01/16/2007
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 16, 2007
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Acting 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
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 19, 2006
Member Fritsch moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 19,
2006, as corrected: page 23, paragraph one, to read “ . . .Case: LUZ2007-08003 – 2060
Evergreen Avenue, and page 36, paragraph three, sentence one to read “. . . recommendation
motioncarried
will be made. . .” The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
D. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2006-07045 – 240-250 Skiff Point Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to February 20, 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; e-
mail: 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
Community Development 2007-01-16 1
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 building/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.
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2006-07045 to February 20, 2007. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel
Dennehy did not vote.
nd
2. Case: FLD2006-10056 – 2695 2 Avenue South Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to February 20, 2007)
Owner/Applicant: Rottlund Homes of Florida, Inc
Representative: Sean P. Cashen, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 ICOT Boulevard,
Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090; e-mail:
scashen@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com).
Location: Approximately 4.8 acres at the intersection of Chautauqua Avenue and Third
Avenue South.
Atlas Page: 244A.
Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to construct a subdivision perimeter wall in the Low
Density Residential (LDR) District with an increase to the maximum wall height from three feet
to eight feet along the front (west) boundary and an increase to the maximum wall height from
three feet to six feet along the front (south) boundary of the subdivision, as a Residential Infill
Project, pursuant to Section 2-103.B.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
Member Coates moved to continue Case: FLD2006-10056 to February 20, 2007. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel
Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2007-01-16 2
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-10)
1. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-05051 – 445 Hamden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard
Owner/Applicant: DiVello Land Trust, Fulvio DiVello Trustee.
Representative: Kent Runnells, P.A. (101 Main Street, Suite A, Safety Harbor, FL
34695; phone: 727-726-2728; fax: 727-724-0879).
Location: 1.79 acres at the northeast corner of Hamden Drive and South Gulfview
Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said on the previous agenda, Items E1 and
E2 were listed as Director’s Items. These items are informational only, not quasi-judicial, and
are not routinely advertised. Senior Planner Wayne Wells said Planning Director Michael Delk
had requested their placement on the Consent Agenda.
Concern was expressed that the application is confusing. Mr. Wells reviewed the
application’s history. On August 17, 2004, the CDB approved Case FLD2004-04023 to relocate
five units from the southern building on this property to the northern building. Subsequently, the
buildings sustained hurricane damage. Then, on July 19, 2005, a permit was issued to repair
the top five floors of the northern building as an overnight accommodation. Construction
ensued with no request for a change of use. In August 2005, the CDB approved the termination
of nonconformance for density of 111 overnight units to flexible development to allow 83
dwelling units, with 31 units in the northern building and 52 units in the southern building.
(Current Code allows 53 total dwelling units.)
The July 25, 2006 request was for a six-month extension. Today the CDB is asked to
approve another six-month extension of the termination of nonconformance of 111 overnight
units to allow 83 dwelling (condominium) units. However, the owner requested a Certificate of
Occupancy under the permit issued to repair the five floors for overnight use.
Now, the request is for occupancy of 31 attached condominium dwellings. It appears the
owner is undecided whether to proceed with the original plans for 83 units or to subdivide the
property and maintain the south building as hotel units. If the extension is not approved, the
property owner may be forced to raze the southern structure. If the property owner reapplies to
redevelop the entire property with condominiums, only 53 units would be permitted and the
property would have to comply with current parking requirements. The CDB has not approved
the mixed-use of this property. Should the owner reapply and retain the southern structure with
overnight dwellings, density issues related to the north building remain.
Community Development 2007-01-16 3
Had the time extension expired under the former Code, the applicant would be required
to reapply under current Code. It appears the applicant wishes to maintain the southern
property for overnight accommodations and reapply anyway. The CDB is requested to either
grant the extension or require the applicant to reapply under current Code.
Ken Reynolds, on behalf of Fulvio DiVello, Trustee for DiVello Land Trust, requested a
one-year extension, to expire on February 16, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but is not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant indicated that the project is being delayed for
economic reasons due to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that pursuant to
Section 4-407, the Planning Director previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB (Community Development Board) may consider
whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not pending or
approved code amendments would significantly affect the project. It should be noted that
subsequent to the original approval, amendments to the Code affected this project: 1)
Requirement for parking was amended to two parking spaces per unit. This project was
approved with 132 parking spaces for 83 attached dwelling units, at a ratio of 1.59 parking
spaces per dwelling unit; 2) The requirement for parapet height for buildings with flat roofs has
been amended to a maximum of 42 inches. This project was approved with a parapet height of
seven feet (from roof deck); and 3) Section 6-109.B was amended to not allow the conversion of
a nonconforming density to a different use. Approval of this project provided for the conversion
of nonconforming overnight accommodation density to dwelling unit density.
Mr. Wells said this applicant experienced adverse market conditions and hurricane
damage and wants to preserve his original rights in the Development Order previously approved
by the CDB. Developing the property with overnight accommodations in one building and
attached dwellings in the other building would constitute a change of use. Staff cannot grant
time extensions for that and the property owner would be required to submit another application.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said staff has had numerous conversations with the
applicant and Legal Department. The City cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the
northern building, as it would constitute a mixed-use, which was not approved by the CDB.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a time extension.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the City Attorney’s office is working
with the applicant’s attorney regarding a restrictive covenant that would memorialize the
developers’ current intentions and require them to come back to the CDB with an amended
application. Mr. Delk said staff would not sign off on any request for a Certificate of Occupancy
for condominiums, but could approve a request for overnight accommodations. In response to a
question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the applicant would incur additional expense and time to
submit a new application.
Ken Reynolds, representative, said the applicant is requesting a 12-month extension.
He recommended granting the request to preserve motel rooms. He said a restrictive covenant
would create a significant decrease in density on the southern property and defeat the long-term
Community Development 2007-01-16 4
goal of maintaining hotel rooms on the beach. He said the applicant has until February 16,
2007 to demolish the southern building, which would destroy 62 motel rooms.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said the applicant had obtained permits for
renovation and repair, then obtained CDB approval for condominiums. An issue related to
zoning exists.
Discussion ensued with comments that this applicant has experienced circumstances
beyond his control. It was stated that the CDB historically has granted time extensions if
reasons are sufficient.
Member Dame moved to grant a six-month extension of time.
It was questioned if the applicant can request another time extension should this one be
granted. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the applicant could request one extension of
time not to exceed one year.
Discussion ensued with comments that the applicant most likely cannot resolve these
issues within six-months, that the issue is the intended use, that the applicant does not know the
ultimate use, and the applicant is motivated by the market and his financial institution to make a
quick decision.
Member Dame withdrew his motion.
Member Coates moved to approve the applicant’s request for a one-year time extension
motion
of the Development Order for Case FLD2005-05051. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
2. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-07061 – 229 Coronado Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate II, LLC.
Representative: Kirit Shah (PO Box 3094, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-4842;
fax: 727-461-3670).
Location: 0.454 acre located on the north side of Third Street between Coronado Drive
and Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Kirit Shah, on behalf of K & P Clearwater Estate II, LLC, requested a one-year
extension, to expire on March 20, 2008 for Case: FLD2005-07061.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but is not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for
Community Development 2007-01-16 5
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether or not pending or approved code amendments would
significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the intervening period
subsequent to the original approval, amendments to the Code affect this project: 1) The
requirement for parking has been amended to two parking spaces per unit. This project was
approved with 24 parking spaces for 16 attached dwelling units, at a parking ratio of 1.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit and 2) Section 6-109.B was amended to not allow the conversion of a
nonconforming density to a different use. Approval of this project provided for the conversion of
nonconforming overnight accommodation density to dwelling unit density.
It was stated when the CDB approved this application, its approval stated a ratio of 1.5
parking spaces per dwelling. As the number of parking spaces required by current Code differs
from what was approved, and the applicant did not act within the original timeframe, concern
was expressed that problems will occur in the future, as the number of parking spaces is
inadequate. Discussion ensued with comments that unforeseen circumstances had occurred
and the request should be granted.
Member Coates moved to grant a 12-month extension of time for Case FLD2005-07061.
motioncarried
The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel
Dennehy did not vote.
3. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-02013A – 100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 S. Gulfview
Boulevard
Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC.
Representative: Kirit Shah (PO Box 3094, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-4842;
fax: 727-461-3670).
Location: 2.739 acres located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Hotel of 350 rooms (127.78 rooms/acre), 75 attached dwellings (27.38
units/acre) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR) of amenities accessory to the
hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet for perimeter parapets
(from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical rooms/architectural
embellishments (from roof deck).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. Kirit Shah, on behalf of K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC,
FLD2004-02013A
requested a one-year extension to expire on May 17, 2008 for Case: .
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but is not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
Community Development 2007-01-16 6
like.” In this particular case, the applicant indicated that the project is being delayed for
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether pending or approved code amendments would significantly
affect the project. It should be noted that in the intervening period subsequent to the original
approval, amendments to Code affect this project: 1) The requirement for parapet height for
buildings with flat roofs has been amended to a maximum of 42 inches. This project was
approved with a parapet height of five feet (from roof deck) and 2) Section 6-109.B was
amended to not allow the conversion of a nonconforming density to a different use. Approval of
this project provided for the conversion of nonconforming overnight accommodation density to
dwelling unit density.
See page 32 for motion of approval.
4. Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2002-07021B and FLD2004-07055A – 601 Old Coachman Road and
2450 Drew Street
Owners: City of Clearwater and Florida Power Corporation.
Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Kevin Dunbar, Director, Parks and Recreation Department (100 South
Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4800; e-mail:
kdunbar@myclearwater.com).
Location: 42.38 acres located between US Highway 19 N and Old Coachman Road
approximately 750 north of Drew Street and on the west side of Old Coachman Road
between Drew Street and Sharkey Road.
Atlas Page: 281B.
Zoning Districts: Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OSR), Institutional (I) and
Preservation (P).
Request: Amend conditions of approval to revise the completion dates for the upgrading of
existing paved and unpaved parking lots for Bright House Networks Field required under Cases
FLD2002-07021A and FLD2004-07055 (approved by the Community Development Board on
April 15, 2003, and October 19, 2004, respectively).
Proposed Use: Bright House Networks Field and Joe DiMaggio Complex.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 42.38 acres is generally located between US Highway 19 N and Old Coachman
Road, approximately 750 north of Drew Street and on the west side of Old Coachman Road
between Drew Street and Sharkey Road. The site at 601 Old Coachman Road has been
developed with Bright House Networks Field. The site at 2450 Drew Street is developed with
the Joe DiMaggio Complex.
On September 17, 2002, the CDB approved Case: FLD2002-07021, a Flexible
Development application, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, to: (1)
reduce the required side (south and west) setbacks from 10 feet to zero feet (to parking/
pavement) within the Commercial District; (2) reduce the required side (south and west) setback
Community Development 2007-01-16 7
from 20 feet to zero feet (to parking/pavement) within the OS/R District; (3) increase the
permitted height of a building (stadium) from 25 feet to 49 feet within the Commercial District;
and (4) increase the permitted height of a building (stadium) from 30 feet to 49 feet within the
OS/R District, under the provisions of Sections 2-704B and 2-1404A. The proposal was to
develop the overall site with the Clearwater Community Sports Complex and Phillies Spring
Training Facility of 8000 total seats. This application was approved with Conditions of Approval:
1) That the City upgrade site D (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2006 spring training season. The
City shall provide at least 1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550 spaces to be upgraded
with paved drive aisles and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area along Drew Street and Old
Coachman Road. The balance of the spaces may be on grass spaces (on playing fields); 2)
That the City upgrade, with Florida Power’s approval, site C with paved drive aisles and a
minimum landscape area along Old Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous,
consistent streetscape; 3) That the player parking area be enhanced with a column and
ornamental fence,acceptable to the Planning Department; 4) That a landscape plan for each
parking lot be submitted for approval by staff, prior to the issuance of permits for construction; 5)
That should the Pinellas Trail extension within the Florida Power right-of-way be constructed
prior to the 2004 spring training season, the sidewalk along the east side of Old Coachman
Road may be eliminated and the sidewalk along the west side of Old Coachman Road shall be
increased to a minimum width of 10 feet. If the Pinellas Trail extension is not constructed within
this timeframe, but is substantially designed with funding assured (within FY (Fiscal Year)
2003/04), then its construction may be deferred and a temporary surface should be installed for
an interim period. If the trail is neither substantially designed nor funded, five-foot sidewalks
should be installed prior to the 2004 spring training season; 6) That the signature landscape
display at the intersection of Drew Street and Old Coachman Road be approved by the Planning
Department, prior to construction, and installed prior to the 2006 spring training season; 7) That
all proposed signage (scoreboard, directionals, temporary, etc.) be approved through a
Comprehensive Sign Program by the CDB; 8)That the design of the buildings be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the CDB; and 9) That a revised
Master Parking Plan be submitted to staff within 14 days, with corrected parking tabulations and
identifying site E (plaza parking).
On April 15, 2003, the CDB approved Case FLD2002-07021A/SGN2003-01002, a
Flexible Development application, as a revision to a previously approved Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project (FLD2002-07021), to increase the permitted height of a building
(scoreboard) from 30 feet to 70 feet, under the provisions of Sections 2-704.B and 2-1404.A and
a Comprehensive Sign Program to increase the number and area of freestanding signage from
one sign of 64 square-feet to 26 signs totaling 441.5 square-feet and to increase the number
and area of attached signage from one sign of 24 square-feet to seven signs totaling 604.07
square-feet, under the provisions of Section 3-1807. This revision was for the scoreboard
building and signage for the Clearwater Community Sports Complex and Phillies Spring
Training Facility. This application was approved with the following conditions: (*Conditions 1-9
were included with the prior approval by the CDB on September 17, 2002, and were included
with this amendment): *1) That the City upgrade site D (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2006 spring
training season. The City shall provide at least 1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550
spaces to be upgraded with paved drive aisles and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area
along Drew Street and Old Coachman Road. The balance of the spaces may be on grass
spaces (on playing fields); *2) That the City upgrade, with Florida Power’s approval, site C with
paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape area along Old Coachman Road of 15 feet, as
part of a continuous, consistent streetscape; *3) That the player parking area be enhanced with
Community Development 2007-01-16 8
a column and ornamental fence, acceptable to the Planning Department; *4) That a landscape
plan for each parking lot be submitted for approval by staff, prior to the issuance of permits for
construction; *5) That should the Pinellas Trail extension within the Florida Power right-of-way
be constructed prior to the 2004 spring training season, the sidewalk along the east side of Old
Coachman Road may be eliminated and the sidewalk along the west side of Old Coachman
Road shall be increased to a minimum width of 10 feet. If the Pinellas Trail extension is not
constructed within this timeframe, but is substantially designed with funding assured (within FY
2003/04), then its construction may be deferred and a temporary surface should be installed for
an interim period. If the trail is neither substantially designed nor funded, five-foot sidewalks
should be installed prior to the 2004 spring training season; *6) That the signature landscape
display at the intersection of Drew Street and Old Coachman Road be approved by the Planning
Department, prior to construction, and installed prior to the 2006 spring training season; *7) That
all proposed signage (scoreboard, directionals, temporary, etc.) be approved through a
Comprehensive Sign Program by the CDB; *8) That the design of the buildings be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the CDB; *9) That a revised
Master Parking Plan be submitted to staff within 14 days, with corrected parking tabulations and
identifying site E (plaza parking); 10) That the scoreboard building be attached to, and made a
part of, the north wall of the berm seating portion of the stadium; and 11) That the changeable
message sign may be relocated, under staff approval, by a maximum of 25 feet in any direction
to accommodate unforeseen construction issues.
On October 19, 2004, the CDB approved Case FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-08001, the
Flexible Development application to amend the previously approved FLD2002-07021A (CDB
approved on April 15, 2003) to eliminate landscape islands and separators in the parking area
south of the stadium and to add additional land area within the Progress Energy right-of-way
south of the stadium for grass parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C and 2-1404.A and to amend a previously approved
Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2003-01002) for the stadium. This application was
approved with the following conditions: (* Indicates prior conditions of approval adopted
September 17, 2002, under Case FLD2002-07021 and revised under Case FLD2002-
07021A/SGN2003-01002, adopted on April 15, 2003, that are carried forward): *1) That the
City upgrade site D (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2006 spring training season. The City shall
provide at least 1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550 spaces to be upgraded with
paved drive aisles and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area along Drew Street and Old
Coachman Road. The balance of the spaces may be on grass spaces (on playing fields); *2)
That the City upgrade, with Progress Energy’s approval, site C with paved drive aisles and a
minimum landscape area along Old Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous,
consistent streetscape; *3) That the player parking area be enhanced with a column and
ornamental fence, acceptable to the Planning Department; *4) That a landscape plan for each
parking lot be submitted for staff approval, prior to the issuance of permits for construction; *5)
That should the Pinellas Trail extension within the Progress Energy right-of-way be constructed
prior to the 2004 spring training season, the sidewalk along the east side of Old Coachman
Road may be eliminated and the sidewalk along the west side of Old Coachman Road shall be
increased to a minimum width of 10 feet. If the Pinellas Trail extension is not constructed
within this timeframe, but is substantially designed with funding assured (within FY 2003/04),
then its construction may be deferred and a temporary surface should be installed for an
interim period. If the trail is neither substantially designed nor funded, five-foot sidewalks
should be installed prior to the 2004 spring training season; *6) That the signature landscape
display at the intersection of Drew Street and Old Coachman Road be approved by the
Community Development 2007-01-16 9
Planning Department, prior to construction, and installed prior to the 2006 spring training
season; *7) That all proposed signage (scoreboard, directionals, temporary, etc.) be approved
through a Comprehensive Sign Program by the CDB; *8) That the design of the buildings be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the CDB; *9) That a
revised Master Parking Plan be submitted to staff within 14 days, with corrected parking
tabulations and identifying site E (plaza parking); *10) That the scoreboard building be attached
to, and made a part of, the north wall of the berm seating portion of the stadium; *11) That the
changeable message sign may be relocated, under staff approval, by a maximum of 25 feet in
any direction to accommodate unforeseen construction issues; *12) That landscaping of the
City’s portion of the parking lot (south of the stadium) be installed in an amount and location to
the satisfaction of the Planning Department, with proper site improvement permits, by
December 31, 2006, in the event a redevelopment proposal for the shopping center that would
redesign all of the parking areas, including that portion owned by the City, fails to materialize;
13) That the City upgrade, with Progress Energy’s approval, the new grass parking area west
of the shopping center with paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape area along Old
Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent streetscape. Landscaping, in
the form of a hedge and understory trees, acceptable to Progress Energy and to the Planning
Department, be installed on the west side of the new grass parking area prior to the 2006
spring training season. Site and landscape plans shall be submitted to the Building
Department to obtain a site improvement permit prior to construction/installation. The location
of landscaping shall be coordinated with the future extension of the Pinellas Trail; and 14) That
the changeable message sign oriented toward US Highway 19 N change no faster than every
five seconds.
Bright House Networks Field was constructed and opened for the 2004 Spring Training
season, where all of the conditions of approval were completed with the exception of three
conditions.
The applicant is requesting to modify the time requirements for these three conditions of
approval so that they can be completed.
Adopted Condition #1:
That the City upgrade site D (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2006 spring training season.
The City shall provide at least 1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550 spaces to be
upgraded with paved drive aisles and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area along Drew
Street and Old Coachman Road. The balance of the spaces may be on grass spaces (on
playing fields).
The applicant is requesting to extend the time frame to complete this requirement from
prior to the 2006 spring training season to prior to 2012 spring training season. The reason for
the extension is to be able to secure funds from the possible passage of Penny for Pinellas III,
which includes funds for ball field renovations including parking lots.
Adopted Condition #12:
That landscaping of the City’s portion of the parking lot (south of the stadium) be
installed in an amount and location to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, with proper
site improvement permits, by December 31, 2006, in the event a redevelopment proposal for the
Community Development 2007-01-16 10
shopping center that would redesign all of the parking areas, including that portion owned by the
City, fails to materialize.
The applicant is requesting to extend the time frame to complete this requirement from
December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007.
Adopted Condition #13:
That the City upgrade, with Progress Energy’s approval, the new grass parking area
west of the shopping center with paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape area along Old
Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent streetscape. Landscaping, in
the form of a hedge and understory trees, acceptable to Progress Energy and to the Planning
Department, be installed on the west side of the new grass parking area prior to the 2006 spring
training season. Site and landscape plans shall be submitted to the Building Department to
obtain a site improvement permit prior to construction/installation. The location of landscaping
shall be coordinated with the future extension of the Pinellas Trail.
The applicant is requesting to extend the time frame to complete this requirement from
prior to the 2006 spring training season to prior to 2008 spring training season.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Review of the proposal is based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 42.38 acres is generally located between US Highway 19 N
and Old Coachman Road, approximately 750 north of Drew Street and on the west side of Old
Coachman Road between Drew Street and Sharkey Road; 2) That on September 17, 2002, the
CDB approved Case FLD2002-07021 to permit the development of the overall site with the
Clearwater Community Sports Complex and Phillies Spring Training Facility of 8,000 total seats;
3) That on April 15, 2003, the CDB approved Cases FLD2002-07021A/SGN2003-01002 to
modify the prior Flexible Development application to provide for the scoreboard building and to
provide for signage for the Clearwater Community Sports Complex and Phillies Spring Training
Facility; 4) That on October 19, 2004, the CDB approved Cases FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-
08001 to eliminate landscape islands and separators in the parking area south of the stadium
and to add additional land area within the Progress Energy right-of-way south of the stadium for
grass parking and to amend a previously approved Comprehensive Sign Program for the
stadium; 5) That these prior proposals included conditions of approval providing time frames for
the completion of required site improvements; 6) That the proposal is to modify these adopted
time frames; 7) That the applicant has provided justification to modify the adopted time frames
to complete required site improvements; and 8) That there are no outstanding Code
Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the proposal still complies with the Flexible Development
criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Sections 2-704.C and 2-1404.A as
originally reviewed, and 2) That the development proposal is still consistent with the General
Applicability criteria as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code as originally
reviewed.
Community Development 2007-01-16 11
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to amend conditions of approval to revise the completion dates for the
upgrading of existing paved and unpaved parking lots for Bright House Networks Field required
under Case Numbers FLD2002-07021A and FLD2004-07055 (approved by the Community
Development Board on April 15, 2003, and October 19, 2004, respectively), with the following
amended conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That Condition #1 be amended to read: That the City upgrade
site D (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2012 spring training season. The City shall provide at least
1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550 spaces to be upgraded with paved drive aisles
and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area along Drew Street and Old Coachman Road. The
balance of the spaces may be on grass spaces (on playing fields); 2) That Condition #12 be
amended to read: That landscaping of the City’s portion of the parking lot (south of the stadium)
be installed in an amount and location to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, with
proper site improvement permits, by December 31, 2007, in the event a redevelopment
proposal for the shopping center that would redesign all of the parking areas, including that
portion owned by the City, fails to materialize; and 3) That Condition #13 be amended to read:
That the City upgrade, with Progress Energy’s approval, the new grass parking area west of the
shopping center with paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape area along Old Coachman
Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent streetscape. Landscaping, in the form of a
hedge and understory trees, acceptable to Progress Energy and to the Planning Department, be
installed on the west side of the new grass parking area prior to the 2008 spring training season.
Site and landscape plans shall be submitted to the Building Department to obtain a site
improvement permit prior to construction/installation. The location of landscaping shall be
coordinated with the future extension of the Pinellas Trail.
See page 32 for motion of approval.
5. Case: FLD2006-10054 – 300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive Level Two Application
Owners: Tropicana Resort Land Trust and Flamingo Bay Condo Developers LLC.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Land Trust.
Representative: Bill Woods or Sherry Bagley, Woods Consulting, Inc. (1714 County
Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail:
billwoods@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 1.475 acres located at the southwest corner of Hamden Drive and Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning Districts: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a commercial dock in conjunction with
existing hotels/motels at 300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square-feet,
under the provisions of Section 3-601.C.3.
Proposed Use: Commercial dock.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 1.475 acres is located at the southwest corner of Hamden Drive and Third Street.
The upland parcels are developed with hotels/motels that have existed for some time, including
Community Development 2007-01-16 12
the Sandman Resort and Sea Cove Motel. There are also four waterfront lots on the east side
of Hamden Drive that are attached to the properties on the west side of Hamden Drive and are
10-foot in depth from Hamden Drive to the water. There are existing docks in varying conditions
of deterioration for approximately 20 boats. The adjacent property to the south on Brightwater
Drive is currently developed with an overnight accommodation use. There is intervening
Hamden Drive right-of-way to the north of these waterfront lots. Detached dwelling lots are to
the north along Devon Drive.
The development proposal consists of the construction of a commercial dock in
conjunction with existing hotels/motels at 300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive for 20 slips totaling
2,734 square-feet, accommodating boats up to 40 feet in length. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3
of the Community Development Code, a commercial dock is defined as any dock, pier, or wharf,
including boatlifts, that is used in connection with a hotel, motel, or restaurant where the slips
are not rented, leased or sold; or such facilities used in connection with a social or fraternal club
or organization and used only by its membership; or such facilities constructed and maintained
by the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County or by any state or federal agency.
The proposed docks will replace existing docks with up-to-date design and construction
with a central point of access approximately midpoint of the docks. The docks will need to be
accessed via a sidewalk connector from the public sidewalk within the Hamden Drive right-of-
way. A building permit to construct a connector sidewalk will be necessary to be obtained for
this access. Fire risers will need to be constructed prior to completion of the docks. The
proposed docks have been designed to minimize negative environmental impacts by placing the
main access dock away from the seawall to avoid existing shoal grass. Stormwater pipes that
extend from Hamden Drive through the waterfront lots and the seawall are presently not within
drainage easements. Drainage easements will be necessary to be recorded prior to the
Planning Department signoff of the County permit.
Many of the slips at the existing docks are presently rented, in violation of current Code
requirements. The applicant has advised that the boats presently moored at these docks will be
removed. Upon completion of the new docks, any boats moored will need to be owned by a
guest of the hotels/motels across Hamden Drive. Any change of use of the associated uplands
development will require a re-review of this commercial dock and the use of the slips by the
CDB.
There is an active Code Enforcement case at 300 Hamden Drive for property
maintenance and outdoor storage (CDC2006-02704). There also is an active Code
Enforcement case at 326 Hamden Drive for property maintenance (CDC2006-02703).
The Planning Department has determined the property in question does not abut
adjacent waterfront single family or two-family property, due to the existence of the Hamden
Drive right-of-way to the north of the subject waterfront lots. With regards to setbacks, the
dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3-601.C.3.h of the Community Development
Code state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as extended into the water
than the distance equivalent to 10% of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the
waterfront property line is 437.6 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the
east and west property lines a minimum of 43.7 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back
from the north and south property lines, as extended into the water on a diagonal, in excess of
this requirement with distances of 45.8 feet and 44 feet, respectively.
Community Development 2007-01-16 13
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line
or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 328.2
feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 69.5 feet. The same threshold that applies to
length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 328.2 feet.
The dock has a proposed width of 289 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved.
While not consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent
with newer docks required to meet today’s codes, wherein the length takes into account the
water depth at mean low water.
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for
commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the
applicant and are included with their application.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of December 7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be
sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.475 acres is located at the southwest corner of Hamden
Drive and Third Street; 2) That upland parcels are developed with hotels/motels that have
existed for some time, including the Sandman Resort and Sea Cove Motel; 3) That the subject
property includes four waterfront lots on the east side of Hamden Drive that are part of the
properties on the west side of Hamden Drive and the waterfront lots are 10-foot in depth from
Hamden Drive to the water; 4) That there are existing docks in varying conditions of
deterioration for approximately 20 boats; 5) That many of the slips at the existing docks are
presently rented, in violation of current Code requirements, and that the boats presently moored
at these docks will be removed as a result of this proposal; 6) That the development proposal
consists of the construction of a commercial dock in conjunction with the existing hotels/motels
at 300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square-feet, accommodating
boats up to 40 feet in length; 7) That the proposed docks comply with the setback, width and
length standards of Section 3-601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code; 8) That existing
stormwater pipes extending from Hamden Drive through the waterfront lots and the seawall will
need to be placed within recorded drainage easements prior to the Planning Department signoff
of the County permit; 9) That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the
surrounding area; and 10) That, while there are active Code Enforcement issues associated
with the upland portion of the subject property, such does not affect the development proposal.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial
dock review criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, and 2) That
the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-
913.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a commercial dock in conjunction with existing hotels/motels
at 300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square-feet, under the provisions
of Section 3-601.C.3, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That a Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records prior to the Planning Department signoff on the County permit
Community Development 2007-01-16 14
application tying the waterfront lots together with the upland lots west of Hamden Drive; 2) That
use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by guests of the hotels/motels at
300, 316 and 326 Hamden Drive and that the docks are not permitted to be rented, leased or
sold separately from use by guests of the hotels/motels; 3) That any change in use of the
upland development (such as to attached dwellings) requires a re-review of these docks and the
use of the slips. The owner shall notify the Planning Director in writing in the event of a
proposed change in the upland use; 4) That a building permit to install the fire risers for the
docks be submitted prior to Planning Department sign-off on the County dock permit application.
Prior to completion of the docks, the fire riser permit shall be finalized; 5) That sidewalk access
be provided on the upland to the dock, which must be handicap accessible. A building permit
shall be obtained for the sidewalk construction and be completed prior to the completion of the
docks; 6) That drainage easements be recorded over the existing stormwater pipes that extend
from Hamden Drive through the waterfront lots and the seawall prior to the Planning Department
signoff of the County permit; 7) That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the
entrance to the docks containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea
grasses and manatees in the vicinity; and 8) That a copy of the SWFWMD (Southwest Florida
Water Management District) and/or FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection)
Permit, USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) Permit and proof of permission to
use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
commencement of construction.
See page 32 for motion of approval.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2006-10057 – 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mary G Realty, Inc.
Representative: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA (701 South Enterprise Road East, Suite 404,
Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; e-mail:
keith@keithzayac.com).
Location: 0.4 acre at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use (nine attached dwellings and
4,350 square-feet of retail floor area) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the front (east
along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reductions to the front
(north along Baymont Street) from 15 feet to 13 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet
(to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk), an
increase to building height from 35 feet to 80.17 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), a reduction to
required parking from 40 spaces (22 spaces for retail sales; 18 spaces for attached dwellings) to
19 spaces and a deviation to allow the building within a sight visibility triangle, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, and to
eliminate the required foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, as
a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Mixed Use (nine attached dwellings and 4,350 square-feet of retail floor area).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development 2007-01-16 15
Member Fritsch moved to accept Wayne Wells 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. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Walt Chase requested party status.
motion
Member Tallman moved to grant Walt Chase party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Walt Touchton requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Walt Touchton party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 0.4-acre property is at the southwest corner of
Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. The site is basically a rectangle, but with the Mandalay
Avenue side being slightly longer in length. The site currently is developed with a small
shopping center of 6,254 square-feet with five commercial units and a restaurant. The existing
building and other site improvements will be demolished. This site is in the “Destination Resort”
District of Beach by Design.
On September 19, 2006, the CDB denied a Flexible Development application for this
property to permit 12 attached dwellings (FLD2006-02009). This application contained various
setback reductions and a proposed building height of 82.5 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof).
Property to the north currently is being developed with the Sandpearl hotel with 253
rooms (height of 95 feet). The property to the west and south is currently being developed as
part of the Sandpearl project with a high-rise residential building to the west (height of 150 feet)
and a low-rise residential building to the south over ground-level retail sales floor area
(approximately 8,300 square-feet) directly fronting on Mandalay Avenue (height of 48.5 feet).
The property at the northeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street has been
developed with the Belle Harbor high-rise residential project (two towers with heights of 99 and
130 feet). The property to the east across Mandalay Avenue is developed with one- and two-
story retail sales buildings and the two-story Pelican Walk shopping center. A four-story parking
garage with three additional residential floors of 28 attached dwelling units (70-foot height) has
been approved to replace the existing parking lot for the Pelican Walk shopping center
(FLD2004-09072/TDR2005-01015, approved by the CDB on April 19, 2005). Building permits
for this Pelican Walk construction have been submitted and are being reviewed (BCP2006-
04025).
The prior development proposal for this property denied by the CDB was solely
residential with 12 attached dwelling units and no retail sales floor area. This site is located in
the “Destination Resort” District of Beach by Design. This District specifically calls for mixed-
use development for this property with retail sales floor area adjacent to Mandalay Avenue to
activate the street, as envisioned by Beach by Design. This new development proposal for the
subject property is for a mixed-use of nine attached dwellings and 4,350 square-feet of retail
floor area, the preferred form of redevelopment, in compliance with the vision in Beach by
Design for this area and site specifically. The proposal is similar to the adjacent Sandpearl
Community Development 2007-01-16 16
project to the south by providing a mixed-use with retail and residential uses fronting on
Mandalay Avenue. Mixed-use, however, is not a use provided for in the Tourist (T) District, and
is the reason such request must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project. The retail floor area has been designed to provide for as many as four retail units
facing Mandalay Avenue at a zero front setback. Nine attached dwellings are proposed above
the ground floor retail area in a building and floor plan design similar to that previously proposed
in September 2006. The building is 80.17 feet tall (to mid-point of pitched roof). Two dwellings
per floor with approximately 2,425 square-feet of conditioned living area for the west unit and
2,517 square-feet of conditioned living area for the east unit are proposed on the first three
residential floors. The fourth residential floor contains one dwelling unit of 2,517 square-feet of
conditioned living area on the east side of the building and a pool and recreation area on the
west side. The fifth and sixth residential floors contain one dwelling unit each with 2,517
square-feet of conditioned living area on the east side of the building. A total of 19 parking
spaces are proposed on-site, primarily located under the building west of the retail floor area.
The proposed building looks much like that reviewed by the CDB in September 2006.
Unit designs/layout and unit entry locations have not changed from that previously submitted,
with unit entries on the south side of the building and the unit in a linear layout south to north.
The western façade is 105.83 feet in overall length (north/south). Beach by Design Guidelines
requiring the façades of buildings greater than 100 feet to have offsets of greater than five feet.
The western stairwell extends 7 feet 4 inches from the façade, reducing the otherwise overall
length below 100 feet. A balcony for the master bedroom, extending 3 feet 6 inches from the
façade, and the dining room, extending two feet 10 inches from the façade further breaks up the
western façade. The eastern façade is 144 feet two inches in overall length (north/south). This
overall eastern façade length includes the ground level retail sales portion of the building (119
feet 8 inches) and a covered entry for the residential lobby on the south side of the building
(separated from the retail sales portion by a minimum of five feet). The retail sales portion of
the building is similar in location and length as the Sandpearl retail sales portion of their building
directly to the south. The residential portion of the building for the first through sixth floors is
much the same as previously reviewed in September 2006. There is a building indentation on
the east side of the building of approximately 24 feet directly north of the elevator. The two
bedrooms along the eastern façade extend from the main façade by five feet, which also
includes balconies extending an additional 3 feet 6 inches, as well as the kitchen extends 2 feet
10 inches from the main façade to break up the eastern façade. Main unit balconies are on the
north end of the units as an extension of the living rooms. The unit on the fourth floor does not
have any windows on the west side, except in the living room, due to the elevated pool to the
west of this dwelling unit. The unit on the fifth floor will have windows along its length, except
most are high windows due to the pool area on the fourth floor with its trellises. The unit on the
sixth floor will have normal windows for the length of the unit. The elevator, stairwell and
residential lobby tower on the southeast corner of the building will have lobby windows on the
east side facing Mandalay Avenue on each floor. Beach by Design Guidelines requires as least
60% of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has
submitted information that the project is in compliance with the 60% Guideline through the use
of windows, sliding glass doors, aluminum railings, banding, balconies, rusticated (diamond
scored) stucco, and trim to meet this requirement.
The proposed building has been designed using a Mediterranean architectural theme.
The ground level parking and retail sales level utilize a diamond-scored stucco painted smokey
topaz. The sixth living floor also utilizes this same diamond-scored stucco painted smokey
Community Development 2007-01-16 17
topaz. The exterior of living floors one through five is finished with stucco painted restrained
gold. Insets finished with the same diamond-scored stucco painted smokey topaz are proposed
on the façades of the stairwells on the south side of the building. The roof is primarily a pitched
roof finished with “monier Madeira blend” shades of clay barrel tiles (a flat area in the center of
the building on the south side of the building is for mechanical equipment).
Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum allowable FAR (Floor
Area Ratio) for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1:0 and the maximum
density is 30 dwelling units per acre. As a mixed-use, the maximum development potential of
the property is based on a mixed-use calculation. A mixed-use calculation indicates a maximum
of 4,350 square-feet of nonresidential floor area and nine dwelling units, which is that contained
in this proposal. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable FAR and maximum
allowable density.
Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio) is 0:95. The overall proposed ISR is 0:70, which is
consistent with Code provisions.
Mixed-use is not a use provided for in the Tourist (T) District, and is the reason such
requests must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However,
comparison can be made to “Attached Dwellings” and “Retail Sales and Services.” Pursuant to
Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for both uses can
range between 5,000 – 10,000 square-feet. The subject property is 17,457 square-feet in area.
Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for both uses can range between 50 – 100
feet. The lot width of the subject property along Mandalay Avenue is 180.52 feet and along
Baymont Street is 100.35 feet. Based on this comparison, the proposal is consistent with the
Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front
setback for attached dwellings and retail sales can range between 0 – 15 feet and the minimum
side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet. The proposal includes a reduction to the front
(east along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reductions to the
front (north along Baymont Street) from 15 feet to 13 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero
feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet (to
pavement) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk).
This proposal has introduced the retail sales portion of the building at a zero front
setback along Mandalay Avenue to be in conformance with the vision contained in the
Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. Due to the configuration of the property along
Baymont Street producing an angle and a slightly longer front property line along Mandalay
Avenue, the proposed retail sales portion of the building is located at a 13-foot front setback at
its northwest corner from Baymont Street (the northeast corner of the building is located 18 feet
from Baymont Street).
The building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor on the south side of
the parking level. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The
location of the trash staging area within the front setback at a zero front setback from Baymont
Community Development 2007-01-16 18
Street is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common
with many newer developments.
The introduction of the retail sales floor area along Mandalay Avenue has pushed the
location of the redesigned building and parking toward the west. The proposed building meets
the required 10-foot side setback on the west side. The surface parking is now located 5.5 feet
from the west property line. The two-story parking garage for the Sandpearl project, which is
basically a blank wall adjacent to the south and west sides of the subject property, is located
five feet from the common property line. The proposed parking for this proposal is consistent
with the setback reductions approved for the Sandpearl project from the common property line.
Building Code requires a sidewalk from the western stairwell out to a public way. To accomplish
this, the applicant has provided a four-foot wide sidewalk along the west and south sides of the
southern retention pond, producing a six-foot side setback from the south property line.
Proposed setbacks are consistent with existing setbacks for other projects in close proximity
within this urban context.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable
height for attached dwellings and retail sales can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed
building has been determined to have a pitched roof at a height of 80.17 feet above Base Flood
Elevation (BFE), which is slightly shorter than that previously proposed in September 2006 at
82.5 feet. Building height requirements by Code provisions are measured from BFE. The
proposed height is consistent and compatible with the height of buildings constructed, under
construction or approved within the surrounding area (see heights of buildings under “Site
Location and Existing Conditions” above). It also is noted that the two Mandalay Beach Club
residential towers between Papaya and San Marco streets west of Mandalay Avenue were
approved/constructed at a height of 145 feet. The site is within a Flood Zone A and the Building
Code does not permit the habitable area of the residential portion of the building to be situated
below BFE; however, the retail sales portion may be below BFE as long as it is floodproofed.
Based on these provisions, as well as having to meet vertical clearance requirements for
handicap parking spaces, this usually means that parking for the project is accommodated on
the ground floor and the building height is increased accordingly. Based upon the above, the
development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the maximum allowable height.
The proposal will take sole access to Baymont Street. An existing driveway on
Mandalay Avenue will be eliminated, a sidewalk consistent with that existing on Mandalay
Avenue will be constructed and at least one additional on-street parking space will be created
on Mandalay Avenue. The City will install parking meters for any new parking spaces created
on Mandalay Avenue.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required
parking for attached dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit and retail sales and services can
range between four – five spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA. Based on nine dwelling units (18
required spaces) and the proposed 4,350 square-feet of proposed retail sales floor area (17 –
22 required spaces), a minimum of between 35 and 40 total parking spaces are required for this
development. The applicant proposes 19 parking spaces on-site, including one handicap
space, to accommodate the residential units in the building. The proposal includes a reduction
to required parking from 40 spaces (22 spaces for retail sales; 18 spaces for attached dwellings)
to 19 spaces. Section 2-803.K for retail sales and services in the Tourist District provides the
following criteria for a parking reduction: 1) The physical characteristics of a proposed building
Community Development 2007-01-16 19
are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than
otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage
or other non-parking demand-generating purposes; 2) Adjacent land uses are of a nature that
there is a high probability that patrons will use modes of transportation other than the
automobile to access the use; and 3) Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as
determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or
parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities or the
shared parking formula in Article 3, Division 14.
A Parking Demand Study has been submitted providing the justification for the reduction.
The proposed reduction basically centers on the retail uses, where the proposal eliminates all
required parking for the retail sales uses. Retail sales uses are envisioned as specialty, non-
destination beach related retail shops that will draw their customers from pedestrians walking
along Mandalay Avenue and from hotels/motels and attached dwellings within the area. The
Parking Demand Study indicates there is adequate parking within municipal parking lots, on-
street parking and from other uses within close proximity to serve the proposed retail sales floor
area. The Beach Trolley also stops near the site. Adequate parking is available within a
reasonable walking distance of the project to support the requested reduction. This reduction is
consistent with other similar uses along Mandalay Avenue and in the downtown area of
Clearwater. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with
regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside
mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or
abutting properties. The applicant proposes all air conditioning units for both residential and
retail sales units on the roof above the sixth residential floor. Parapets around that portion of
the roof should screen views of the air conditioning units from the ground and from dwelling
units equal in height as this proposed building, except from dwelling units on higher floors in the
Sandpearl high-rise tower to the west. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards
at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. There is only one driveway proposed for this property on Baymont
Street. There are no structures within the driveway’s sight triangles inconsistent with the Code
requirement. There is a sight visibility triangle along the property lines at the intersection of
Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. A small corner of the proposed retail sales building
encroaches into this sight visibility triangle.
The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing a right-of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a
clear and unobstructed view of one another. The proposed encroachment of the small corner of
the retail sales building upon the sight visibility triangle at the street intersection will not result in
a conflict with this intent, as those vehicles stopped at the stop bar on Baymont Street will still
have adequate and safe clear and unobstructed view of vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing
Mandalay Avenue.
Community Development 2007-01-16 20
These encroachments upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in the grant of a
special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere under similar
circumstances. It is noted that the City’s Engineering Department has indicated support for this
request. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to allowing the
small building encroachment within the sight visibility triangles at the intersection of Mandalay
Avenue and Baymont Street as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the Community Development
Code.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal
indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in
conformance with this Code requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D of the Community Development Code, there are no
perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. Because there is less than 4,000
square-feet of paved vehicular use area outside of the building footprint, no interior landscape
area is required for this site (Section 3-1202.E.1). Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2, a foundation
landscape area of a minimum five-foot width is required along the building frontage of Mandalay
Avenue and Baymont Street. The proposal includes a request to eliminate the required
foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. The requirement for foundation
landscaping is at odds with the goal of having the building adjacent to the property line to
activate the street, as envisioned by Beach by Design. The elimination of the foundation
landscaping along Mandalay Avenue is consistent with the adjacent Sandpearl retail sales to
the south of this property. A surface retention pond is provided on the north side of the building,
designed utilizing the building as a vertical wall to provide the required pond capacity. Having
the pond at this location and with this design eliminates the ability to provide landscaping along
the foundation meeting Code requirements. However, the applicant is landscaping this area
with viburnam shrubs and cabbage palms along the east, north and west edges of the top of the
retention pond, which could be viewed as providing an alternative to the requirement. The slope
and bottom of the pond will also be planted with sand cordgrass, which also will soften the north
edge of the building.
A grassed retention area is also proposed on the south side of the site between the
proposed building and the Sandpearl parking garage and retail sales. This southern retention
pond will have vertical walls on three sides, except adjacent to Mandalay Avenue. A viburnam
hedge will be along the top of bank adjacent to Mandalay Avenue. The site will be landscaped
along its perimeter with a viburnam hedge, accented on the west with Indian hawthorn. A
landscape area between the residential lobby entrance on the south side of the building and the
retail portion of the building will be landscaped with a crape myrtle tree and Indian hawthorn
shrubs. A viburnam hedge with cabbage palms will shield the parking spaces closest to
Baymont Street. Cabbage palms, crape myrtle trees and oleander shrubs will accent the
southwest corner of the site. The northwest corner of the site adjacent to Baymont Street will be
accented with cabbage palms and hibiscus shrubs.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or
Community Development 2007-01-16 21
modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain
criteria.
The elimination of the foundation landscaping along the east (Mandalay Avenue) and
north (Baymont Street) sides of the building is included in the Comprehensive Landscape
Program request. As expressed above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has
been found to be consistent with all applicable criteria, as discussed above.
The development proposal includes a trash room adjacent to the elevator off of the
residential lobby. A trash chute is provided to the residential units on each floor to deposit their
trash. This trash room is of adequate size for the number of dwelling units proposed, however,
it may not be adequate for both the residential and retail sales units. The architect has advised
that there are areas at the rear of the retail units available to use as dedicated trash areas
dependent on the types of tenants and their needs. This should be conditioned on any approval
of this case to ensure adequate screened trash facilities are provided for both residential and
retail sales units. A dumpster and recycling staging area on the west side of the driveway at
Baymont Street has been provided to allow truck pickup of dumpsters and recycling bins. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
The applicant is proposing only attached signage for the retail sales units facing
Mandalay Avenue with this development proposal and has indicated that all signage will meet
the City’s Sign Code requirements. It is unlikely, due to the location of the proposed retail sales
portion of the building at a zero front setback on Mandalay Avenue, any freestanding signage
will be necessary. Any approval of this application, however, should include a condition
requiring any future freestanding signage to be a monument-style sign meeting Code
requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
There is an active Code Enforcement case for this property dealing with property
maintenance issues (CDC2006-01332). Such issues should have little bearing on the outcome
of this application and is something the property owner should be addressing.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 0.4 acre is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay
Avenue and Baymont Street; 2) The current use of the site is for a shopping center with retail
sales and a restaurant; 3) The subject property is located within the special area redevelopment
plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Destination Resort” District; 4) The proposal is for the
demolition of the existing commercial building and the construction of a mixed-use building of
nine attached dwellings and 4,350 square-feet of retail floor area and represents the preferred
form of redevelopment, in compliance with the vision in Beach by Design for this area and site
specifically; 5) The retail floor area has been designed to provide for as many as four retail units
facing Mandalay Avenue at a zero front setback in compliance with the goals of the Destination
Resort District of Beach by Design; 6) The proposed setbacks are consistent with existing
setbacks for other projects in close proximity within this urban context; 7) The proposed building
height is 80.17 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and is consistent and compatible with the height
of buildings constructed, under construction or approved within the surrounding area; 8) The
applicant proposes 19 parking spaces on-site, including one handicap space, to accommodate
Community Development 2007-01-16 22
the nine residential units in the building at two parking spaces per unit; 9) The proposal includes
a reduction to required parking from 40 spaces (22 spaces for retail sales; 18 spaces for
attached dwellings) to 19 spaces; 10) A Parking Demand Study has been submitted providing
the justification for the parking reduction; 11) The design of the residential portion of the
proposed building is similar to that reviewed in September 2006; 12) The retail sales portion of
the proposed building is compatible with other projects in the vicinity, including the Sandpearl
project adjacently south; 13) The requested elimination of the foundation landscaping along the
east (Mandalay Avenue) and north (Baymont Street) sides of the building, as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, has been found to be consistent with all applicable
criteria; and 14) There is an active Code Enforcement case for this property regarding property
maintenance issues, which has little bearing on the decision of this application.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the
Community Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the
General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a mixed use (nine attached dwellings and 4,350 square-feet
of retail floor area) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the front (east along Mandalay
Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), reductions to the front (north along
Baymont Street) from 15 feet to 13 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash
staging area), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk), an increase to
building height from 35 feet to 80.17 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), a reduction to required
parking from 40 spaces (22 spaces for retail sales; 18 spaces for attached dwellings) to 19
spaces and a deviation to allow the building within a sight visibility triangle, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, and to eliminate the
required foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, with the
following Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a Declaration
of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a
condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That
all dumpsters be enclosed within trash rooms or screened trash areas, including those for the
commercial units, acceptable to the Planning and Solid Waste Departments, prior to the
issuance of the building permit; 5) That all utility equipment, including but not limited to wireless
communication facilities, electrical and gas meters, etc., be screened from view and/or painted
to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable, prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy; 6) That prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant revise the site
plans to show removal and replacement of the existing parallel parking spaces and existing
sidewalk and reconstruct the sidewalk at a 2% cross slope to bring the finished floor elevation of
the building to 5.00; 7) That, prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant provide/obtain the
following: a) A copy of the approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption; b) Soil borings,
water table elevation and double ring infiltrometer test taken at the design bottom elevation of
Community Development 2007-01-16 23
the detention pond; and c) A City right-of-way permit for any storm work in Mandalay Avenue; 8)
That only elevator equipment or other mechanical rooms be permitted above the sixth floor; 9)
That future signage meet the requirements of the Code and any future freestanding sign be
monument-style, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 10) That the
applicant submit a survey when the sixth floor is constructed verifying this top living floor is less
than 75 feet from the lowest fire vehicle access (street). Should this height be 75 feet or more,
then a high rise fire package will be required; 11) That all Fire Department requirements be met
prior to the issuance of any permits; 12) That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee
be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 13) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid
prior to the issuance of any permits.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Sandpearl building to the west is 150 feet
tall. The retail portion of the Sandpearl complex to the south features three floors of residential
above retail and a maximum height of 48 feet.
Keith Zayac, representative, reviewed previous objections and changes made since the
last meeting. He said this project originally was residential. The applicant’s goal is to comply
with Code. Staff’s primary concern had been the project’s compatibility with Beach by Design,
which required the provision of retail space and public space and locating the building adjacent
to the sidewalk. He said the new applicant met all of staff’s recommendation except for the
provision of retail use. Now, the applicant has revised the proposal again, adding a retail
component on Mandalay Avenue. He said the building’s configuration has not changed. He
reviewed additional disagreement regarding landscaping.
Party status holder Walt Chase said the project is disappointing and will block views
from nearby condominiums. He said he and his neighbors had purchased their condominiums
in good faith that their views would be retained. He said the proposal requests the maximum
development for this property.
Party status holder Walt Touchton said Beach by Design was meant to apply to
everyone and this project should be required to plant landscaping and flowers to beautify the
property. He said Mandalay Beach Club residents oppose this project as the site is too small,
setbacks are too great, the building is too high, and the trash bins will be unsightly. He said the
City is losing its perspective and lacks consideration of current area residents.
Three persons spoke in support and one spoke against the project.
Mr. Wells said staff had made themselves available to everyone regarding the proposal.
He said trash staging, as proposed, is normal for condominium projects, as trash trucks cannot
drive on site. Views are not guaranteed. Everyone has the right to develop their property.
Mr. Chase said taking the human element out of the equation is not right. He said the
City must consider the fairness of the project to current area residents.
Mr. Touchton thanked CDB members for their service. He said Beach by Design is an
important plan for people living on the beach. He said this project does not meet Beach by
Design guidelines not consider nearby residents.
Community Development 2007-01-16 24
Mr. Zayac said while the project originally had a 20-foot setback, the building was moved
closer to Mandalay Avenue to accommodate staff concerns. The building will be set back 15
feet from the property line abutting the Sandpearl, which is set back only five feet from the
property line. He said views are not owned. He said other beach structures are taller. He said
the applicant has developed three different designs. He said this project conforms to Beach by
Design guidelines. He said significant work has gone into the project, which will be located on a
small site. He said project is aesthetically pleasing and an improvement to current conditions.
Mr. Zayac said the trash staging area, required by staff, is a temporary area for trash collection.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Case FLD2006-10057 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on the evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
motion
approval as listed. The was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued. It was stated that the property owner has the right to develop the
property and that the project meets Beach by Design guidelines, including retail uses.
Appreciation was expressed that a portion of the building is stepped to the west side for the
pool. Concerns were expressed that the Mandalay Beach Club is so close and the style of the
buildings is not harmonious, the request includes a significant height variance, floor plans are
poorly laid out, and the design does not take advantage of the building’s vertical envelope.
Mr. Wells said zoning permits heights from 35 to 100 feet while Beach by Design permits
heights up to 150 feet. Concerns were expressed that the Sandpearl’s 5-foot setback is
detrimental to the Mandalay Beach Club and that this project’s setbacks and distance between
buildings are inappropriate and inadequate. It was stated that the applicant had done all they
could with the site.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Fritsch, Milam, Coates, Tallman, and Chair
carried
Gildersleeve voted “Aye”; Members Dame and Behar voted “Nay.” Motion . Alternate
Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
7. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-06038– 1202 Sunset Drive, and 1204 Sunset Drive, and 300 Palm Bluff
Street
Owner/Applicant: Wisne Development, LLC.
Representatives: Sherry Bagley, Woods Consulting (1714 Country Road 1, Suite 22,
Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail:
billwoods@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 0.482-acre lot located on the west side of Sunset Road approximately 60 feet
north of Palm Bluff Street.
Atlas Page: 268B.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 999 square-foot multi-use dock with six
slips for the residents of Palm Bluff Preserve subdivision, located in the Low Medium Density
Residential District, with an increase to the maximum dock length from 139.9 feet to 187.2 feet,
under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Multi-use dock with six slips for eight detached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); North Greenwood Association, Inc (Jonathon Wade, 1201
Community Development 2007-01-16 25
Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association (Kathy
Milam, 1828 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
The 0.482-acre property is on the west side of Sunset Drive, approximately 60 feet north
of Palm Bluff Street. The site, with approximately 140 feet of frontage on Sunset Drive, formerly
was developed with three detached dwellings. On November 12, 2004, the DRC approved, with
conditions, Cases FLS2004-09064, PLT2004-00014, a proposal to plat nine residential lots and
construct eight new-detached dwelling units. Building Permit BCP2005-06418 has been
submitted to construct site improvements. Detached dwellings to the north, south, and west
dominate the area around this site. Attached dwellings (apartments) exist to the south and east
of this site on both sides of Osceola Avenue. The Intracoastal Waterway is west of the site.
The development proposal consists of the construction of a 999 square-foot, six wet slip
multi-use dock as an amenity to an approved 8-unit detached dwelling development on the
upland portion of lot 7, lot 8 and the pool and recreation area also know as Tract “B” of the
subject property. The docks will be accessed via a common recreation area located in the
center of the subdivision.
Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is
defined as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development,
condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development.
However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use
dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square-feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. As the
proposed dock exceeds this threshold (999 square-feet), the dock is treated as commercial and
is subject to the relevant review criteria.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3-
601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code state that docks shall be located no closer to
any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to 10% of the width of
the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line is 186.61 feet; therefore
the proposed dock must be set back from the north and south property lines a minimum of 18.6
feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from the north and south property lines in excess of
this requirement with distances of 55.7 feet and 70.44 feet, respectively.
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line
or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 139.96
feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 187.2 feet. The same threshold that applies to
length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 187.2 feet.
The dock has a proposed width of 59.5 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved.
The proposed docks are consistent with existing docks and meet today’s Codes; wherein the
additional length requested takes into account the water depth at mean low water.
The Harbormaster indicated that the proposed dock is in keeping with the character and
scope of the docks in adjacent properties and is large only due to County requirements to be in
sufficient water depth to not disturb the benthic organisms and sea grasses which may be in the
Community Development 2007-01-16 26
area. Staff saw no problem with navigation or access to the docks of adjoining properties that
would cause any problem with its proposed design, size, and location.
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for
commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the
applicant and are included with their application. The DRC reviewed the application and
supporting materials at its meeting of December 7, 2006, and deemed the development
proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.482 acre is located on the west side of Sunset Drive,
approximately 60 feet north of Palm Bluff Street; 2) That the property was approved on
November 12, 2004, by the DRC for the development of the upland with eight detached
dwellings; 3) That a building permit has been submitted to construct the site improvements; 4)
That the proposal consists of the construction of a 999 square-foot, six wet slip multi-use dock
as an amenity for the an eight unit detached dwelling development; 5) That due to the design
and orientation of the docks, for slips 6 – 8 the maximum length of boats is 20 feet; 6) That the
proposed docks comply with the setback, width, and length standards of Section 3-601.C.3.h of
the Community Development Code; 7) That the development proposal is compatible with dock
patterns of the surrounding area; and 8) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement
issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial
dock review criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code; and 2) That
the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-
913.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit a 999 square-foot multi-use dock with six slips for the residents
of Palm Bluff Preserve subdivision, located in the Low Medium Density Residential District, with
an increase to the maximum dock length from 139.9 feet to 187.2 feet, under the provisions of
Section 3-601, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be
for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the detached dwellings located within
Palm Bluff Preserve and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the individual
detached dwelling unit owners; 2) That with this approval of docks that may be used by the
owners of Lots 7 and 8 and that deviate from the requirements of CDC Code Section 3-601.C.,
the owners of Lots 7 and 8 may not in the future request a deviation from the requirements of
CDC Code Section 3-601.C. for docks on their property; 3) That all Fire Department
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 4) That a copy of the SWFWMD
and/or FDEP Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State
submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement
of construction.
See page 32 for motion to approve.
8. Case: FLD2006-09052 – 19135 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: United Dominion Realty Trust
Representative: Brent Epps (400 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219; phone: 804-
780-2691x1218; fax: 804-788-0635; e-mail: bepps@udrt.com).
Community Development 2007-01-16 27
Location: 18.75 acres located on the east side of US Highway 19 North at the
intersection of Harn Boulevard and US Highway 19 North.
Atlas Page: 310A.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to redevelop an existing attached dwelling complex in
the Medium High Density Residential District with a reduction from two parking spaces to 1.92
parking spaces (an increase from the existing 1.90 parking space), a reduction to the waterfront
(east) setback from 25 feet to eight feet (to stairwell/entryway), a reduction to the waterfront
(east) setback from 15 feet to two feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (north & south)
setbacks from 10 feet to five feet (to existing parking/drive aisles), an increase in fence height
from three feet to six feet, as a Residential Infill Project, per Section 2-404.F. Also included is a
reduction to an existing perimeter landscape buffer along the side (north and south) setbacks
from 10 feet to five feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
The 18.75-acre subject property is on the east side of the intersection of US Highway 19
North and Harn Boulevard, and consists of 37 two- and three-story buildings with a single story
office and a single story clubhouse. As they presently exist, the buildings are in compliance with
setbacks from all property lines. The existing parking/drive aisles are not in compliance with
setback regulations and exist at five feet where ten feet is required. The existing parking is non-
conforming with regards to the minimum number of spaces required at 1.90 spaces per dwelling
unit where two spaces per unit is required. The subject site has two unique features not
commonly found in Clearwater. The first is that the site is accessed via an improved driveway
that runs parallel to U.S. Highway 19 North at the intersection of Harn Boulevard. The other is a
drainage feature that runs along the northern property line from U.S. Highway 19 North to
Tampa Bay.
The development proposal is estimated at $7,500,000, which exceeds 25% of the
valuation of the buildings according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser and therefore
triggers parking and landscaping to comply with current Code requirements.
The redevelopment consists of two components. The first component is updating and
re-imaging buildings in the apartment complex, razing two apartment buildings, converting
several units, relocating a new clubhouse, swimming pool, and office, and installing an entrance
roundabout and fence. The majority of the proposal consists of converting 24 four-bedroom
units to 48 one-bedroom units for a gain of 24 units. The conversion involves creation of
several new entrance stairways and walkways, which require a reduction to the waterfront (east)
setback from 25 feet to eight feet to stairwell/entryway and a reduction to the waterfront (east)
setback from 15 feet to two feet to sidewalks. The demolition will remove buildings 1 and 2 for a
reduction of 16 units and remove the existing clubhouse and swimming pool. The clubhouse
and swimming pool will be relocated to the front of the property where buildings 1 and 2 are
located. In addition, the leasing office, now located at the rear of the property, will be relocated
to the front of the property in the new clubhouse. The existing leasing office will become a
second clubhouse. The proposed conversion, demolition, and additions will provide additional
residential units (apartments) to the area and an improved and more efficient site layout. The
design of existing buildings is cold in appearance as the concrete colored stucco and linear
Community Development 2007-01-16 28
façades lack architectural detail. The proposed façades and new entrance stairways are a good
integration of surrounding architecture and offer an appealing and interesting façade that has
depth and warmth.
The second component consists of site improvements including parking, landscaping,
fencing, and signage. The proposed parking improvements include decreasing the existing side
setbacks to pavement, on the north and south of the property, from 10 feet to five feet. This
portion of the proposal is to allow the existing paved drive aisles, landscaping and trees along
these perimeters of the property to remain and/or be upgraded, greatly improving the
appearance of the property. The proposal also includes a reduction to the minimum number of
parking spaces required from two parking spaces per unit to 1.92 parking spaces per unit, which
is an increase from the existing 1.90 parking spaces per unit. This will provide for a net gain of
18 parking spaces. The proposed addition of a six foot tall decorative wrought iron fence
(greater in height than three feet) requires that a three-foot wide landscape buffer be provided
between the fence and any right-of-way. The fence proposed along the front of the site parallels
the access road adjacent to U.S. Highway 19. No signage improvements are proposed at this
time.
The proposal also includes a request for two deviations from the landscape code. The
first deviation is a reduction to an existing perimeter landscape buffer along the side (north)
setback from 10 feet to five feet. The second deviation is a reduction to an existing perimeter
landscape buffer along the side (south) setbacks from 10 feet to five feet. Both deviations are to
allow existing landscaping and drive aisles to remain that cannot otherwise be revised to meet
the parking and landscape codes concurrently. The proposal compensates for this area by
doubling the landscape buffer further west along U.S. Highway 19.
The proposed increase to the height of the decorative wrought iron fence to six feet with
the accompanied landscaping will create an interesting and inviting entrance to the site.
Pursuant to Section 2-404, attached dwellings shall require the provision of 2.0 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Therefore, the 336 existing attached dwelling units require a total of
672 parking spaces and presently 639 parking spaces exist. As previously stated, the
development proposal includes the provision of 40 additional parking spaces to be located
where the swimming pool and the clubhouse existed. However, through bringing the parking
spaces into compliance with regards to minimum size requirements, there is a loss of 22 parking
spaces for a total net gain of 18 parking spaces for a total of 657 parking spaces for 344
attached dwelling units. The proposed parking improvement will not meet the requirements of
Section 2-404; however its provision will result in a substantial reduction to the existing parking
nonconformity. It is further noted that as Residential Infill Project, the minimum parking
requirement may be reduced to a ratio of one space per dwelling unit [ref. Section 2-404]. As
proposed, parking will be provided for the 344 attached dwelling units at a rate of 1.92 parking
spaces per dwelling unit, which can be supported.
The requested reductions to the minimum side setbacks will not result in any greater
encroachments by the pavement than occur presently. The waterfront setback reductions to
pavement and the stairways allows for the continuation of the new façade improvements to be
carried out over the majority of the buildings. Further, the requests are consistent with the
Flexibility Criteria for Residential Infill Projects as set forth in Section 2-404.F. In addition the
proposal includes a request to reduce the north and south perimeter landscape buffers.
Community Development 2007-01-16 29
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, a 10-foot wide
landscape buffer is required along the side (north and south) property lines. The applicant has
requested a reduction to this landscape buffer at five feet in order to accommodate an existing
landscape area and drive aisle. The proposal has supplemented additional landscaping along
US Highway 19 and along the waterfront (east) to balance this reduction, which can be
supported. The remaining landscape requirements are in compliance pursuant to Section 3-
1202.D.1.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria.
The development proposal includes a request through the submittal of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program to reduce the required side (north and south) landscape buffers from 10
feet to five feet. The requested reductions allow the existing perimeter landscape buffers to
remain at five feet. This preserves the heavy vegetation and trees that exist along the north
perimeter landscape buffer to remain. The proposal includes providing 100% shrub coverage
along all of the perimeter landscape buffers. All buffers will be brought into compliance with
minimum Landscape Code or through the Comprehensive Landscape Program to provide no
less than five different species to create diverse and interesting landscaping on the entire site.
In comparison to what landscaping exists on site, the development proposal will be a
substantial improvement. The landscape plan indicates that the majority of the existing trees
and landscaping will be retained, and additional landscape materials will be provided that
include: Sabal Palms, Southern Magnolia, Live Oak, and Red Maple trees as well as
Allamanda, Dwarf Yapon Holly, Podocarpus, Indian Hawthorn, Azalea, and Viburnum.
The only issue with regard to the landscape plan is that the proposal includes the
removal of a 52-inch oak tree that could not be developed around. The applicant and staff
considered several alternatives but concluded the solution that created the least hardship was
to remove the tree.
The signage on the site exceeds minimum code and will be updated conditionally as a
part of this redevelopment effort.
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.F.1 of the Community
Development Code for a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project: The redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development is impractical without deviations from the following
development standards: the side setback reductions and the reduction to the north and south
perimeter landscape buffers. Bringing the setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers into
compliance would create an accessibility issue for the patrons, garbage pickup, and emergency
personnel by narrowing the required 24-foot wide two-way drive aisle.
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.F.5 of the Community
Development Code for a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project: The redevelopment of the
parcel upgrades the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development by providing
much needed additional residential dwelling units. In addition the proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Community Development 2007-01-16 30
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.F.6 of the Community
Development Code for a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project: The design of the proposed
Residential Infill Redevelopment Project enhances the community character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The form
and function of the site and building improvements will provide a more aesthetically pleasing
appearance for the subject site and the immediate area.
Pursuant to the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.F.7 of the Community
Development Code for a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project: Flexibility with regard to,
required setbacks, off-street parking, and the six-foot tall decorative fencing are justified by the
benefits to community character. The proposal is compatible with the immediate vicinity and the
aesthetical improvements to the site and buildings will enhance redevelopment in the area and
the City of Clearwater as a whole.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on October 17, 2006, and
deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject property totals 816,760 square-feet (18.75 acres) in lot
area; 2) The subject property is zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and a
Future Land Use Plan category of Residential High (RH); 3) The development proposal exceeds
25% of the valuation of the buildings according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser; 4)
The subject property is currently nonconforming with regard to the minimum parking space
requirement; 5) The existing pavement is currently nonconforming with regard to minimum
setback requirements; 6) The relief from the setback requirements sought by the development
proposal is permissible as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; 7)
The relief from the fencing requirement sought by the development proposal is permissible as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404; 8) The relief from the parking
requirement sought by the development proposal is permissible as a Residential Infill Project
under the provisions of Section 2-404; and 9) The relief from the landscape requirements
sought by the development proposal is permissible as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Conclusions of Law: 1) The development proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Residential Infill Project as per Section 2-404.F; 2) The development
proposal complies with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria
as per Section 3-913; and 3) The development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area
and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to redevelop an existing attached dwelling complex in the Medium High
Density Residential District with a reduction from two parking spaces to 1.92 parking spaces (an
increase from the existing 1.90 parking space), a reduction to the waterfront (east) setback from
25 feet to eight feet (to stairwell/entryway), a reduction to the waterfront (east) setback from 15
feet to two feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (north & south) setbacks from 10 feet to five
Community Development 2007-01-16 31
feet (to existing parking/drive aisles), an increase in fence height from three feet to six feet, as a
Residential Infill Project, per Section 2-404.F. Also included is a reduction to an existing
perimeter landscape buffer along the side (north and south) setbacks from 10 feet to five feet as
a Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Section 3-1202.G. with the following Conditions of
Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual
elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 2) That the
exterior building renovations need to be coordinated to create architectural uniformity (i.e.:
painted and trimmed in similar colors) with the other buildings on the property; 3) That all Fire
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That all Traffic
Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 5) 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; 6) That all existing and any future signage must meet the
requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the buildings 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; 7) That prior to the issuance of a building
permit, all waste disposal containers which serve the attached dwelling use are located within a
landscaped enclosed structure; 8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide a copy
of an approved right-of-way permit from FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation); 9) That
prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable water and sewer impact fees for
construction of new clubhouse be collected;10) That prior to the issuance of a building permit,
provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption; 11) That prior to the
issuance of a building permit, a Tree Preservation Plan be provided prepared by a certified
arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture.
This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the
critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how the developer proposes to
address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other
data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of
the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any
other pertinent information relating to tree preservation; 12) Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, five sets of as-built drawings be submitted signed and sealed by a professional
engineer registered in the State of Florida. Public Works/Engineering to field inspect as-built
drawings for accuracy; 13) That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of
CDB approval (by January 16, 2008); and 14) That the final Certificate of Occupancy must be
obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Member Dame moved to grant a 12-month extension of time for FLD2004-02013A and
moved to approve Cases FLD2002-07021B, FLD2004-07055A, FLD2006-10054, FLD2006-
06038, and FLD2006-09052 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record,
including the applications and the Staff Reports, and herby adopt the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel
Dennehy did not vote.
9. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-10058 – 205 N Belcher Road, and 2212-2216 Drew Street, and 2205
Norman Drive
Community Development 2007-01-16 32
Owner/Applicant: Alice H. Nisk & Ronald P. Nisk, As Trustees of the Alice H. Nisk
Revocable Trust, dated 11/26/91.
Representatives: E.D. Armstrong III Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365; e-mail: linda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 1.09 acres located at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street.
Atlas Page: 281A.
Zoning Districts: Commercial (C) District, Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District and Office (O) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit an automobile service station in the
Commercial (C) District contiguous to a parcel of land zoned residential with a reduction to the
front (south) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to air/vacuum pad), reductions to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10
feet to six feet (to sidewalk), and to permit off-street parking in the Office (O) District with
outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn with a reduction to the front (west) setback
from 25 feet to 18 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions
of Section 2-704.C; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District with outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn as Residential
Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; (3) to permit a wall six feet high in the
front setback in the Office (O) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under
the provisions of Section 2-1004.B. and (4) to permit a wall six feet high in the front setback in
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-204.E. (Related to ANX2006-10039).
Proposed Use: Automobile Service Station.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Skycrest Neighbors (Joanna Siskin, 121 Crest Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Planner Scott Kurleman reviewed the request. The 1.09-acre site is at the northeast
corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street. Both Belcher Road and Drew Street are heavily
traveled roadways. The southeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street is developed with
school/office facilities (Skycrest Christian School), the southwest corner is developed with an
Automobile Service Station (Hess) and the northwest corner is developed with a Medical Office
(Florida Dental Centers). The subject site at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew
Street currently has a used car sales lot, a vacant office building, and a duplex present. The
parcels zoned C 2 and R 4 currently are in unincorporated Clearwater. Additionally, there is a
billboard on the site.
The proposal is for an Automobile Service Station (7 Eleven). This proposal is related to
ANX2006-10039. Upon annexation, the site will have (C) Commercial, (LMDR) Low Medium
Density Residential and the existing (O) Office zoning. The (LMDR) parcel will contain three off-
street parking spaces and stormwater facilities, the (O) Office parcel will also contain three off-
street parking spaces and stormwater facilities and the (C) Commercial parcel will contain the
Automobile Service Station.
Community Development 2007-01-16 33
The proposal includes a single story 3,030 square-foot convenience store, with a height
of 20 feet 10 inches where 25 feet is the maximum height allowed. The building will be on the
eastern portion of the parcel, with two primary façades one facing Belcher Road and the other
facing Drew Street.
Pursuant to Section 2-703.D.1.of the Community Development Code parcels proposed
for development as an Automobile Service Station may not be contiguous to a parcel of land
designated as residential in the zoning atlas. However, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, one may seek relief from this requirement. While the site will be
contiguous to a residentially zoned parcel at the extreme northeast corner, it will be buffered
with a six-foot high masonry wall and very heavily landscaped. Currently, there is no wall or
landscape buffering the existing used car lot from the residential properties. In addition, Section
2-703.D.1 precludes overnight, outdoor storage of automobiles. The proposed use will involve
fuel sales and retail sales of convenience items only. Further, only two service bays may front
on a public street. There are no service bays proposed with this development. Per Section 8-
102 of the Community Development Code, an automobile service station may also include
facilities for lubricating, minor vehicle repairs, and vehicle service. These uses perhaps were
the drive for the condition that automobile service stations not be contiguous to residential
property; therefore, as a condition of approval this facility may not provide lubricating, minor
vehicle repairs, or vehicle service.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south) setback on Drew Street from 25
feet to 15 feet to the air and vacuum pad. The parking lot itself (south side) will be located from
16.3 feet to 20 feet from the property line. Additionally, there is a request to reduce the front
(west) setback on Belcher Road from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot. Further, there is a
request to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet to a sidewalk. The last
setback request is to reduce the front (west) setback for the off-street parking lot in the Office
(O) District from 25 feet to 18 feet. The entire width of all the reduced setbacks will be the
heavily landscaped with a tiered effect. Both Section 2-703 and 2-1003 permit the front setback
to be reduced to 15 feet for parking lots provided the land area is not sufficient to accommodate
the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved design and appearance
and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. Absent these reduced front setbacks to
the parking lot, the drive aisle widths would not meet code requirements and the reductions
have resulted in an improved design and appearance by the addition of unique fenestration,
changes in the horizontal building planes, and details such cornices, stringcourses, and
awnings. The proposed interior landscaping exceeds the requirements by 50% and the tree
requirement is exceeded by 100%. The request to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet
to six feet is for a sidewalk to be used by employees to access the rear service door. The
structure itself will meet the required 10 feet setback.
Pursuant to Section 2-204.C. of the Community Development Code, the parcel proposed
for off-street parking must be contiguous to the parcel for the non-residential use, Automobile
Service Station, which will be served by the off-street parking spaces. The LMDR parcel is
contiguous to Commercial parcel. In addition, the LMDR parcel must have a common boundary
of at least 25 feet. The LMDR parcel has a common boundary of 56 feet on the south and 102
feet on the west. Further, no off-street parking spaces are located in the required front setback
for detached dwellings in the LMDR district or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten
feet of a side or rear lot line. The required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR
Community Development 2007-01-16 34
District is 25 feet. The proposed parking spaces begin at 53 feet in the front and 16 feet on the
side. Additionally, the off-street parking spaces shall be screened by a wall or fence of at least
three feet in height and is landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge or non-
deciduous vine. The off- street parking is screened by a wall of six feet in height that is
architecturally compatible and complimentary to the principal structure and is landscaped on the
external side with a continuous viburnum hedge. Lastly, all parking spaces are required to be
surface parking. All parking spaces are surface parking.
Pursuant to Section 2-1003.G. of the Community Development Code, all off-street
parking spaces on the Office parcel shall be screened from residentially zoned or used
properties by a wall or fence of at least four feet in height and landscaped on the external side
with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine. As proposed, the off-street parking spaces are
screened from the residentially zoned and used properties by a wall of six feet in height that is
architecturally compatible and complimentary to the principal structure and is landscaped on the
external side with a continuous hedge in a landscape buffer of over 14 feet in width.
Additionally, all access and necessary stacking space shall be based on the size and design of
the parking lot as determined by the Community Development Coordinator. All access and
stacking requirements have been met. Further, all parking spaces are required to be surface
parking. All parking spaces are surface parking.
Pursuant to both Section 2-204.C. and 2-1003.G. all outdoor lighting for off-street
parking spaces shall be automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 p.m. However, the applicant
has applied for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and Residential Infill Project to
seek relief from this requirement. The applicant has requested that the outdoor lighting remain
on from dusk to dawn, as this is a 24-hour, seven-day retail use. This request is necessitated
for the safety of customers frequenting the business after 9:00 p.m. The applicant has
submitted a photometric light plan showing low levels of light output on the residential property.
Additionally, “House Side” shields on the east side of the light fixtures are proposed at a 45-
degree angle facing the residential property. Further, the photometric plan does not
compensate for the proposed shields, thus foot-candle output levels will be even lower than
what is depicted on the light plan.
Pursuant to Section 2-703 of the Community Development Code, the minimum off-street
parking spaces required for Automobile Service Stations within the Commercial (C) District is
five per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the proposed 3,030
square-foot building will require 16 parking spaces and has provided for 18.
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 proposal includes the provision of a dumpster
enclosure located in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The enclosure consists of six-foot
high concrete block side and rear walls and six-foot high swing gates. The mechanical
equipment will be located on the roof completely screened from public streets and abutting
properties.
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 under-grounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
Community Development 2007-01-16 35
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 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 proposed landscape has exceeded all requirements of Section 3-1202 of the
Community Development Code. There are over 700 shrubs, 1,000 groundcover plants, 80
trees, and 14 palms on the proposed plan. The plan proposes generous tiered landscape
buffers including the corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street where the buffer is up to 40 feet
wide. The buffer and retention pond on the north along Norman Drive provide many areas of
over 50 feet in depth of green space before the pavement begins. Generous amounts of space
have been devoted to foundation landscaping and interior landscape requirements also.
There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.09-acre subject property is located at the northeast corner
of Belcher Road and Drew Street; 2) That the 0.206-acre northwest portion of the overall
property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG)
Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the 0.172-acre northwest portion of the overall property
is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of
Clearwater, and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the
Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-10039, item F1 on this
January 16, 2007, CDB agenda); 4) That the 0.713-acre southern portion of overall property is
currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of
Clearwater, and is being assigned the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General
(CG) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-10039, item F1 on this January 16, 2007,
CDB agenda); 5) That the proposal includes the construction of a 3,030 square-foot, one-story
convenience store and fuel pumps within the Commercial (C) District, with associated
nonresidential off-street parking lots and retention areas on the northeast and northwest
portions of the site within the within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and
Office (O) District respectively; 6) That reductions to setbacks to pavement are proposed as part
of the automobile service station development; 7) That the proposed installation of a six-foot
high wall with landscaping on the external side adjacent to existing detached dwellings will
provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 8) That the development
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts;
and 9) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 for the Commercial District, Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for
the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community
Development Code; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria
Community Development 2007-01-16 36
as per Sections 2-1004.B and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; and 3) That the
development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per
Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application (1) to permit an automobile service station in the Commercial (C)
District contiguous to a parcel of land zoned residential with a reduction to the front (south)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to air/vacuum pad), reductions to the front (west) setback from
25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet
(to sidewalk), and to permit off-street parking in the Office (O) District with outdoor lighting
remaining on from dusk to dawn with a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18
feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-
704.C; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District with outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn as Residential Infill
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; (3) to permit a wall six feet high in the front
setback in the Office (O) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Section 2-1004.B.and (4) to permit a wall six feet high in the front setback in the
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-204.E, for the property located at 205 and 213 North Belcher Road,
2212-2216 Drew Street and 2205 Norman Drive, with Conditions of Approval: 1) That approval
of this application is subject to the annexation of the site under Case ANX2006-10039; 2) That a
Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the
final design of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as
modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 4) That all colors proposed for the building and
wall be approved by staff prior to issuance of any permits; 5) That any future freestanding sign
be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign
Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 6) That a six-foot
high wall with a lintel footer system be installed along the east and north property lines; 7) That
this use not engage in lubricating service, minor repairs, or vehicle service; 8) That the existing
billboard be removed prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That a right-of-way permit be
issued by Pinellas County to install landscaping in their right-of-way; 10) That all landscaping,
including foundation and interior requirements be installed per the plan submitted to (or as
modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 11) That all outdoor lighting have shields to
eliminate glare and light intrusion onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way; and 12) That all
proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground.
Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of-way
shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits
with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and
number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering
Department prior to the commencement of work.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said the applicant had not applied yet for a sign
permit.
Ed Armstrong, representative, reviewed the request. He said the project will upgrade the
site significantly. He said the applicant has made a concerted effort to contact neighbors, solicit
feedback, and be responsive to requests. The project also provides extensive buffering and
landscaping.
Community Development 2007-01-16 37
Keith Zayac, project engineer, reviewed project elements, stating the Code had dictated
the project’s orientation. The northern portion of the property had to be used for pavement.
Driveways are located as far as possible from the Drew Street/Belcher Road intersection, with
right turn ingress, and right turn egress to eliminate traffic concerns near Norman Drive. The
application provides as large a setback as possible from the adjacent residential neighborhood. A
six-foot high wall will be wrapped around the pond, parking, and building. These elements partly
resulted from neighbor input. Landscaping on the site’s north side includes trees, hedges, and
groundcover to block neighbors’ views and create visual interest. The applicant is saving as many
trees as possible. In response to a question, Mr. Zayac said the wall around the building was
added to the original site plan. He said the project’s design considers neighbors, traffic, and
safety.
Mr. Armstrong said one development requirement for this property is to mitigate
stormwater impacts. He said the abutting neighbor, the Spine Care Center, and adjacent church
support this project. He said the applicant meets criteria in the Code and all conditions in the Staff
Report are acceptable to the applicant.
In response to questions regarding neighborhood meetings, David Morris, representative,
said two neighborhood meetings were held prior to the DRC meeting. He said neighborhood
questions related to landscaping, buffering, impacts on local species, entryway improvements,
dumpster locations, etc. He said the site plan was changed to address neighborhood concerns.
He said the applicant twice mailed comment cards to neighborhood residents. Of six comment
cards returned, none was negative. He estimated 14 people attended each meeting.
Two persons spoke in opposition to the application.
Mr. Kurleman said the City has a landscape reinspection program. The project’s ingress
and egress are appropriate. The property is zoned for commercial use.
Fred Mordberg, representative, said his firm had performed a traffic study using
recognized procedures. He said this project is similar to the nearby Hess Station, which also
serves as a convenience store. He said the project’s ingress and egress are appropriate for
westbound and northbound traffic. He said the traffic study concluded that 14 new trips would
occur from the project’s driveways during peak hours.
Mr. Armstrong said it is unfair to predict that this project will encourage crime, as the site
will be lighted and activity will limit vagrancy. He said no evidence has been presented indicating
that the project will not meet Code. He said the applicant is amenable to traffic calming if
requested.
Discussion ensued. It was felt it is unlikely that traffic will cut through Norman Drive. It
was commented that this well-designed project improves the site’s current condition and will
reduce vagrancy.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Case FLD2006-10058 on today’s Consent Agenda,
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
Community Development 2007-01-16 38
motioncarried
with conditions of approval as listed. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
10. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: ANX2006-10039 – 205 N Belcher Road (2212-2216 Drew & 2205 Norman Drive)
Representatives: E.D. Armstrong III Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365; e-mail: linda@jpfirm.com.
Owner: Alice H. Nisk and Ronald P. Nisk, as Trustees of the Alice H. Nisk Revocable
Trust, dated 11/26/91 (2380 Campbell Road. Clearwater, FL 33765-1503; phone: 727-
799-2059).
Location: A 0.885-acre property consisting of 4 parcels of land located on the northeast
corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street and south of Norman Drive.
Atlas Page: 281A
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.885-acre of property, consisting of 4 parcels, into the City of Clearwater at
the request of the property owner;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) & Commercial General (CG)
Categories (County) to Residential Low (RL) & Commercial General (CG) Categories (City of
Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-4, One, Two & Three Family Residential District & C-2, General Retail
Commercial and Limited Services Districts (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
& Commercial (C) Districts (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Two attached dwelling units, office and retail.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
Member Behar moved to accept Cky Ready as an expert witness in the fields of
environmental planning, comprehensive planning, industrial development, historic preservation,
motion
growth management, and Main Street revitalization. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously.
This annexation involves a 0.89-acre property consisting of four parcels, located on the
northeast corner of Drew Street and Belcher Road. The parcels involved in this annexation are
addressed 2212, 2214, and 2216 Drew Street and 2205 Norman Drive. If the related FLD2006-
10058 case is approved, the entire site will be readdressed as 205 N. Belcher Road. The
property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the south, east and west; therefore, the
proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to
voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary
sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a
Future Land Use Plan designations of Residential Low (RL) and Commercial General (CG) and
zoning categories of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) & Commercial (C).
The applicant receives water service from Pinellas County. Sanitary sewer service will
be provided by the City of Clearwater and the City has adequate capacity to serve this property.
The property is currently on septic. City of Clearwater water and sanitary sewer lines are
located in both the Drew Street and N. Belcher Road right-of-ways. The applicant has not paid
Community Development 2007-01-16 39
.
.
.
the City's sewer impact fee and assessment fee and is aware of the additional costs to extend
City sewer service to this property.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation
of 0.89-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) & Commercial General (CG)
Future Land Use Plan classifications; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and
Commercial (C) zoning classifications pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Ed Armstrong, representative, said this application is consistent with City and County
zoning and the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) has opined that it can provide all necessary
infrastructure.
One person spoke in opposition to the application.
Mr. Armstrong said this annexation would not contribute to the homeless problem in the
area, and that all criteria in the Code have been met.
Discussion ensued with comments that the proposed annexation is unrelated to
neighborhood problems with the homeless.
Member Milam moved to recommend approval of Case ANX2006-10039 on today's
Consent Agenda, 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 and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
Other Items not on the Agenda
One board member remarked that staff's Florida Planning Officials Handbook would be
a good tool for a training session for local planning officials and Council.
F. ADJOURN
~l1dt/)J7~
Board Reporter
\
"
,
\
\
\
The meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m.
Community Development 2007-01-16
40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 16,2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1 ):
1.
Case: FLI)2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
/
/
,,/
L,~ Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Cases: FLD2002-07021B and FLD2004-07055A - 601 Old Coachman Road and 2450 Drew Street
/
,// Yes no
,
2. Case: FLD2006-10054 - 300, 316 and 326 Harnden Drive
Yes
L
3.
Case: FLD2006-10057 - 490 Mandalay Avenue
A:
~
no
4.
Case: FLD2006-09052 - 19135 US Highway 19 N
h:.
"
no
5.
Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
Aes no
6.
Case: FLD2006-06038- 1202 Sunset Drive
~es
no
7.
Case: FLD2006-10058 - 205 N Belcher Road
hes no
/-
,.
Level Three Application (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX?10039 - 205 N Belcher Road
// Yes no
./
DIRECTOR'S ITEM Utem 1):
1. Time Extension - FLD200~51 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes / no
2. Time Extension - FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive.
Yes
~
/
3. Time Extension - FLD2004-020 13A - 100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 S. Gulfview Blvd.
Yes ~
/
{
/ ~
Signa_.i,) r2cr A ~ Da'eo I { I \1 '" 1-
S:\Planning partment\C D B\CDB, property investigatiOn check list.doc'
2
,
.
5.
6.
7.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 16,2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
C7D2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1.
Ca~es:p2002-07021B and FLD2004-07055A - 601 Old Coachman Road and 2450 Drew Street
tI5( Yes 'no
2.
Case: FLD2006-10054 - 300, 316 and 326 Harnden Drive
v(s
no
3.
C~2006-1 0057 - 490 Mandalay Avenue
Yes no
4.
Case: FLD2006-09052 -19135 US Highway 19 N
Yes
no
Case: ~2006-1 0056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
V Yes no
Case: FLD2006-06038- 1202 Sunset Drive
V Yes
no
ca'706-10058 ~ 205 N Belcher Road
Yes no
Level Three ADDlication (Item 1)
1. Case: ANX2006-10039 - 205 N Belcher Road
~Yes no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1):
1. Time Extert'sion - FLD2005-05051 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard.
1./' Yes no
2. Time Extens~- FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive.
~es no
3. Time E/,- FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive and 201,215 and 219 S. Gulfview Blvd.
Yes no
Date, / /; 5~ (..
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
i'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 16,2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1 ):
1.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
Level Two Application
Yes
"
/'
1/
no
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Cases: FLD2002-07021B and FLD2004-07055A - 601 Old Coachman Road and 2450 Drew Street
/ Yes no
2. Case: FLD2006-10054 - 300, 316 and 326 Harnden Drive
V' Yes
no
3. Case: FLD2006-10057 -490 Mandalay Avenue
~es no.
~ ti. lI'fl pl u~
4. Case: FLD2006-09052 -19135 US Highway 19 N
-V Yes
no
5. Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
Yes V no
6. Case: FLD2006-06038- 1202 Sunset Drive
~ Yes
no
7. Case: FLD2006-10058 - 205 N Belcher Road
/' Yes no
Level Three Application (Item 1)
1. Case: ANJ2006-10039 - 205 N Belcher Road
V Yes no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM atem 1 ):
1. Time E;xt~sion - FLD2005-05051 - 445 Harnden Drive and 504 South Gulfview Boulevard.
V Yes no
2. Time Extension - FLD2005-07061 - 229 Coronado Drive.
V' Yes no
3. Time Extension - FLD2004-02013A - 100 Coronado Drive and 201,215 and 219 S. Gulfview Blvd.
V Yes no
Date: I - I --;' -- (!) 7
B\CDB, property investiga . n check list.doc
2
..
.
r
3.
4.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(Continuedfrom December 19,2006)
V<:s no
Level Two Application
2.
Case: FL 2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
Level Two Application
no
3.
Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
(Contin~rom January 16,2007
~Yes no
Level Two Application
1.
Level Two ADplications (Items 1-4)
Cases: F~006-09053/TDR2006-09031 ~ 635 Mandalay Avenue
~es no
2.
2006-11062 - 2316,2346,2352,2358,2364 and 2370 Drew Street
no
Case: FL~-11 061 - 1765 and 1771 Gulf To Bay Boulevard and 515 Florida Avenue
~es no
Case: FLD20 1-0 I 001 & Case: DV A2007 -00001 - 229 and 30 I South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300
and 304 Co nado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea) Level Two & Level Three
no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM Utem 1):
1. Time E--~ion - FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard.
/~;s no
2.
Time E~sion - FLD2005-07065 - 64 and 566 Bay Esplanade.
_ Yes no
1
,.
3.
Time Exten~n - FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade.
_ ./Yes no
4.
Time Ext sion - FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning De
entlC D BIt. property ;nve'tigation~~~~ H"d::/7^>/ ? 1-
2
t
..
,..'
3.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(Continuedfrom December 19,2006)
-i- V es
Level Two Application
no
2.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
Level Two Application
4ves
no
3.
Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
(Continuedfrom January 16,2007
~ves no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1.
Cases: FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 - 635 Mandalay Avenue
2.
~ves
Case: FLD2006-11062 - 2316, 2346, 2352, 2358, 2364 and 2370 Drew Street
-t-ves
no
no
Case: FLD2006-11061 - 1765 andl771 Gulf To Bay Boulevard and 515 Florida Avenue
S-ves
no
4. Case: FLD2007 -01001 & Case: DV A2007 -00001 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300
and 304 Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea) Level Two & Level Three
~ves
no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM atem 1):
1. Time Extension - FLD2005-07072 - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes 'K no
2. Time Extension - FLD2005-07065 - 64 and 566 Bay Esplanade.
Yes \. no
. -
a
3. Time Extension - FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade.
Yes ~ no
4. Time Extension - FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Yes ~ no
Slgn~ . ---. Dat., '1 '2.6, 0<.
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
l
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS atems 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(C07dfrom December 19,2006)
Yes no
Level Two Application
2.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
~es
Level Two Application
no
3.
Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
(Continued from January 16, 2007
~es no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications atems 1-4)
1.
Cases: FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 - 635 Mandalay Avenue
~es no
2.
Case: FLD2006-11062 - 2316,2346,2352,2358,2364 and 2370 Drew Street
~Yes no
3.
Case: ).kD2006-11061 - 1765 and1771 Gulf To Bay Boulevard and 515 Florida Avenue
./ Yes no
4.
Case: FLD2007-01001 & Case: DV A2007-00001 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300
and704 oronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea) Level Two & Level Three
Yes no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM Utem 1):
1.
Time Extension - FLpoos-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes no
/
Time Extension - FL~-07065 - 64 and 566 Bay Esplanade.
Yes no
2.
"
,f'-~
~
3.
Time Extension - F~05-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade.
_ Yes no
Time Extension - FLD~7066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Yes no
4.
. Date: d---J 17 /07
B, property investigation check Iist.doc
2
,
3.
4.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road
(Continuedfrom December 19,2006)
Level Two Application
//
\/ Yes
no
2.
Case: FLD2006-07045 - 240-250 Skiff Point
LYes
Level Two Application
no
3.
Case: FLD2006-10056 - 2695 2nd Avenue South
(Continuedfrom January 16,2007
/' Yes no
Level Two Application
1.
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
ca~2006-{)9053fTDR2006-{)9031 - 635 Mandalay Avenue
Yes no
2.
ca~2006-11 062 - 2316, 2346, 2352, 2358, 2364 and 2370 Drew Street
Yes no
Case: FLD2006-11061 - 1765 andl771 Gulf To Bay Boulevard and 515 Florida Avenue
~es no
Case: FLD2007-01001 & Case: DV A2007-00001- 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300
and 304 Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea) Level Two & Level Three
V Yes no
DIRECTOR'S ITEM Utem 1):
1.
xtension - FLD2005-070n - 645 - 655 South Gulfview Boulevard.
Yes no
2.
xtension - FLD2005-07065 - 64 and 566 Bay Esplanade.
Yes no
3.
Time ~tension - FLD2005-07064 - 621 Bay Esplanade.
\/'" Yes no
4.
Timefixtension - FLD2005-07066 - 342 Harnden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
V Yes no
'---------0..., ~ h ? 10 7
artment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.do~
2