ) no
Level Two Applications
1. Case: FLD2005-09094 -1091 Eldorado Drive
yes ~ no
2. Case: FLD2005-07062 -125-143 Island Way
yes ~no
,
4a
3. Case: FLD2005-09098 - 302,303,304,308 & 309 N Osceola Ave and 410 Jones St & 410 N
/ Harrison Avenue
yes / no
4. Case: FLD2005-09101 / TDR2005-09027 - 170, 174,180,184 & 188 Brightwater Dr
yes .I no
5. Case: FLD2005-09102 / TDR2005-09026 -193,199 & 201 Brightwater Dr
yes / no
6.
Case: FLD2005-09096 - 400 Poinsettia Ave
J no
yes
7. Case: FLD2~05-10105 - 475 East Shore Drive
yes Y no
8. Case: FLD2j05-07074 / PL T2005-00027 - 907 S Ft Harrison Avenue
yes no
Level Three Applications
1. LUZ20005-09012 - 1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
/ no
./
2. ANX2005-09034 -1551,1555 & 1559 Union Street
,) no
yes
yes
3. ATA2005-10001- 2380 NE Coachman Road
J no
yes
4. LUZ2005-09011 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes J no
5. ANX2005-09033 - 2190 NE Coachman Road
yes J no
6. TA2005-1J04 Amendments to the Community Development Code
yes
Signature: Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, prope investigation check list.doc
2