12/19/2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 19, 2006
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan 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 21, 2006
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 21,
motion
2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not
vote.
D. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Items 1-2)
Community Development 2006-12-19 1
1. Case: FLD2007-07045 – 240-250 Skiff Point Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to January 16, 2007)
Owners: New Horizons Properties, LLC and Affordable Dental, LLC.
Applicant: Mize and Sefair Development.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.39 acre at the northwest corner of the intersection of Skiff Point and
Larboard Way.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning Districts: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 11 attached dwellings within the Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR) District/Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District (IENCOD) with an increase to height from 30 feet to 46.2 feet (roof deck) with an
additional 10.3 feet for a mechanical equipment enclosure, a reduction to the front (south)
setback from 25 feet to 15.3 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
rear (north) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to 5 feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10
feet to 5 feet (to pavement) as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-
404.F of the Community Development Code; and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer
widths along the east and west sides of the property from 10 feet to 5 feet as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings (11 units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140
Island Way, Clearwater, FL 33767).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
As a result of an advertising error, this case must be postponed.
Member Tallman moved to continue Case FLD2007-07045 to January 16, 2007. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
Community Development 2006-12-19 2
2. Case: FLD2007-05032 – 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application
(Continued from November 21, 2007)
Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc.
Applicant: Mark LeBlanc.
Representatives: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.253 acre located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600
feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue.
Atlas Page: 307A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a
reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions
to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building),
from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to
the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet
to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three
feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the
pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation
to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers
along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10
feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along
the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape
requirement from 10% to 5.5% and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet
wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120
Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; email: duketieman@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
A December 18, 2006, e-mail from Doreen Williams, of Northside Engineering,
requested a two-month continuance, stating the applicant is in negotiations with the owner of
the next door property regarding a cross-parking agreement.
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2007-05032 to February 20, 2007. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-8)
Community Development 2006-12-19 3
1. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2007-07041 – 601 North Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Tezaris & Bieber Acquisitions, Inc.
Representative: Frank C. Schlotter, P.E. (6885 Copperfield Drive, New Port Richey, FL
34655; phone: 727-372-9256; fax: 727-372-4586; email: schlotter01@msn.com).
Location: 0.652 acre along the east side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately
220 feet south of Eldridge Street.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for 18 attached dwellings within the Downtown (D)
District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the
Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (18 units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828
Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767); North Greenwood Association, Inc. (Jonathan
Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755); Bayview Heights (625 Minnesota Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. The subject property totals 0.652
acre and is located along the east side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 220 feet
south of Eldridge Street within the Downtown (D) District. Additionally, the property is located
within Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
The subject property consists of an abandoned limited vehicle service use (car/boat
wash) with the surrounding area consisting of attached dwellings, detached dwellings, offices,
and retail sales and service uses. These surrounding uses are located within structures that are
between one and three stories in height.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for attached dwellings on parcels of land less than two acres in size located west of
Garden Avenue within the Old Bay character district is 25 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the
0.652-acre subject property is permitted 16 attached dwellings. However, the development
proposal is for 18 attached dwellings (two more than permissible); therefore the applicant has
requested the use of two attached dwellings from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as made
available by the Plan. The development proposal’s compliance with the requirements for the
use of these attached dwellings from the Pool is discussed later.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
building height on parcels of land located east of Osceola Avenue within the Old Bay character
district is 40 feet. The proposed building has a height of 39.6 feet, which is within the maximum
allowable height.
Community Development 2006-12-19 4
Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, the minimum off-street
parking requirement for attached dwellings within the Downtown (D) District is 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Based upon the above, the proposed 18-unit development requires a
minimum of 27 parking spaces and has provided for 38 – a ratio of 2.1 parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
It is noted that the parking consists of two handicap accessible parking spaces and 18
two-car vertical stack garages (one garage per unit). The vertical stack garages allow for two
vehicles to be parked within the garage and for either vehicle to be removed at any given time
without necessitating the prior removal of the other vehicle from the garage.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste
containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate,
wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The development proposal includes the provision of a
dumpster enclosure at the rear of the property. The enclosure consists of six-foot high concrete
block sidewalls, an eight-foot high concrete block rear wall and six-foot high swing gates with
privacy slats.
It is noted that the provision of an eight-foot high rear wall is inconsistent with the height
standards set forth in Section 3-804.B of the Community Development Code, which limits rear
walls to a maximum height of six feet. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that
prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans must be revised to depict a six-foot high
rear wall for the refuse enclosure.
Further, Section 3-805.A of the Community Development Code and the Downtown
Design Guidelines states that chain link fences are not permitted within the Downtown (D)
District. The proposed swing gates with privacy slats therefore must be replaced with a material
(wood, vinyl, etc.) consistent with the Code and Design Guidelines, and said replacement has
been attached as a condition of approval to be met prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The development proposal also includes both pad-mounted (transformer) and roof-
mounted (air-conditioning) mechanical equipment. The pad-mounted mechanical equipment is
located interior to the development and will be screened by the proposed building as well as
landscaping. The roof-mounted mechanical equipment will be centered atop the building so as
to limit its visibility and furthered screened by six-foot high vinyl fencing.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to
be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
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-
Community Development 2006-12-19 5
density residential areas to the north. Further, the Plan envisions the district to be a mixed-use
neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited
neighborhood commercial and office uses.
To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to
live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public
Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-
residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of two dwelling units from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool. In order to justify this request from the Public Amenities Incentive
Pool, the development proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements on North
Fort Harrison Avenue consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan.
Based upon the provision of this amenity, which is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan, the request for two dwelling units from the Public Amenities Incentive
Pool can be supported.
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) Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parking: The Downtown Design Guidelines state
that driveways shall be functionally integrated into the design of the development; that parking
lots shall be located behind the primary façade of the principle building; and that the use of
interlocking pavers, brick or other similarly textured materials shall be used for parking lot
surfacing and/or accents. The driveway for the development has been designed to pass
through/beneath the building, thereby allowing for a continuous building façade along North Fort
Harrison Avenue while still permitting vehicular/pedestrian access to the rear of the property.
Through this design, the driveway has been functionally integrated into the design of the
development. The off-street parking associated with the development will be located at the rear
of the property behind not only the primary façade, but also the principle building. Finally, the
development includes the provision of substantial paver brick accents at the driveway flare and
the initial throat of the driveway. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies
with the above applicable Guidelines; 2) Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design
Guidelines state that clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian
pathways should be provided between streets, parking areas and buildings; and that specialized
paving designs shall be incorporated where pedestrian and vehicular paths intersect. The
development proposal incorporates a four-foot wide walkway connecting the North Fort Harrison
Avenue sidewalk, the building stairways/elevators and the rear garages. The proposal also
incorporates a paver brick pedestrian walkway across the drive aisle to join the two halves of
the building separated by the driveway. Based upon the above, the development proposal
complies with the above applicable Guidelines; 3) Buffering and Screening: The Downtown
Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless communication facilities, loading
and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the site, located in the most unobtrusive
location possible and buffered and screened appropriately. The development proposal includes
the provision of a dumpster enclosure at the rear of the property, which will ultimately consist of
six-foot high concrete block walls and swing gates consistent with the Community Development
Code and the Design Guidelines (see above with regard to Solid Waste Containers and
Mechanical Equipment). The development proposal also includes both pad-mounted
(transformer) and roof-mounted (air-conditioning) mechanical equipment. The pad-mounted
mechanical equipment is located interior to the development and will be screened by the
proposed building as well as landscaping. The roof-mounted mechanical equipment will be
Community Development 2006-12-19 6
centered atop the building so as to limit its visibility and furthered screened by six-foot high vinyl
fencing. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with the above applicable
Guidelines; 4) Fences and Walls: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that fences and walls
shall compliment and be consistent with the principal structure with regard to materials, texture,
size, shape and color. The development proposal includes the provision of a six-foot high,
white, wrought iron fence with intermittent stucco finish pilaster columns along portions of the
north, west and south property lines as well as along the east bank of the retention pond. In
addition, a four-foot high version of this fence is proposed around the clubhouse/swimming pool
area. As proposed, the fence and columns will be consistent with the materials, texture, size,
shape and color of the principle structure; therefore the development proposal complies with the
above applicable Guidelines; 5) Coverage: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that
buildings shall maintain the build-to line or the setback of the development’s block and the
block(s) across the street. The proposed building has a setback that varies between 6.5 feet
and 43 feet with an average of 23.78 feet. The existing adjacent building to the south is set
back approximately 20 feet, and there are no developments with measurable setbacks on either
the property to the north or those properties across North Fort Harrison Avenue. It is noted that
the subject property includes a retention pond at the southwest corner of the site that not only
accommodates drainage for the subject property as currently developed, but also for the
adjacent property to the south. As such, the retention area cannot be eliminated or relocated
without substantial detriment to the adjacent property. Therefore, the subject property will be
redeveloped around this existing retention area. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guideline; 6) Rhythm/Spacing: The Downtown
Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a distinct “base,” “middle,” and “cap.” The
proposed building “base” is defined through the use of several elements: a stringcourse at the
sill height of the second level windows, the incorporation of a distinct “large block” scoring
pattern and through the enclosure of the first/second level building projections in contrast to the
third/fourth levels. The proposed building “cap” is similarly defined through the use of several
elements: a stringcourse at the sill height of the fourth level windows, the use of a distinct stucco
wall treatment, window surrounds and a decorative parapet consisting of cultured stone
balustrades and ornate rounded parapet elements. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guideline; 7) Primary and Corner Façades: The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary façades shall be the most highly designed
façades and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and recesses), architectural details, variety in
color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. The proposed
architectural elevations include several of the prescribed design elements noted above. Plane
changes are incorporated into the building in the form of projections that are enclosed on the
first and second levels and open (as balconies) on the third and fourth levels. The elevations
also incorporate variation in color (discussed later in this report), material and texture through
the utilization of stucco wall treatments, distinctive score lines and differing column styles.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable
Guideline; 8) Other Architectural Features: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the use
of visible, permanent or roll-down security bars/gates is inappropriate within the downtown. The
development proposal includes the provision of decorative wrought iron security gates across
the drive aisle, which as per the above is not permissible for development within the downtown.
The applicant has requested that the gates be allowed and has indicated that the gates would
be kept open during daylight hours and closed at night. While this may seem a fair
compromise, the ability to achieve continual, successful regulation of when the gates are
actually open or closed is impractical if not impossible. In addition to the above, the functionality
of the gates is also in question. While it is presumed under the applicant’s proposal that
Community Development 2006-12-19 7
residents would open the gates at night via a remote control, it is unclear as to how the gates
would be opened at night by a guest as the development proposal does not include a call box
for guests to contact residents or even an adequate location for any such call box should it be
provided. Further, with the provision of the gates the development proposal lacks any form of
turn around area before the gates that would enable a vehicle to safely egress the site on to
North Fort Harrison Avenue. Regardless of when the gates would be open or closed, the
means by which the timeframes for the gates would be regulated, how guest access would be
accommodated, or how vehicles not obtaining access would safely egress back on to North Fort
Harrison Avenue, the fact remains that pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines “visible,
permanent or roll-down security bars/gates” are not permissible within the downtown.
Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development
Order the wrought iron security gates must be eliminated and revised plans are submitted
depicting such; and 9) Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type
of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The
proposed building colors are appropriate for the architectural style of the building and consist of
off-white (Cape Honey Flower – OL#B16-1) for the top of the principle building and garage
walls, the clubhouse and as trim for the fence columns; pale yellow (Sand Trap – OL#B16-2) for
the middle of the principle building; peach (Apple Crunch – OL#B16-3) for the bottom of the
principle building and garage walls, the fascia and trim of the clubhouse and the fencing; and
white (Alabaster – SW7008) for the columns, medallion and horizontal trim of the principle
building and garage. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with
the above referenced Guideline.
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives
and Policies were identified: 1) Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity,
business and governments. The development proposal will establish 18 additional attached
dwellings in the Downtown. The establishment of these additional dwellings will further this
vision by bringing more people to live in the Downtown; 2) 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 is consistent with the above
in that it will provide 18 attached dwellings within the Downtown. Based upon the above, the
development proposal will further this Vision statement; 3) Vision: Fort Harrison and Osceola
avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with
Cleveland Street form the major retail core of Downtown. The subject property has
approximately 172 linear feet of frontage along North Fort Harrison Avenue; and while the
development proposal does not include retail floor area along this right-of-way, this portion of
North Fort Harrison Avenue will be redeveloped to provide greater pedestrian connectivity.
Further, the addition of more residential dwellings in the downtown/Old Bay will improve the
viability/sustainability of existing and future retail businesses in the area. Based upon the
above, the development proposal is consistent with this Vision statement; 4) Vision: An
adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses. As previously
discussed under the Minimum Off-Street Parking analysis, the development proposal requires a
minimum of 27 parking spaces and will provide a 38 parking spaces. Therefore, the
development proposal exceeds the minimum requirements of code and is consistent with this
Vision statement; 5) Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals,
objectives and policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the
Downtown Design Guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal will
Community Development 2006-12-19 8
provide for 18 attached dwellings within an attractive residential development. As set forth in
this staff report, the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the Plan, the
Old Bay character district, the Design Guidelines, the Downtown zoning district and therefore,
this Objective; 6) Objective 1G: Residential uses in the Downtown are encouraged with a variety
of densities, housing types and affordability consistent with the character districts. The
development proposal will provide for 18 attached dwellings within the Old Bay character district
and includes a variety of unit types and sizes. The dwellings consist of two-bedroom units
between 1,248 and 1,384 square-feet, and three-bedroom units between 1,646 and 1,782
square-feet. Based upon the above, this Objective has been met; 7) Objective 1I: The City shall
use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives
to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan provides for a Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which development proposals may
acquire additional dwelling units in excess of what the applicable density restrictions would
otherwise allow. This development proposal includes a request to utilize two dwelling units from
the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with this Objective; 8) Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall
create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development
proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements along North Fort Harrison Avenue
that are consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance
with this Objective has been achieved; 9) Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish
the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in
the Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. As previously discussed, the
development proposal is consistent with the various aspects of the Downtown Design
Guidelines including, but not limited to: Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parking, Pedestrian
Circulation/Access, Buffering and Screening, Fences and Walls, Coverage, Rhythm/Spacing,
Primary and Corner Façades and Color. However, the development proposal is inconsistent
with the Design Guidelines with regard to Other Architectural Features as the development
proposal includes the provision of decorative wrought iron security gates across the drive aisle,
which as per the above referenced provision is not permissible for development within the
downtown. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval regarding
the elimination of the proposed security gate, the development proposal is consistent with this
Policy; 10) Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and
design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision
of the character district in which it is located. As discussed later in this staff report, the
development proposal is found to be in compliance with the policies governing development
within the Old Bay character district. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with
this Policy; 11) Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful
contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The architectural
elevations have been designed at a pedestrian scale while not necessary stimulating pedestrian
interaction. However, the pedestrian environment shall nonetheless be improved through the
provision of 18 new attached dwelling units within the downtown in-lieu of the existing car/boat
wash facility. In addition, the development proposal includes streetscape improvements along
the North Fort Harrison Avenue right-of-way consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan that will improve the pedestrian environment. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 12) 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
Community Development 2006-12-19 9
establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and
2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the
Plan area. This provides an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development
potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater.
This development proposal will utilize two dwelling units from the Pool, and in compensation
provide streetscape improvements on North Fort Harrison Avenue consistent with the City’s
Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, compliance with this Policy
has been achieved; and 13) Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-
site recreation facilities based on the scale of the project. The development proposal will
provide several amenities for the residents, including: a clubhouse, swimming pool and two
rooftop spas. Based upon the above, the development proposal has provided sufficient
amenities for the scale of the project and is consistent with the above Policy.
Old Bay Character District Policies: The following applicable policies shall govern
development within the District, as well as City actions: 1) The Public Incentives Amenities Pool
shall not be available to any property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between
Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay character district. The subject
property is located to the east of Osceola Avenue and south of Eldridge Street; therefore it is
eligible for the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which the project proposes the use of two
dwelling units and 2) New development on North Fort Harrison Avenue shall be oriented toward
the street to encourage pedestrian activity and a dynamic street life. The proposed building has
been oriented towards the North Fort Harrison Avenue right-of-way and the architectural
elevations designed at a pedestrian scale although not necessarily stimulating pedestrian
interaction. However, the pedestrian environment shall nonetheless be improved and the
envisioned dynamic street life enhanced through the provision of 18 new attached dwelling units
within the downtown in-lieu of the existing car/boat wash facility. In addition, the development
proposal includes streetscape improvements along the North Fort Harrison Avenue right-of-way
consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan that will improve the
pedestrian environment. Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in
compliance with the policies governing development within the Old Bay character district.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of October 25, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be
sufficient to move forward to the CDB (Community Development Board), based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.652 acre subject property is located along the east side of
North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 220 feet south of Eldridge Street; 2) That the
property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD)
Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the development proposal is subject to the
requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines
contained therein as the property is located within the Old Bay character district; 4) That the
development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area; and 5) That there are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development 2006-12-19 10
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal will enhance other
redevelopment efforts in the area; 2) That the proposed use of two attached dwellings from the
Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Design Guidelines; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay
character district; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and
Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code; 6) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-903.B and 2-903.C of the
Community Development Code; and 7) That the development proposal is consistent with the
General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the
Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development request to permit 18 attached dwellings within the Downtown (D) District as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community
Development Code with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of a
Development Order, the wrought iron security gates must be eliminated and revised plans
submitted depicting such; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans shall
be revised to depict a six-foot high rear wall for the refuse enclosure; 3) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the proposed swing gates with privacy slats shall be replaced
with a material (wood, vinyl, etc.) consistent with the Code and Design Guidelines; 4) That prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing
or proposed, shall be placed underground; 5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall deed or dedicate an easement over all unrestricted water lines,
hydrants and backflow prevention devices; 6) That the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall
be located a minimum of 15-feet from any building and/or entry wall; 7) That the final design and
color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as
modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 8) That any/all wireless communication
facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject
development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are
attached, as applicable; 9) That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and
be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color,
material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior to the
issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms
of including the same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest
quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the
building; 10) That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of the CDB
approval (by December 19, 2007); and 11) That the final Certificate of Occupancy must be
obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Applicant Mark Tezaris said a gate is necessary due to potential buyer concerns
regarding neighborhood crime rates. He proposed a new design. Concern was expressed that
stacking could occur and vehicles may have to back into the right-of-way. It was recommended
that the applicant work further with staff regarding a gate. Planning Director Michael Delk said a
modified gate design may not be approved by staff. Mr. Tezaris said he would provide the City
details on the hydraulic parking structure.
Community Development 2006-12-19 11
Member Milam moved to approve Case FLD2007-07041 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
motion carried
approval as listed. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
2. Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2007-04019/TDR2007-11032 – 210 South Osceola Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc.
Representative: James Bond (319 South Garden Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-467-5000; fax: 727-445-7277; email: flblldesigners@scientology.com).
Location: 1.79 acres on the west side of Osceola Avenue between Pierce and Court
streets.
Atlas Page: 286B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the conversion of an existing dormitory to a interim
office/overnight accommodations mixed-use (112,739 square-feet) until June 2008 (Phase I)
and subsequently to a permanent overnight accommodations use (252 rooms) within the
Downtown (D) District as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code; and a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR2007-11032) of 82 overnight accommodation units from the property
located at 645 Franklin Street under the provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the
Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Office/Overnight Accommodations (Phase I) and Overnight Accommodations
(Phase II).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Pierce 100 Condo Association (Terry Sue, 100 Pierce
Street, Clearwater, FL 33756).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 1.79-acre subject property is located on the west side of South Osceola Avenue
between Pierce and Court streets. The subject property consists of a 132-foot high (13-story)
building situated toward the west side of the parcel and an associated off-street parking area
located between the building and the South Osceola Avenue right-of-way. The property was
originally developed in 1975 and came to be used in 1985 as a 309-bed assisted living facility
known as Oak Cove Retirement Center. The property was utilized as such until August 15,
2001, when it closed out its occupational license.
At its meeting of August 15, 2002, the DRC approved a Flexible Standard Development
application for the conversion of the assisted living facility to a 240-unit dormitory as an
accessory use to an existing Church of Scientology educational facility (counseling) operated
within the Fort Harrison Hotel and to be operated within the Flag Building (under construction).
The approval also included repainting the building and minor modifications to the off-street
parking area. Subsequently, the DRC modified this approval on May 28, 2004, to include the
addition of chases for required ventilation on the north, east and west façades of the building.
The building never was occupied as a dormitory; however permits have been issued and
remain active for the renovation of the building as such. At present, interior renovation work
Community Development 2006-12-19 12
continues on the building for those elements that are consistent with the current development
proposal.
The item before the CDB is a two-phased request. The first phase includes the
conversion of the previously approved dormitory use to an interim office/overnight
accommodation use (112,739 square-feet). The second phase would complete the
redevelopment of the subject property to a permanent overnight accommodation use (251
rooms).
During the first phase of the development, the applicant purposes to complete the
previously approved renovations on the Oak Cove building (to the extent consistent with the
final proposed use), then to relocate the existing hotel and counseling operations (office) from
the adjacent Fort Harrison Hotel to the Oak Cove building. The relocation of these operations
from the Fort Harrison Hotel is so that it can be renovated/updated for hotel-only usage.
The renovation work on the Fort Harrison Hotel is expected to be completed in June
2008 and coincide with the completion of the Flag Building construction. At this time the second
phase of the development will commence and all counseling operations (office) will be relocated
from the Oak Cove building to the Flag Building and both the Fort Harrison Hotel and the Oak
Cove building will operate solely as overnight accommodation uses.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for overnight accommodations within the Downtown Core character district is 95 units
per acre; thus the 1.79-acre subject property is permitted 170 overnight accommodation units.
However, the development proposal consists of 251 overnight accommodation units, which is
81 units more than allowable. Therefore, the applicant has proposed a transfer of development
rights from the property located at 652 Court Street. The development proposals compliance
with the criteria for transfers of development rights is discussed later.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, there is no maximum
allowable height within the Downtown Core character district. Therefore, the existing 132 foot
high building (to top of mechanical equipment enclosure) is in compliance with the Plan.
Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, within the Downtown
(D) District, off-street parking for overnight accommodations is required to be provided at a rate
of one space per unit. Therefore, the proposed 251 overnight accommodation units would
require a minimum of 251 parking spaces. However, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, the minimum off-street parking requirement is as determined by the Community
Development Coordinator based upon the specific use and/or the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Manual standards.
The development proposal includes the provision of 52 off-street parking spaces. As a
result, a deviation to the minimum off-street parking requirement has been requested and a
“parking need” study has been provided in support of this request. It is noted that subsequent to
the provision of this study, the number of rooms and parking spaces proposed were each
reduced by one. The following is an excerpt from this study: “The church operates a shuttle
service on a continuous basis to transport parishioners between the hotels and other church
facilities in downtown Clearwater. The church also provides shuttle service for shopping trips,
movies, and recreational activities. Therefore, there is little need for personal automobile use
Community Development 2006-12-19 13
for people staying at their hotels. As a result, many of the parishioners traveling to the church
hotels fly into nearby airports and take church operated shuttles to the hotel facilities in
Clearwater.
Due to the unique nature of the church’s operations, standard hotel parking
requirements or use of national publications such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers
informational report Trip Generation to determine traffic to be generated by the facility would not
provide accurate results for the church specific operation.
The parking requirements for the Oak Cove building have been determined for the
interim and final uses of this facility. During the interim use, the Oak Cove building will have 252
rooms, of which 127 hotel rooms and 125 rooms totaling 98,076 square-feet will be used
primarily for counseling area… the hotel rooms will generate the need for 25 parking spaces
and the counseling activities will generate the need for 75 spaces, resulting in a total need for
100 parking spaces. The Oak Cove building will have a total of 53 parking spaces. This results
in a shortage of 47 parking spaces. These needed spaces will be made up through use of the
existing garage in the Fort Harrison Hotel or in the parking structure currently under construction
located at 645 Franklin Street.
The final use for the Oak Cove building will be to provide 252 hotel rooms. Using the
average parking rate developed in this study results in the need for 49 parking spaces.
Because 53 spaces will be provided, the ultimate use of the building will have four extra parking
spaces.”
Staff concurs with the findings of the provided “parking need” study that the 52 off-street
parking spaces provided with this development proposal will be sufficient for both the interim
use and the final use of the Oak Cove building. It is noted that the above referenced parking
garage at 645 Franklin Street is to be completed prior to December 31, 2007.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste
containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate,
wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The majority of the mechanical equipment for the building
exists at ground level between the building and the South Osceola Avenue right-of-way. The
mechanical equipment consists of two pad-mounted utility transformers, two cooling towers and
an emergency generator with fuel tank. The mechanical equipment will be screened by a six-
foot high masonry wall with sliding gate access, which is consistent with the requirement. The
appearance of the wall also will be architecturally consistent with the building elevations.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to
be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
Pursuant to Section 4-1402 of the Community Development Code, parcels governed by
a redevelopment or special area plan may only receive density/intensity transfers from parcels
within the same redevelopment or special area plan. Further, pursuant to the Clearwater
Community Development 2006-12-19 14
Downtown Redevelopment Plan, no limitation exists on the amount of density/intensity that may
be transferred to a receiving site.
The 0.928-acre sending parcel, which is located within the boundaries of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan at 652 Court Street, was recently developed as the 11,500
square-foot church’s energy plant. As a result, this parcel has a remaining density/intensity
potential of 81.90 overnight accommodation units. The receiving parcel, which also is located
within the boundaries of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan at 210 S. Osceola
Avenue, will receive 81 overnight accommodation units from the sending parcel. Based upon
the above and as expressed in the table below, the proposed TDR (Transfer of Development
Rights) has been found to be consistent with the requirements of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of
the Community Development Code.
The applicant has included plans depicting signage with this development proposal.
However, these plans are for informational purposes only and the review/approval of said plans
shall be accommodated through the sign permit and/or Comprehensive Sign approval
processes as necessary.
The development proposal will be completed over two phases. The first phase includes
the conversion of the previously approved dormitory use to an interim office/overnight
accommodation use. Included with the first phase of development is the construction of all
improvements associated with the proposal (i.e. elevator shaft and lobby additions, porte
cochère, elevated deck, off-street parking and architectural elevation changes). The second
phase would complete the redevelopment of the subject property to a permanent overnight
accommodation use (251 rooms), which would likely involve only minor interior modifications.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, applications for
building permit are to be made within one year from the date of the Level Two approval by the
CDB, with all required Certificates of Occupancy to be obtained within two years from the date
of issuance of the initial building permit. With regard to the proposed interim office/overnight
accommodation use the timeframes noted above would apply. However, with regard to the
ultimate use as overnight accommodations, it is proposed that an application for building permit
would be made within 18 months from the date of the Level Two approval by the CDB, with all
required Certificates of Occupancy to be obtained within two years from the date of issuance of
the initial building permit associated with this phase. It is noted, and attached as a condition of
approval, that the proposed interim office/overnight accommodation use must be interim and
cannot become the ultimate use of the property.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The subject property is located within the Downtown Core character district of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
states that a key component to diversify the Downtown Core is to attract residential uses with a
variety of housing types and prices. The Plan further states that once a residential base is in
place, retail, restaurant and services will likely follow, and that it is anticipated that the majority
of existing churches will remain and possibly expand.
Community Development 2006-12-19 15
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction
with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. The
Guidelines apply to renovations, rehabilitations and additions to existing structures and any site
modifications. While existing developments that do not comply with the requirements of the
Guidelines shall not be required to be brought into full compliance, any improvements proposed
to an existing development, however, will be required to comply with the applicable provisions of
the Guidelines related to the improvements.
The subject property does not comply with the Design Guidelines; however a review of
these Guidelines was conducted as applicable to the proposed improvements and the following
items were identified: 1) Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parking: The Downtown Design
Guidelines state that parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way shall be screened with either a
landscaped buffer or a solid wall or fence three feet in height. While the location of the off-street
parking lot is not being altered with this development proposal, it is being made to comply with
those applicable provisions of the Guidelines as best possible. The proposal includes the
provision of three-foot high masonry walls with decorative aluminum scrollwork and columns
extending above to a total height of four feet-six inches. While the walls cannot extend the full
width of the property along South Osceola Avenue due to driveway locations and their
associated sight visibility triangles, the walls as provided will suitably screen the vehicles from
view of the right-of-way and 2) The Guidelines state that interlocking pavers, brick or other
similarly textured materials shall be used for parking lot surfacing and/or accents. While it is not
feasible for the entire off-street parking area to be constructed from pavers, brick, etc., the
proposal does include decorative stamped concrete at the driveway flares consistent with the
balance of the streetscape improvements along the South Osceola Avenue right-of-way. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and
landscaped pedestrian pathways shall be provided between streets, parking areas and
buildings. The development proposal includes the provision of a paver brick walkway that
connects the existing Oak Cove building to the new stamped concrete sidewalk within the South
Osceola Avenue right-of-way. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent
with the above applicable Guidelines.
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 existing building currently has pad-mounted mechanical equipment along the south
property line between the building and the South Osceola Avenue right-of-way, as well as an
existing refuse collection area located on the north side of the building to the west of the porte
cochère. The refuse area already is well integrated into the design of the building and site and
no further modifications are necessary in order to achieve compliance with the Guidelines;
however the existing mechanical equipment (transformers, cooling tower, and emergency
generator with fuel tank) are not buffered or screened from view. Therefore, the applicant is
proposing a six-foot high masonry wall along the north and east sides of the mechanical
equipment. The west side of the mechanical equipment will be well screened by the existing
building and proposed landscaping, while the south side is currently buffered on the adjacent
property by a six-foot high chain link fence and landscaping. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines.
Community Development 2006-12-19 16
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the location, height and design of fences
and walls shall be compatible with the intended use, design of the site and architecture of the
building. As stated previously, the development proposal includes the provision of masonry
walls with decorative aluminum scrollwork and columns (at a height of four feet-six inches)
along the South Osceola Avenue right-of-way to screen the off-street parking lot from view, and
a six-foot high masonry wall with sliding gate access around the existing/proposed pad-mounted
mechanical equipment along the south property line. The location and heights of these walls
are compatible with the design of the site and the architecture of the building.
In addition to the above, the Guidelines state that chain link fences are inappropriate
within the downtown, and pursuant to Section 3-802.F, chain link fences are tantamount to wire
fences. Thus, the proposed six-foot high, black, galvanized wire fence along the majority of the
north property line and the entirety of the west property line is not permissible. It is therefore
attached as a condition of approval that the wire fencing is replaced with fencing permissible
within the downtown and complementary to the principle structure with regard to material,
texture, size, shape and color (i.e. masonry wall, vinyl fence, etc.). Based upon the above and
subject to the attached condition of approval being addressed, the development proposal is
consistent with the above applicable Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a distinct “base,”
“middle,” and “cap.” The existing building lacks distinctiveness in all three of these required
elements; however the proposed elevations include the incorporation of an enhanced parapet
cap, a decorative stringcourse between the second and third levels, and the provision of a lobby
addition and porte cochère. These elements, while not necessarily symbolizing the ideal
representation of “base,” “middle, and “cap,” still provide a substantial improvement upon what
presently exists and furthers the intent of this Guideline.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that an architecturally prominent entrance shall
be located on the primary façade and be emphasized through the use of a combination of:
protruding front gable or stoop, projection/recession in building footprint, variation in building
height, canopy or portico, raised cornice/parapet over door, arches, columns, or other similar
treatments that emphasize the primary entrance. As the building exists, the entrance doors are
located beneath a nondescript drop-off area. The development proposal includes a lobby and
porte cochère addition on the primary façade that will result in a more architecturally prominent
entrance than what presently exists. The entrance incorporates a projection in the building
footprint, a variation in building height, a raised parapet and columns consistent with the above.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building colors
should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The proposed building
colors, which are consistent with the colors approved for the Fort Harrison Hotel and the Flag
Building, are appropriate for the architectural style of the building. The building base and
parapet cap will be pale beige to match the precast concrete elements of the Fort Harrison Hotel
and Flag Building. The middle of the building will be light beige (Desert Tan – BM2153-50).
Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced
Guideline.
A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the
following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: 1) Vision:
Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments. The
Community Development 2006-12-19 17
development proposal involves the adaptive reuse of an existing 13-story building as overnight
accommodations while making minor modifications to its architectural elevations and associated
off-street parking and landscaped areas. The proposed redevelopment will generate increased
pedestrian traffic in the area that should stimulate the surrounding area and further this Vision
statement; 2) Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated
buildings. The development proposal involves the adaptive reuse of an existing 13-story
building that is situated toward the middle of the parcel with its associated off-street parking
located between the building and the abutting South Osceola Avenue right-of-way. As the
existing building and off-street parking are to remain more or less intact, only a moderate
amount of improvements are possible that would result in further compliance with the Plan. To
this end, the development proposal includes improvements for the screening/buffering of the off-
street parking area; the provision of a walkway connecting the building, parking area and
sidewalk; and architectural improvements providing for a distinct “base,” “middle,” and “cap,” as
well as a more architecturally prominent entrance. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with this Vision statement; 3) Vision: An adequate parking supply must be
available coterminous with new uses. As previously discussed under the Minimum Off-Street
Parking analysis, the development proposal includes a request to reduce the minimum off-street
parking requirement from 251 parking spaces to 52 parking spaces. The applicant has
submitted a “parking need” study in support of this request, and staff concurs with the findings of
this study that the 52 off-street parking spaces provided with this development proposal will be
sufficient for both the interim use and the final use of the Oak Cove building. As such, the
development proposal is consistent with this Vision statement; 4) Objective 1A: All development
within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan and shall be
consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district.
The ultimate proposed use of the Oak Cove building as 251 overnight accommodations is
consistent with those applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Plan, the Downtown Core
character district and the Downtown (D) zoning district. As such, the development proposal is
consistent with this Objective; 5) Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall
create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The renovations will
improve the pedestrian connectivity between the existing Fort Harrison Hotel and the proposed
Oak Cove building as well as making general streetscape improvements within the South
Osceola Avenue right-of-way. A new meandering paver brick walkway will connect the Oak
Cove building to a new stamped concrete sidewalk along the west side of South Osceola
Avenue that is consistent with the existing stamped concrete sidewalk along the east side of the
South Osceola Avenue. In addition, a new eight-foot wide, paver brick, mid-block crosswalk will
be constructed within South Osceola Avenue that will line-up with the aforementioned walkway
leading to the Oak Cove building and an existing entrance to the Fort Harrison Hotel. Based
upon the above, compliance with this Objective has been achieved; 6) Policy 1: The Design
Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment
and new construction in the Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. As stated
previously, existing development are not required to be brought into full compliance with these
Guidelines; however any improvements proposed to an existing development will be required to
comply with the applicable provisions of the Guidelines. For those improvements proposed with
the redevelopment of the Oak Cove building, positive findings can be made that the
improvements will be consistent with the Guidelines with the noted exception that the wire
fencing proposed along the majority of the north property line and the entirety of the west
property line is replaced with fencing permissible within the downtown and complementary to
the principle structure with regard to material, texture, size, shape and color (i.e. masonry wall,
vinyl fence, etc.). Based upon the above and subject to the above condition of approval being
Community Development 2006-12-19 18
addressed, the development proposal will be consistent with this Policy; 7) Policy 2: The
character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process.
Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in
which it is located. As discussed later in this staff report, the development proposal is found to
be in compliance with the applicable policies governing development within the Downtown Core
character district. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; 8) Policy
3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian
environment through site and building design. The renovations will improve the pedestrian
connectivity between the existing Fort Harrison Hotel and the proposed Oak Cove building as
well as making general streetscape improvements within the South Osceola Avenue right-of-
way. A new meandering paver brick walkway will connect the Oak Cove building to a new
stamped concrete sidewalk along the west side of South Osceola Avenue that is consistent with
the existing stamped concrete sidewalk along the east side of the South Osceola Avenue. In
addition, a new eight-foot wide, paver brick, mid-block crosswalk will be constructed within
South Osceola Avenue that will line-up with the aforementioned walkway leading to the Oak
Cove building and an existing entrance to the Fort Harrison Hotel. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with this Policy; and 9) Policy 13: Places of worship and
social/community centers are considered integral parts of the Downtown character districts.
They are permitted uses that may locate or expand at a scale consistent with the character
district in which they are located provided that all site plan requirements are met. While neither
the interim nor ultimate use is a place of worship, the proposed interim office and ultimate
overnight accommodation use is directly associated with a place of worship and will effectively
operate as part of a larger campus for the place of worship. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with this Policy.
A review of the Downtown Core District Policies was conducted and the following
applicable Policy was identified: Redevelopment on all property west of Osceola Avenue and
south of Cleveland Street should consider the natural bluff features, the views of Clearwater
Harbor and be integrated with the Coachman Park Master Plan. While being consistent with the
above geographic criteria, the subject property is outside the scope of the Coachman Park
Master Plan; thus achieving integration with said Plan is not possible. However, the proposed
redevelopment does consider the existing bluff features and views of Clearwater Harbor and will
not alter these characteristics. Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be
in compliance with those policies governing development within the Downtown Core character
district
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November
2, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.79 acre subject property is located on the west side of
Osceola Avenue between Pierce and Court streets; 2) That the subject property is located
within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan
category; 3) That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the subject
property is located within the Downtown Core character district; 4) That the development
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts;
and 5) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Community Development 2006-12-19 19
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Design Guidelines; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown
Core character district; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and
Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code and the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-903.C, 2-903.J and 2-903.K of the Community Development
Code; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One
and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 6)
That the development proposal is consistent with the Transfer of Development Rights criteria as
per Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval for the conversion of an existing dormitory to a interim office/overnight
accommodations mixed-use (112,739 square-feet) (Phase I) and subsequently to a permanent
overnight accommodations use (251 rooms) within the Downtown (D) District as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-903.C of the
Community Development Code; and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2007-11032) of 81
overnight accommodation units from the property located at 652 Court Street under the
provisions of Sections 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the Community Development Code with the
following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the wire
fencing is replaced with fencing permissible within the downtown and complementary to the
principle structure with regard to material, texture, size, shape and color (i.e. masonry wall, vinyl
fence, etc.); 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all outdoor lighting shall
comply with the requirements of Section 3-1302 of the Community Development Code; 3) That
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the current
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule; 4) That prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, shall
be placed underground; 5) That the final design and color of the building must be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by
staff; 6) 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; 7) That
any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the
construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match
the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8) That the shuttle service being operated
by the Church of Scientology as mitigation to the parking deviation continue to be operated in
conjunction with this use; 9) That the interim office/overnight accommodation use must be
interim and shall not become the ultimate use of the property; 10) That the first building permit
for the interim office/overnight accommodation use must be applied for within one year from the
date of the Community Development Board approval (by December 19, 2007); 11) That all
required Certificates of Occupancy for the interim office/overnight accommodation use must be
obtained within two years from the date of issuance of the initial building permit; 12) That the
first building permit for the ultimate overnight accommodation use must be applied for within 18
months of the date of the Community Development Board approved (by June 19, 2008); and 13)
Community Development 2006-12-19 20
That the final Certificate of Occupancy for the ultimate overnight accommodation use must be
obtained within two years from the date of issuance of the initial building permit.
See page 27 for motion to approve.
3. Case: ANX2007-09035 – 1761 Audrey Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Ronald A. & Lynne M. Knight (1761 Audrey Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone:
727-797-1626).
Location: 0.189 acre on the east side of Audrey Drive, approximately 840 feet north of
SR 590 and 260 feet south of North Terrace Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
a. Annexation of 0.189 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b. Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c. Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Single Family Residential.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Catherine W. Porter, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
This annexation involves a 0.189-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
east side of Audrey Drive, approximately 840 feet north of SR 590 and 260 feet south of North
Terrace Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to existing City
boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements
with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to
receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL)
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation
of 0.189 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to
the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 27 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-12-19 21
4. Case: ANX2007-10038 – 1891 CR 193 Level Three Application
Owner: Upper Pinellas Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (1891 CR 193,
Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-799-3330).
Representative: Gerald A. Figurski, Figurski & Harrill Attorneys at Law (2050 Permit
Place, New Port Richey, FL 34655; phone: 727-942-0733; fax: 727-944-3711).
Location: A 2.283-acre parcel of land located on the east side of CR 193 approximately
400 feet from the intersection of Sunset Point Road and CR 193.
Atlas Page: 264B.
Request:
a. Annexation of 2.283-acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
b. Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c. Rezoning from A-E, Agricultural Estate Residential District (County) to Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: UPARC Group residential home
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
The subject property is located on the east side of CR 193, approximately 500 feet south
of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and CR 193. The property is located within an enclave
and is contiguous to existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent
with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the
City. The subject site is approximately 2.283 acres in area and is occupied by a single family
detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation
of 2.283 acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to
the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 27 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-12-19 22
5. Case: LUZ2007-08003 – 2060 Evergreen Avenue Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: George Malnati, Ido Fischler, Patrick Valtin, and Bernard K. Reichel,
Jr.
Representative: Bernard K. Reichel, Jr.
Location: Approximately 350 feet south of CR 600 and 300 feet west of King’s Highway
Atlas Page: 251B
Request:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Category to the
Residential Medium Category (RM); and
(b) Rezoning of Parcel 03-29-15-12070-008-0090 (Lots 8 and 9 of Block H Brooklawn) from
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Medium Density Residential District
(MDR).
Proposed Use: Multi-Family Residential
Type of Amendment: Large Scale.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Initially, the applicant submitted a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and
rezoning application involving property comprising approximately two acres in area, located
approximately 350 feet south of CR 600 (Union Street) and 300 feet west of Kings Highway.
The application concerned property with a FLUP classification of Residential Urban (RU) and a
zoning designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) for Lots 8 and 9, Block H, and
Medium Density Residential (MDR) for Lots 1 – 16, Block I. The applicant was requesting to
amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential Medium (RM) classification and to
rezone part of the property to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (Lots 8 and 9,
Block H) to allow for the development of 30 attached dwelling units, by maximum density.
As City Planning staff would not recommend approval of the rezoning application, the
applicant agreed to amend his request. Now, the applicant seeks a Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Classification to the Residential Medium (RM)
General Classification for all lots within Block I. The applicant has provided a letter dated
December 13, 2007, stating intent to amend the application to exclude Lots 8 and 9, Block H
from the rezoning request. Removal of the two lots leaves a total of 1.84 acres, which by
maximum density, would allow the development of 27 attached dwelling units.
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 density, review and approval by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs is required.
The applicant agreed to amend his application to withdraw a proposal to change the
Future Land Use and Zoning District designations for Lots 8 and 9, Block H (letter attached). An
amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the Residential Medium
(RM) category is now requested. The site proposed to be developed is 1.84 acres (80,150
square feet) and meets the minimum lot size requirement for the development of 27 attached
residential units within the existing Medium Density Residential Zoning District. The
neighborhood is characterized by a mix of single-family residential detached dwellings and
Community Development 2006-12-19 23
attached residential dwellings. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Plan classification is
consistent with the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, and is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of a Future Land
Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Classification to the Residential Medium
(RM) General Classification for all lots within Block I.
See page 27 for motion to recommend approval.
6. Case: ANX2007-09036 – 1416 Regal Road Level Three Application
Owner: Rose Quattrocchi. (1416 Regal Road, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-442-
8210).
Location: A 0.187-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Regal Road
approximately 320 feet east of Sunny Park Drive and 554 feet west of Braund Street.
Atlas Page: 315A
Request:
a. Annexation of a 0.187-acre parcel into the City of Clearwater;
b. Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c. Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached dwelling
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.187-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Regal Road, approximately 320 feet east of Sunny Park Road. The property is
contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting
this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the
property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning
category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation
of 0.187 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to
the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 27 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-12-19 24
7. Case: ANX2007-09037 – 1236 Claire Drive Level Three Application
Owner: James L. Waters (2451 Bond Ave., Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-580-
3595).
Location: A 0.157-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Claire Drive
approximately 120 feet west of N. Betty Lane and 70 feet east of Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
a. Annexation of 0.157-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b. Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
c. Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Detached dwelling
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.157-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Claire Drive, approximately 120 feet west of North Betty Lane and 70 feet east of
Stockton Drive. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with
regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive
solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land
Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
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 0.157 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to
the City’s Community Development Code.
See page 27 for motion to recommend approval.
8. Level Three Application
Case: TA2007-09007 – Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Development and Neighborhood Services
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code Renaming Occupational Licenses
to Business Tax Receipts consistent with recent changes in Florida Statutes.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758)
Presenter: Michael Delk, AICP.
Community Development 2006-12-19 25
The Development and Neighborhood Services Department is recommending certain
amendments to the Community Development Code addressing the renaming of occupational
licenses and associated text to business tax receipts. These changes are necessary pursuant
to statutory changes effective January 1, 2007.
Please find below a summary of these proposed amendments. Ordinance 7725-07
includes the specific amendments: 1) Article 3 – Development Standards - From occupational
licenses to business tax receipts and licensee to taxpayer - The Development and
Neighborhood Services Department has drafted an amendment that will change the name from
occupational licenses to business tax receipts and associated language, such as licensee to
taxpayer, in Article 3, Community Development Standards, Division 23, Residential Rentals,
Sections 3-2302, 3-2303, 3-2304, 3-2307, and 3-2307; 2) From occupational licenses to
business tax receipts and occupation to business: The Development and Neighborhood
Services Department has drafted an amendment that will change the name from occupational
licenses to business tax receipts and associated language, such as licensee to taxpayer and
occupation to business, in Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Division 2,
General Procedures, Sections 4-202, and 4-205; and 3) From occupational licenses to business
tax receipts and licensee to taxpayer: The Development and Neighborhood Services
Department has drafted an amendment that will change the name from occupational licenses to
business tax receipts and associated language, such as licensee to taxpayer, in Article 8,
Definitions and Rules of Construction, Section 8-102, for definitions Abandoned building and
Operator and added definitions for Business Tax Receipt and Taxpayer.
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 affect the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments to
change “occupational licenses” to “business tax receipts” as per State Statutes does not affect
any of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan 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 proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section
1-103 that lists the purposes of the Code.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments change the name of “occupational licenses” to “business tax receipts” along
with associated changes such as “licensee” to “taxpayer,” as required by recent changes to
statutory provisions governing occupational license tax collection.
The Development and Neighborhood Services Department staff recommends approval
of Ordinance 7725-07, which makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Community Development 2006-12-19 26
Member Fritsch moved to approve Case FLD2007-04019/TDR2007-11032 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report, with conditions of approval as listed and recommended approval of Case ANX 2007-
09035 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application
and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in
the Staff Report, ANX2007-10038 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record,
including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, LUZ2007-08003 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, ANX2007-09036
on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the
Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report, ANX2007-09037 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including
the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law stated in the Staff Report, and TA2007-09007 on today’s Consent Agenda based on
evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the
motion
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2007-08048 – 19080 US Highway 19 North Level Two Application
Owner: William S. Boozer.
Applicant: Line-X of Tampa Bay.
Representatives: Cannon Henson, Line-X of Tampa Bay (1750 North Hercules Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-446-7777; fax: 727-446-7656).
Location: 0.28 acre located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19 approximately 200 feet
south of Harn Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 309B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development Approval to allow a Limited Vehicle Service use in addition to an
existing Retail Sales and Service use in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the
minimum number of parking spaces from 20 spaces to seven spaces; a reduction to the rear
(west) setback from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement); and a reduction to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to five feet (to match the existing building), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Limited Vehicle Service.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
Member Coates moved to accept John Schodtler as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
This 0.28-acre site is located on the west side of US Highway 19 North, approximately
200 feet south of Harn Boulevard. The site consists of one parcel of land that has 60 feet of
frontage along US Highway 19 North and is 200 feet in depth. The site and adjacent properties
Community Development 2006-12-19 27
are zoned Commercial. The existing site is utilized for Truck Depot, a Retail Sales and Service
use that sells and installs automotive accessories. Two buildings on the subject site are utilized
to perform various tasks related to operating an automotive accessory establishment, such as
office/administration, showroom, installation, and storage/warehouse. Very little landscaping
exists due to a large amount of the site being covered with buildings and asphalt. The paved
parking areas are minimally designated or striped. A freestanding sign is located at the
northeast corner of the property. This sign is non-conforming with regards to setbacks, overall
height, and sign area. The surrounding area along US Highway 19 North consists of uses
typically found along major arterials roads, such as vehicle sales, retail sales and service,
business and professional offices, and restaurants. The site is bordered to the north and west
by a Hess automotive service station. The adjacent property to the south was previously
licensed as an Egg Platter restaurant, but has been unoccupied for more than six months. The
properties across U.S. Highway 19, to the east consist of two large multi-family residential
developments.
Redevelopment of the subject property involves the addition of a second primary use.
When a new use is proposed the following standards of the Code shall be satisfied: Section 3-
1202 (General landscaping standards), Section 3-1401 (Parking standards), and Section 6-104
(Nonconforming sign/redevelopment of principle use/structure).
The redevelopment consists of three components. The first component is the addition of
another primary use. The existing business, Truck Depot, is a Retail Sales and Service use that
sells and installs automotive accessories. The applicant proposes to add a Limited Vehicle
Service use, Line-X, which is a spray on truck bed liner business which consists of spraying a
protective coating or lining to the cargo beds of pickup trucks within an enclosed building. The
applicant indicates that the business will have low volume with less than ten sales per day.
The second component is the addition to the existing buildings. The existing site
contains two, single-story buildings that were designed to maximize space for a vehicle service
establishment. The building fronting on U.S. Highway 19 North is approximately 2,205 square-
feet in area, while the rear building is approximately 1,070 square-feet in area. An area that
works as a turn around or hammerhead separates the two buildings. The proposed 720 square-
foot addition is designed to connect the two buildings. This addition will eliminate the
aforementioned hammerhead, thereby creating a turn around issue.
The buildings’ exterior façades primarily are finished in painted concrete block accented
with an aluminum parapet wall. The architecture of the proposed addition integrates well and is
accomplished through the connection of the two buildings and matching existing design
features, materials, and colors. The building height and setbacks for the addition are consistent
with those of the existing buildings.
The third component consists of various site improvements including: parking,
landscaping, and signage. The existing site is barely in compliance with current Code. The
existing parking area is not stripped and the primary drive aisle does not comply with the 24-foot
required width for a two-way drive aisle. The area that separates the two buildings works as a
turn around or hammerhead. This turn around area, while confined, complies with the parking
standards for a two-way turn around at 55.3 feet where 42 feet is required. The proposed
building addition will eliminate this area and further worsen the ability for a standard length
vehicle, let alone a 17- to 20-foot long pickup truck, to properly turn around on the site.
Community Development 2006-12-19 28
The proposed parking improvements include redesigning the parking lot entrance along
US Highway 19 North. This improvement will allow the introduction of landscaping and trees
along the front perimeter of the property, greatly improving the appearance of the property along
US Highway 19 North and by creating a place to relocate the existing non-conforming
freestanding sign.
A review of the criteria for Limited Vehicle Service use was conducted and the following
inconsistent criteria have been identified: 1) Pursuant to Section 2-704.E.3.b. of the Community
Development Code, the reduction in side and/or rear setback results in an improved site plan,
more efficient parking, or improved design and appearance and landscaped areas are in excess
of the minimum required. While the reduction in side and rear setbacks does not result in the
most efficient parking layout, it is an improvement over the existing non-stripped asphalt lot.
The site plan overall is a minimal improvement and the appearance of the site and building are
only marginally improved and landscaped areas are not in excess of the minimum required; 2)
Pursuant to Section 2-704.E.5. of the Community Development Code, garage doors and bays
shall be located perpendicular to the abutting streets. Bays shall be screened from adjacent
property by landscaped walls or fences. The existing and proposed garage doors and bays are
located perpendicular to U.S. Highway 19 North, as required by this criterion. However,
screening the garage and bay doors from adjacent property with a landscaped wall or fence is
not possible due to the location of the existing building, parking, and the narrow width of the
property. The applicant has not demonstrated how the proposal will enhance other
redevelopment effort in the immediate area and Clearwater as a whole; 3) Pursuant to Section
2-701 of the Community Development Code, the Minimum Lot Width for properties located
within the Commercial (C) Zoning designation is 100 feet. The existing site provides 60 feet of
width. The existing lot width does not result in a building that is out of scale with existing
buildings in the immediate vicinity; 4) Pursuant to Section 2-701 of the Community Development
Code, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for properties located within the Commercial General (CG)
Future Land Use designation is 0.55. The development proposal complies with an FAR of 0.32;
5) Pursuant to Section 2-701 of the Community Development Code, the ISR (Impervious
Surface Ratio) for properties located within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use
designation is 0.95. The development proposal complies with an ISR of 0.84; 6) Pursuant to
Section 2-704.C. of the Community Development Code, limited vehicle service uses are
required to provide a front setback of 15-25 feet, a side setback of 10-20 feet, and a rear
setback of 10-20 feet. The development proposal provides a setback of 25 feet to the building
from the front property line. However, a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 5
feet (to building) has been requested to accommodate matching the proposed addition to the
two existing buildings. A reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 5 feet (to
pavement) is requested to accommodate a vehicular turn around area. The existing pavement
along the side (north) property line exists at a zero setback for the majority of the property line
and compliance with the setback and landscape requirements is not possible due to the
placement of the existing buildings, drive aisle, and parking area. The development proposal
complies with the setback requirements and flexibility criteria of the Code; 7) Pursuant to
Section 2-704.C. of the Community Development Code, the maximum building height for a
limited vehicle service use is 25 feet. The development proposal complies with a building height
of 15.33 feet; and 8) Pursuant to Section 3-1402.A. of the Community Development Code, all
parking lots shall be designed to provide off-street parking spaces, including aisles designed in
accordance with the standards.
Community Development 2006-12-19 29
The primary issue with the proposed development is that there is insufficient room to
provide the required parking, a two-way drive aisle, and an area to turn around on the site. With
the proposed building addition, all non-handicap parking spaces are oriented toward the back of
the site. The proposal does not demonstrate how vehicles will reverse direction to exit the site
in a forward manner. This issue exists due to existing site constraints with regards to the
placement of the buildings on the 60-foot wide lot. The two-way drive aisle system requires a
24-foot drive aisle and 18-feet of turn around space for a total of 42 feet. The existing site
utilizes the area that separates the two buildings as a turn around or hammerhead. While this
turn around area is confined, it complies with the parking standards for a two-way turn around
by providing 55.3 feet where 42 feet is required. The development proposal includes closing in
the area between the buildings, thus reducing the turn around area from 55.3 feet to 31 feet.
The turn around area proposed does not provide sufficient space for vehicles to turn around.
The development proposal does not comply with the design standards for parking lots.
Two alternative solutions are apparent. The most desirable solution is to pursue a cross
access/parking easement with the Hess station to the north. This will provide better access to
and from the subject property in a much safer and efficient method than the existing or
proposed development. In addition, it could provide additional shared parking with the Hess
station. It is understood that Hess customers often leave their vehicles in the Hess parking to
visit the existing Truck Depot business on the subject property. The other alternative would be
to provide a turn around similar to the one between the existing buildings, whether it is a
covered area in order to appear as a single building or open to maintain the presence of two
separate buildings. Both solutions could be utilized to demonstrate compliance with the design
standards for parking lots.
Pursuant to Section 2-704.C. of the Community Development Code, parking is required
to be provided at a rate of 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area of the
entire building (3,985 square-feet of gross floor area = 3,985/1,000 x 5 = 19.93 = 20 parking
spaces). The proposal is requesting a reduction to the minimum number of parking spaces and
for the parking to be based solely on the office/showroom gross floor area, which is 1,192
square-feet, which provides 6 parking spaces. This is based on 1,192 square-feet of gross floor
area = 1,192/1,000 x 5 = 5.96 = 6 parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a parking
demand study to justify the parking reduction. Pursuant to Section 3-1401.C. of the Community
Development Code, the Community Development Coordinator may require an applicant to
prepare a parking demand study in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking
standards. Prior to the preparation of such study, the methodology shall be approved by the
Community Development Coordinator and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering
principals. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the
parking standards are approved. The development proposal has demonstrated compliance
through the parking study.
The parking study consists of two components. The first component of the parking study
has to do with the design/layout of the proposed building. The portion of the building utilized by
Line-X can accommodate up to three vehicles while being serviced and the remainder utilized
by Truck Depot can accommodate three vehicles as well. The customer vehicles will be parked
in the parking lot and serviced in the install areas of the building by Line-X and Truck Depot
employees. Customers are not permitted in the service/install areas of the building. The cure
time for the bed lines to dry is approximately three to four seconds, but it requires three hours
for it to harden enough for light use and twenty-four hours for heavy use.
Community Development 2006-12-19 30
The second component of the parking study is related to parking demand for a Line-X
operation similar to what is proposed. Line-X has been in operation on Hercules Avenue for
more than three years. Only six parking spaces are provided on the Hercules site, so
scheduling customers based on three of the seven parking spaces is a part of their existing
business knowledge. The average number of vehicles serviced per day for the past three
months is four in an eight-hour period with a high of eight, or one per hour. Line-X expects the
high visibility of U.S. Highway 19 to generate more business than their current location in the
Industrial Park. The Truck Depot’s parking demand is similar to that of Line-X’s
A third possibility is a shared ingress/egress and parking easement with the neighboring
Hess station to the north. The applicant is in the process of following staff’s recommendation of
obtaining such an easement. However, due to the vast size of the adjacent property owner’s
corporate structure, the Hess Corporation, it is uncertain if this component can be met.
Evidence of this component has not yet been provided to staff.
The parking study has minimally demonstrated that the parking reduction can be
justified. Staff feels the best solution would be to obtain a shared parking and access easement
with the Hess property to the North.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, a 15 foot wide
landscape buffer is required along the front (north) property line. The applicant proposes to
upgrade the existing eight-foot landscape buffer in order to accommodate an existing parking
area and drive aisle. The proposal has provided additional landscaping at the northeast corner
of the property to balance this reduction, which can be supported. The proposal also includes
upgrading the existing perimeter landscape buffer along the side (south) property line by
providing approximately 40, three-gallon Ligustrum’s to create a 116-foot long hedge from the
front property line to an existing six-foot tall fence. The rear landscape buffer of ten feet has
been proposed as a retention area with no landscaping. Along the side (north) property line a
small area around the dumpster enclosure has been proposed in an effort to remove
unnecessary asphalt and create additional open space. The adjacent property to the north has
installed a landscape buffer that provides an appearance that both properties are in compliance.
The development proposal proposes a hand water irrigation system, which cannot be
supported. Staff has considered the difficulties of planning around the existing buildings and
site that were developed under a previous Code that was much less restrictive than the current
Code with regards to setbacks, parking, stormwater retention, and landscaping. The
development proposal regarding landscaping is not in compliance with this portion of the Code.
The development proposal will upgrade the existing solid waste facilities on site. The
proposed solid waste facilities have been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department, even though department stall will need to continue to back out onto U.S. Highway
19. It is questionable as to how a customer’s vehicle will perform a turn around when the solid
waste vehicle is emptying the dumpster.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. It
is noted that pursuant to Section 6-104 of the Community Development Code, in the event a
building permit is required for the redevelopment of a principal use/structure nonconforming
signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance.
Community Development 2006-12-19 31
The site has an existing six-foot tall fence along the south property line. The fencing is
composed of three different materials with the majority of the fence made up of board on board
wood fence that appears to be relatively new due to the lack of uniform appearance. The
remaining materials are chain link fencing and what appears to be a sheet of plywood. These
portions of the fence visually pale in comparison to the wood fence and should be replaced with
a matching board on board wood fence to create uniformity across the entire length of the
fence.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 5,
2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.28-acre subject property is located on the west side of the
major arterial, US Highway 19 North approximately 200 feet south of Harn Boulevard; 2) That
the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and Commercial General (CG) Future
Land Use Plan category; 3) That the development proposal includes the introduction of a new
use, Limited Vehicle Service, and is subject to the requirements of General landscaping
standards, Parking standards, and Nonconforming sign/redevelopment of principle use/structure
standards; 4) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Parking Code; 5) That the
development proposal is inconsistent with the Landscaping Code; 6) That the development
proposal is inconsistent with the Signage Code; 7) That the development proposal will not
enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 8) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement
issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is not consistent with the
Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-704.C and
2-704.E of the Community Development Code; and 3) That the development proposal is not
consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the
Community Development Code.
Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Department recommends denial of the request for a Limited Vehicle Service use in addition to
an existing Retail Sales and Service use in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the
minimum number of parking spaces from 20 spaces to seven spaces; a reduction to the rear
(west) setback from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement); and a reduction to the side (south)
setback from 10 feet to five feet (to match the existing building), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C.
Representative Cannon Henson said he has operated the business in Pinellas County
for three years with seven parking spaces. He said the business can handle a maximum of 10
vehicles per day, which are done by appointment. He said the project design was amended to
meet the City’s ban on garage doors facing US 19. He said he could demonstrate that large
trucks are able to turn around in the proposed space. In response to a question, Mr. Henson
said that he is in discussions with Hess regarding a cross access/parking easement. He said
his business will complement the other onsite business by providing customers with a one stop
Community Development 2006-12-19 32
shop for truck accessories. Comments were made that the design does not work as the turning
radius is insufficient and that some vehicles visiting the current site must back onto US 19 when
leaving.
Member Coates moved to deny Case FLD2007-08048 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
motion
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
G. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2)
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 replace Section II Future Land Use, Subsection C. the Marina
Residential District, in its entirety.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
Member Coates moved to accept Gina Clayton as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, annexations, land use/rezoning, applications and demographics, land development
motion
code & land development code amendments, and general planning. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reviewed the request. In 2001, the City
adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
This special area plan sets forth a series of revitalization strategies for Clearwater beach and
establishes eight distinct character districts that regulate land uses, locations of uses and
generally the scale of development.
The Marina Residential character district is bounded by Clearwater Harbor on the east,
Poinsettia Avenue on the west, and Causeway Boulevard on the south and the northern
property line of the Belle Harbor Condominium development on the north. It is comprised of
approximately 14 acres of land and described in Beach by Design as primarily residential in
nature with a few motels and restaurant uses. Due to the shallow nature of many of the parcels
in this district, the Marina Residential District provisions focus on achieving the consolidation of
property through several redevelopment scenarios. The most desired scenario envisions the
entire district consolidated under single ownership and developed with a marina-based hotel
with the assistance of the resort density pool. In the event this consolidation does not occur, the
District provides for development scenarios of two and one-half and five acres that include
significant height allowances of 70 and 100 feet respectively. Any development utilizing the
consolidation incentives is required to dedicate an easement for a public “Bayside Boardwalk.”
In the event these consolidations do not occur, Beach by Design provides for single lot
development but imposes significant height restrictions of two or four stories above parking.
Community Development 2006-12-19 33
Two redevelopment projects have been approved in the District and have rendered the
single developer consolidation scenario impossible. Escalating land values and construction
costs also have made the 2.5-acre and 5-acre redevelopment scenarios unlikely.
On August 3, 2006, the City Council passed a six-month moratorium so the Planning
Department could refine the Marina Residential District vision and create a redevelopment
framework that balances development incentives with the provision of public benefits and
amenities. To aid in creating amendments to the District provisions, the Planning Department
held three meetings to gain public input and consensus on a future vision for the area. Two
meetings were held with the community and one was held with the Marina District property
owners/residents. Four different development options were presented at both the District
owners and final community meetings. Option 1 proposed no real substantive changes to the
current Beach by Design provisions. Option 2 proposed transforming the District into a
waterfront destination with a mix of uses throughout the District with a focal point at the
intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. It also proposed height incentives for
certain uses and lot consolidation provided developers contribute a public boardwalk along
Clearwater Harbor and streetscape improvements along Baymont and Papaya streets. Option
3 was very similar to Option 2 but did not envision the district as a “destination,” but rather as a
waterfront neighborhood. Instead of a public boardwalk, this option required developer
contributions for a public dock to be constructed at the eastern terminus of Papaya Street at
Clearwater Harbor and streetscape improvements throughout the district. Options 2 and 3 also
contemplated the vacation of East Shore Drive. The last proposal, Option 4, proposed a mixed-
use neighborhood with a focal point at Papaya Street and the Harbor. No incentives or public
amenities were provided in this development scenario and building heights and site design
would be governed entirely by the Tourist zoning district provisions.
Participants of the Marina District owners meeting and the final community meeting voted
on the scenario that most appealed to them and whether or not East Shore Drive should be
vacated. The outcome of the ballot at the Marina District owner’s meeting was evenly split
between Option 2 and 4 with each option getting nine votes. Option 3 received two votes and
Option 1 received one vote. At the final community meeting a total of 41 ballots were cast with 22
votes supporting Option 2, 11 votes supporting Option 4, five votes for Option 1, and three votes
for Option 3. Regarding the future of East Shore Drive, 36 ballots were cast with 22 in favor of
vacation and 14 opposed.
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 replaces the existing Marina Residential District in its
entirety. The proposed revisions are based on concepts found in the existing Beach by Design
provisions but capitalize more on the District’s prime waterfront location and commercial
possibilities. The new proposed District vision (Option 2) supports the redevelopment of the
neighborhood into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that includes hotels, restaurants,
commercial, residential, mixed-use and water-oriented development throughout the District.
The vision also includes the creation of a district activity center at the intersection of East Shore
and Papaya Streets with commercial, hotel and mixed-used development, as well as a public
boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor from Baymont Street to the southern boundary of the
District. This major public amenity is invaluable in creating a destination waterfront
neighborhood because it creates a new place for public access to the water, which will draw
many people to the District. It will also help support the preferred uses of restaurants, hotels and
mixed-use development. Points of public access to the boardwalk will be provided at Papaya
Community Development 2006-12-19 34
and Baymont Streets, which dead-end into Clearwater Harbor and through waterfront properties
occupied by uses open to the public.
To assist in stimulating redevelopment, proposed Ordinance 7721-07 provides height
incentives to redevelopment projects that contribute to the public boardwalk or streetscape
improvements on Papaya and Baymont streets. The height incentives are based on lot size, lot
location and land use. In order to gain the preferred uses in the District (commercial, hotel and
mixed-uses), the height bonuses are structured to allow additional height for desired uses and
lower heights for residential projects and increasingly greater heights for land consolidations of
less than 0.5 acre, 0.5 acre, 1 and 2 acres. Additional height also is provided for lot
consolidations that include property on both sides of East Shore Drive. Greater value is placed
on this type of consolidation due to the potential site design flexibility afforded to such properties
and because such consolidations could facilitate the vacation of East Shore Drive. Vacation of
East Shore is a major incentive to assist in creating lots sizes more suitable to the construction
of preferred uses. It would be the mechanism to get the boardwalk constructed on land
adjacent to the seawall instead of over the water, which would make the boardwalk much easier
to accomplish. The proposed height bonus schedule in proposed Ordinance 7721-07 allows
building heights ranging from 30 or 40 feet for parcels less than 0.5 acre to 100 feet for desired
uses located on sites consisting of 2 acres with property on both sides of East Shore Drive.
Other incentives focus on greater parking flexibility for docks and the preferred uses.
In determining whether or not to recommend the vacation of East Shore Drive, the
Planning Department hired DKS Associates to conduct a traffic study to determine the impacts
of such vacation. The study evaluated existing traffic volumes and movements north of
Causeway Boulevard, as well as possible future volumes based on the maximum development
potential allowed by the City’s Future Land Use Map [1.0 FAR (Floor Area Ratio), 30 residential
units per acre and 50 hotel units per acre], including approved site plans and additional hotel
development at densities consistent with current proposals being considered by the Pinellas
Planning Council (PPC). The study concluded that the projected volume of traffic for East
Shore Drive could be accommodated on Poinsettia Avenue. The study recommended that a
continuous center turn-lane be added so that left turning movements not interfere with the flow
of northbound traffic. It should be noted that this additional lane could be accommodated within
the existing 60-foot right-of-way. The Public Works Administration assessed whether or not
access could be gained to Poinsettia Avenue from Causeway Boulevard and concluded that
City-owned land could accommodate this realignment. This would be highly beneficial so that
Poinsettia Avenue bound traffic on the Causeway would not have to enter the roundabout.
The Public Works Administration also evaluated how evacuations would likely be
structured under the current conditions and if East Shore Drive is vacated and Poinsettia
Avenue realigned to intersect with Causeway Boulevard east of the roundabout. The City’s
Traffic Operations Division has indicated that South Beach traffic will be evacuated on the
eastbound lanes of the Causeway and North Beach traffic will be diverted to the westbound
lanes. North Beach traffic entering the roundabout from Mandalay Avenue will turn left onto the
roundabout and access the westbound lanes of the Causeway, while those entering from South
Beach will turn right onto the roundabout to access the eastbound lanes of the Causeway.
Under existing conditions, a total of three “stacking” lanes would be provided on East Shore and
Poinsettia to access the west bound lanes of the Causeway. If East Shore is vacated, three
lanes will be in place on Poinsettia Avenue; therefore the vacation will not impact the number of
lanes existing North Beach.
Community Development 2006-12-19 35
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 promotes pedestrian-oriented development and provides
setback requirements in addition to the Plan’s design guidelines and the Community
Development Code. The proposed amendments allow the preferred uses (hotels, commercial
and mixed-use), as well as townhouses the authority to provide a zero foot front setback. The
amendments also recognize that along the public boardwalk it is important to provide
pedestrian-oriented design features such as outdoor seating areas, courtyards, entryways, etc.
and such elements could be located in the required setback.
To provide sufficient view corridors between properties, the proposed Marina District
amendments require side setbacks no less than 25% of the building height. For example, a
thirty-foot high building will require a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet and a 100-foot high
building will require a-25 foot side yard setback.
When the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority approved the Old Florida District
revisions in early 2007, a separate recommendation will be made by the PPC staff that the City
incorporate the applicable portions of the Clearwater Future Land Use Map (FLUM) into Beach
by Design the next time the Plan is amended. Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 includes an
amendment to Section II. Future Land Use that indicates that the FLUM governs uses,
intensities and densities on the Beach and adds an appendix with the map.
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The proposed
amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected list of policies from the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the proposed amendment to Beach by Design: a) 2.1.1
Policy – Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development
incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as
well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and
redevelopment plans; b) 2.1.2 - 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; c) 2.2 Objective – The City of Clearwater
shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development
techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the
surrounding environment; d) 22.3.8 - The City shall retain all existing public access areas; e)
24.2.1 - Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses water-related
uses, water-enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All priorities shall be considered in
redevelopment programming, land use planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design support the above Comprehensive Plan
policies by providing a new vision of the Marina District as a destination instead of a residential
neighborhood. The amendments provide height incentives for desired uses that contribute to the
creation of a destination and requires the enhancement of certain public rights-of-way. The
amendments also create a framework for providing public access to Clearwater Harbor that does
not currently exist and supports water-oriented uses and docks.
Community Development 2006-12-19 36
2) The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed
text amendment is consistent with the following purpose of the Code: a) Section 1-103.A - It is
the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City; to
promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the City; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the City; to establish rules of procedures for land development
approvals; to enhance the character of the City and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to
enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the City; b) Section 1-103.E.4
– Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the
circulation of traffic throughout the City, with particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and
pedestrian traffic movement; and c) Section 1-103.E.6 – Provide for open spaces through
efficient project design and layout that addresses appropriate relationships between buildings
on the project site and adjoining properties, including public rights-of-way and other places.
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 further the purposes of the Community Development
Code by creating a vision for the Marina District, which will enhance the character of the district
and enhance the quality of life for Clearwater residents and visitors by providing public access
to Clearwater Harbor. The vacation of East Shore Drive would create development parcels that
are better able to support the vision of the district while providing appropriate traffic circulation
on North Beach. Streetscape improvements and a public boardwalk will also provide for safe
pedestrian movement within an attractive environment.
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines creates a redevelopment framework that supports the creation of
waterfront destination the Marina District. The amendments provide height incentives for
various lot sizes and greater incentives for the preferred uses that will activate the district. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and purposes
of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance 7721-07 which makes
revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines.
In response to questions, Ms. Clayton said developers would have to provide a 15-foot
boardwalk and 20-foot easement. Staff has discussed boardwalk maintenance. The boardwalk
has not been designed and may extend over water. Sections of the boardwalk may differ if
constructed at different times. She expressed caution at permitting developers to contribute to a
fund due to escalating costs. It is important that view corridors be retained. Options presented
at the meetings were based on City Council direction regarding achievement goals and modified
based on public input. The boardwalk will be difficult to develop if East Shore is not vacated.
Eight residents opposed proposed amendments to the Beach by Design Special Area
Plan. Two people recommended delaying the decision until more information is provided. Two
people spoke in support of the amendments.
Discussion ensued regarding the boardwalk near the Marriott Sand Key with comments
that it is rarely used and comments that residents often walk on it and enjoy sunsets there. It
was felt that shops along a boardwalk would attract visitors. It was recommended that the
Community Development 2006-12-19 37
moratorium be extended to allow additional discussion. It was stated that redevelopment of
East Shore is important, as it is the first impression visitors have when arriving at the beach. It
was suggested that development of the area not resemble Brightwater but offer access to the
waterfront and allow shopping and strolling along a boardwalk. It was recommended that
incentives for 2.5- and 5-acre developments be retained, that resort development be
encouraged, and condominium development discouraged. It was felt proposed acreage
thresholds are insufficient to achieve important public benefits.
In response to questions, Mr. Delk reviewed staff efforts to encourage resident
attendance at the meetings. Ms. Clayton said Poinsettia is 60 feet wide and could
accommodate a center turn lane. Staff efforts to encourage public participation were
complimented. Noting problems associated with narrow, shallow lots, it was suggested that
East Shore be vacated with incentives that encourage a commercial and tourist market.
Opposition was expressed to extending the moratorium.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case: Amendment to Beach by
Design Special Area Plan based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application,
the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
motion
of Law stated in the Staff Report. The was duly seconded. Members Coates, Tallman,
Dame, and Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye”; Members Milam and Fritsch, and Acting Member
carried
Dennehy voted “Nay.” Member Behar abstained. Motion .
The CDB recessed from 4:20 to 4:31 p.m.
2. Level Three Application
Case: TA2007-10008 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code to make the Tourist “T” District
consistent with Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, (Sondra Kerr, President P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Member Fritsch moved to accept Mike Reynolds as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Senior Planner Mike Reynolds reviewed the request. The Planning Department is
recommending amendments to the Community Development Code. These amendments
address use, maximum height, minimum setback requirements, and off-street parking
requirements in the Tourist District.
Proposed amendments in Ordinance 7723-07 include Article 2 – Zoning Districts - Use,
Maximum Height Requirements, Minimum Setback Requirements, and Off-Street Parking
Requirements (Pages 1 - 2 of Ordinance). Ordinance 7723-07 amends Footnote (1) at the end
of Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to enable flexibility of use, maximum height, minimum setbacks, and
off-street parking requirements, as provided by the Marina District section within Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Community Development 2006-12-19 38
Any code amendment must comply with the following - The proposed amendment is
consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: 1) Goal
4 – The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet
the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent implementation of
the Community Development Code; 2) The proposed amendments further the purposes of the
Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement
the Plan; and 3) The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103
which list the purposes of the Code.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments will ensure consistency with Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Ordinance 7723-07 is a companion ordinance to Ordinance 7721-07, which proposes
amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines, replacing the “Marina Residential District” with the “Marina District.”
The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7723-07, which
makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case TA2007-10008 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motion
was duly seconded. Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, Behar, Dame and Chair
carried
Gildersleeve voted “Aye”; Member Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion . Alternate Board
Member Dennehy did not vote.
I. DIRECTOR’S ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Status of Case CU96-46 – 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street
In his December 6, 2006, memorandum, Mr. Wells stated that on November 21, 2006,
the CDB had approved the application for Case CU96-46 to “amend a condition of approval
requiring neighborhood meetings from not less than quarterly to not less than bi-annually on a
previous Conditional Use application permitting a residential shelter and police substation
(condition of approval adopted November 5, 1996, and re-adopted July 15, 2003, by the
Community Development Board).”
An affected property owner brought to staff’s attention that public hearing notices had
not been sent to surrounding property owners for the November meeting. No one at the
meeting spoke in support or opposition to the request and it was approved as part of the
Consent Agenda. In accordance with Code provisions, the action by the CDB is null and void
as public notice was not properly given.
Community Development 2006-12-19 39
'.
.
.
Due to this legal issue, the applicant chose to withdraw this request from further action,
and continue with quarterly meetings with the surrounding neighborhood.
Happy Holiday wishes were extended.
J. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
~~
Board Reporter
Community Development 2006-12-19
40
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
Behar, Jordan
MAILING ADDRESS
2657 A.u usta Drive South
CITY
C
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
12/19/06
COUNTY
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Communit Develo ment Board
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
XkITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
Cit of Clearwater
MY POSITION IS:
o ELECTIVE
~ APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee, It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under See, 163,356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible forrecording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
Jordan Behar
, hereby disclose that on
December 19,
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
XX inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
XX inured to the special gain or loss of tJ\ {\L \ ~ - 't::>\ ~
whom f am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
'~n{Fo I ALRl-\
fud.E.YL-
, by
, which
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
.
CDB Meeting Date: 12/19/06; Case No.: TA 2006-1008, Ordinance No.: 7723-07
Agenda Item: F2 AND Case No.: Amendments to Beach by Design, Ord. No. 7721-07,
Agenda Item: F1
These agenda items (ordinances) propose to amend the Community Development Code
for a small area of Clearwater Beach identified as the Marina District. The proposed
ordinances which involve changes to height and setback requirements substantially
impact the viability of a project being developed by my client MAU,s 't>\~ J AU\"-l f€H'~~
who has engaged me to perform architectural services. Dependent upon the outcome of
this ordinance, my client's project and my architectural services therefor, may not
go forward.
DateF;~~)O Gb
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. .
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000
PAGE 2
\
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 19, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM lItem 1):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(Continuedfrom November 21,2006)
~Yes
Level Two Application
no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1.
ca~2006-{)6041- 601 North Fort Harrison Avenoe
Yes no
2.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
/no
Yes
~
3.
Cases: FLD2006-04019 / TDR2006-11032 - 210 South Osceola Avenue
/Yes
no
4.
Case: FLD2006-08048 - 19080 US Highway 19 North
/ Yes no
Level Three Application (Item 1-8)
1 . Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
N/A
2. Case: T A2006-1 0008 Amendments to the Community Development Code
N/A
3.
Case: ANX2006-10038 - 1891 CR 193
/ no
Yes
4.
Case: ANX2006-09035 - 1761 Audrey Drive
l
,
Yes
/ no
5.
Case: ~2006-08.003 - 2060 Evergreen Avenue
J Yes ' no
6.
Case: ANX2006-0907l4l6 Regal Road
Yes no
7.
Case: ANX2006-097l236 Claire Drive
Yes no
8.
Case: T A2006-09007 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
(Continued from November 21, 2006)
N/A
DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Status of Case CU967-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 ParkStreet/1344 Pierce Street
Yes no
Date: /;;)-) / ~ /0"
B\C B, property investigation check Iist.doc I I'
2
Level Three Application
.
''.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 19, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(Continued from November 21, 2006)
\./ Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two ADDlications (Items 1-4)
1.
Case: FLD2006-06041 - 601 North Fort Harrison Avenue
LYes
no
2.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
LYes
no
3.
cal FLD2006-04{)19/TDR2006-11032 - 210 South Osceola Avenue
Yes no
4.
ca7D2006-08048 - 19080 US Highway 19 North
Yes no
Level Three ADDlication (Item 1-8)
1 . Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
N/A
2. Case: T A2006-1 0008 Amendments to the Community Development Code
3.
4.
N/A
Case: ANX2006-7 1891 CR 193
Yes no
Case: ANX2006-09035 - 1761 Audrey Drive
4
..
Yes
/
no
5.
Case: LUZ2006-08072060 Evergreen Avenue
Yes no
Case: ANX2006-09036 - 1416 Regal Road
I no
6.
Yes
7.
Case: ANX2006-09037 - 1236 Claire Drive
/
Yes
8.
no
Case: T A2006-09007 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
(Continued from November 21, 2006)
N/A
DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Status ~Case CU96-46 - 1339, 1341, 1345 ParkStreet/1344 Pierce Street
./ Yes no
Date: I;) '^ /11/ tJ b
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
Level Three Application
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: December 19, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(ConunuedfromlVovember21,2006)
~ no
Level Two Application
Level Two ADDlications (Items 1-4)
1.
ca7D2006-06041 - 601 North Fort Harrison Avenue
Yes no
2.
ca72006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
Yes no
3.
Cases: FLD2006-04019 / TDR2006-11032 - 210 South Osceola Avenue
Yes
no
4. Case: FLD2006-08048 - 19080 US Highway 19 North
~es no
Level Three ADDlication (Item 1-8)
1. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
N/A
2. Case: T A2006-1 0008 Amendments to the Community Development Code
3.
4.
N/A
Case: ANX2006-10038 - 1891 CR 193
~Yes
no
Case: ANX2006-09035 -1761 Audrey Drive
~s
no
5.
Case: LUZ2006-08003 - 2060 Evergreen Avenue
~es
no
6.
Case: ANX2006-09036 - 1416 Regal Road
~es no
7.
Case: ANX2006-09037 - 1236 Claire Drive
hes no
8.
Case: T A2006-09007 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
(Continued from November 21, 2006)
N/A
DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1):
Status of Case CU96-46 ~ 1341, 1345 ParkStreet/1344 Pierce Street
Yes /' no
1.
Signature:
S:\Planning D
c-
,,7 \)ate: /2,11 'i/ 0(;,
B, property investigation check list.doc I
2
Level Three Application