The URL can be used to link to this page

01/17/2006 . . . ~. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER January 17, 2006 Present: David Gildersleeve Kathy Milam J. B. Johnson Thomas Coates Dana K. Tallman Nicholas C. Fritsch Daniel Dennehy Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member Absent: Alex Plisko Vice-Chair Also Present: Gina Grimes Leslie Dougall-Sides Michael L. Delk Gina Clayton Patricia O. Sullivan Attorney for the Board Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 20,2005 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 20, 2005, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE: (Items 1 - 3) Community Development 2006-01-17 1 . . . 1. Case: FLD2005-08085 - 400 Jones Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. Representative: Kenneth H. Roush, P.E. (521 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-466-6772; fax: 727-466-6882; e-mail: kencrete@aol.com). Location: The 0.56 and 2.29-acre subject properties are located at the northeast and southeast corners of North Osceola Avenue and Jones Street, respectively. Atlas Page: 277B. Zoning District: Downtown (D) District. Request: Flexible Development request for a 54,761 square-foot office with accessory basement dining with: a) An increase to building height from 30 feet to 77 feet (to roof deck); and b) A reduction to the parking requirement from 240 to 87 parking spaces (inclusive of the existing 76 room hotel and the proposed 54,761 square-foot office) as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: Offices. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net); and Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (1828 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727- 461-0564; e-mail: southern@tampabay.rr.com). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Member Johnson moved to continue Item D1, Case: FLD2005-08085 for 400 Jones Street to March 21, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines that revise the allowable uses and maximum heights set forth in Section II, Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida" District, that deletes the reference to a live/work product in Section II, Future Land Use, Subsection C. the Marina Residential District, and that clarifies the use of transfer of development rights on Clearwater Beach. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to continue Item D2, Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan to February 21, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2006-01-17 2 . . . 3. Case: FLD2005-09094 - 1091 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Carlouel Yacht Club. Representative: Robert M. Thompson Jr. (1230 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 301, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-446-2200; fax: 727-447-6524; e-mail: rcompan3@tampabay.rr.com). Location: 3.523 acres located on the east side of Eldorado Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Bay Esplanade. Atlas Pages: 227 A and 238A. Zoning District: Institutional (I) District. Request: Flexible Development request for the expansion of an existing commercial dock (10- foot x 107 -foot floating dock addition to an existing 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock for transient vessel mooring), with a reduction in side (north) setback from 226.13 feet to 3.3 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Expansion of an existing commercial dock. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Member Coates moved to continue Item D3, Case: FLD2005-09094 for 1091 Eldorado Avenue to March 21, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 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 - 5) 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Two Application Case: FLD2005-09097 - 2760 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Owner: The Family Interest, Inc. Applicant: Amscot Corporation d/b/a Amscot Financial. Representative: R. Donald Mastry, Holland & Knight, LLP. (200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-824-6140; fax: 727-822-8084; e-mail: don.mastry@hklaw.com). Location: The 2.22 acre subject property is located at the north side of the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Sky Harbor Drive. Atlas Page: 291A. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development request to permit a Problematic Use within the Commercial (C) District under the provisions of Section 2-704.L. Proposed Use: Problematic Use. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The 2.22 acre subject property, located at the north side of the intersection of Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard and Sky Harbor Drive, is zoned Commercial (C) with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Commercial General (CG). It is noted that prior to 2005, the subject property existed as a vacant lot. Community Development 2006-01-17 3 . . . According to City records, a Flexible Standard Development application (FLS2004- 04026) was approved on June 10, 2004, for the construction of a 6,600 square-foot building (MacDiII Federal Credit Union) with attached drive-thru facility on the eastern half of the site, and a 4,700 square-foot retail building consisting of two bays on the western half of the site. The approval also included a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot pavement. Subsequent to approval of the Flexible Standard Development application, several building permits were issued, and the associated on-site improvements are nearing completion, and the property owner is in the process of acquiring tenants for the retail bays. Pursuant to Section 8-102, check-cashing centers are considered a problematic use; and pursuant to Section 2-704, problematic uses are permitted within the Commercial (C) District subject to the approval of a Flexible Development application. Amscot Financial is proposing to occupy the 3,700 square-foot retail bay, which fronts Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. According to information provided to the City by Amscot, check cashing comprises 46% of the retail operations performed by Amscot. Therefore, Amscot is considered to be a problematic use and requires the approval of a Flexible Development application prior to occupying the site. Pursuant to Section 2-704.L, problematic uses are pennitted within the Commercial (C) District provided the following Flexibility Criteria are met: 1) The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas; 2) The use is not located within 500 feet of another problematic use. The subject property is not contiguous to any parcels of land that are designated as residential within the Zoning Atlas. Specifically, the property is surrounded by property that is designated as Commercial (C) District. Further, the property is not located within 500 feet of another problematic use. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this criterion; 3) The building in which the use is located is painted or otherwise finished in materials and colors which are muted; and 4) There are no security bars on the outside of doors or windows which are visible from a public right-of-way. No security bars were approved as part of the Flexible Standard Development review process for the subject property, and none is proposed with this application. However, this application does propose the installation of awnings along the south, southeast, and east fac;ades of the building. The awnings are proposed to be finished in colors (bright yellow and blue) that are not "muted" as required by this criterion, and further are inconsistent with the overall color scheme for the development. It is noted that the building that Amscot occupies at 922 South Missouri Avenue, has a color scheme consisting of taupe as the primary building color with red and white as accent colors. With the approval of the Flexible Development application (FLD2003-05023) for Amscot at this location, Amscot was required to use this color scheme for its signage. The thinking behind this was that all the signage on site would be consistent with one another and with the building in regard to color; and thus Amscot would not "stand out" from the other tenants by the use of bright or loud colors. The building that Amscot is proposing to occupy has a color scheme consisting of beige as the primary building color with white as an accent color. The signage for MacDill Federal Community Development 2006-01-17 4 . . . Credit Union on the eastern half of the subject property will consist of blue and red with white trim. As such, rather than recommend denial of this application based upon the proposed use of "loud" colors for the awnings, it is instead attached as a condition of approval that the colors utilized by Amscot, whether it be for awnings or signage, be "muted" in accordance with this criterion and consistent with the colors used within the development. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the development proposal will be consistent with this criterion. Any signage, which has a height of greater than six feet, is a part of a comprehensive sign program. At this time, no specific signage is proposed for Amscot. A Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2004-09014) previously was approved for the subject property, and said approval will govern the signage for the proposed use. However, it is recommended that a condition of approval be made that any/all signage for Amscot is provided in colors that are "muted" in accordance with these Flexibility Criteria. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with this criterion. The building in which the use is located conforms to all current land development and building regulations. The building in which Amscot is proposing to locate is presently under construction, and was approved through the City's Flexible Standard Development approval process. This approval did allow for a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot pavement; however no deviations were requested or approved for the actual building in which Amscot is proposing to locate. Based upon the above,'the development proposal is consistent with this criterion. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. This criterion is not applicable as no deviation to the front setback has been requested or is necessary as part of this Flexible Development request. The reduction in rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles and the reduction in rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking, or improved design and appearance and landscaped areas are in excess of the minimum required. This criterion is not applicable as no deviation to the rear setback has been requested or is necessary as part of this Flexible Development request. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the development proposal will be consistent with the Flexibility Criteria to permit a problematic use within the Commercial (C) District as per Section 2-704.L. The development proposal to establish a problematic use (check cashing) at the subject property will not have an impact on the standards and criteria as they pertain to impervious service ratio, lot area, lot width, height, setbacks and off-street parking. Positive findings with regard to these items were made as part of the Flexible Standard Development (FLS2004- 04026) review process for the buildings that are presently under construction. The development proposal consists of the installation of awnings along the south, southeast, and east fa<;ades of the building. While the color of the proposed awnings and their inconsistency with Section 2-704.L was discussed previously, it is also noted that the use of awnings is inappropriate for the architecture of the building. The subject building consists of shed-style, asphalt shingle awnings projecting approximately five feet from above the storefronts on the south and east fa<;ades of the building, and a portico with fac;:ade gable roof on the southeast fa<;ade of the building. As such, providing additional awnings above those that already exist on the south and east fa<;ades would be redundant and negatively affect the Community Development 2006-01-17 5 . architectural appearance of the building. This is equally true for providing an awning on the entablature of the portico on the southeast fac;ade of the building, as providing said awning would have an adverse effect on the visual impact of the building on adjacent properties. Based upon the above, a positive finding can only be made with regard to the General Applicability Standards of Section 3-913.A, with the elimination of the proposed awnings, which is attached as a condition of approval. There are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on November 3, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request to permit a Problematic Use within the Commercial (C) District under the provisions of Section 2-704.L for the site located at 2760 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and conditions of approval: . Findinas of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 2.22-acre subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 3) That positive findings were previously made for the subject property with regard to the Standards and Criteria of Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704 as part of the Minimum Standard Development (building permit) review process, and the development proposal will not have an impact upon these standards and criteria; 4) That a positive finding cannot be made for the development proposal with regard to the Flexibility Criteria (Section 2-704.F), as the building in which the use is to be located is not finished in colors which are muted; and 5) That a positive finding cannot be made for the development proposal with regard to the General Applicability Standards (Section 3-913.A), as the proposal does not minimize the adverse visual effects on adjacent properties. Conditions of Approval: 1) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 2) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That all Transportation Impact Fees are paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That all outstanding site issues associated with BCP2004-08760 are resolved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 5) That the colors utilized by Amscot, whether it be for awnings, signage or other architectural elements, be "muted" in accordance with the Flexibility Criteria of Section 2-704.F and consistent with the colors used within the development; 6) That any/all signage for Amscot meets with the conditions of the Development Order issued for the Comprehensive Sign Program approved on September 15, 2005 (SGN2005-09014), and/or as amended by subsequent applications; 7) That the awnings proposed along the south, southeast, and east fayades are eliminated; 8) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by January 17, 2007) of Community Development Board approval; and 9) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit. Member Fritsch moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . Community Development 2006-01-17 6 . . . Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request and staff recommendations that the additional awnings be eliminated, as they are redundant to the building's architecture, and that colors be "muted." Donald Mastry, representative, reviewed the request and said the CDB had approved a similar awning for Amscot's location on Highland Avenue. He said no evidence has been provided that Amscot's corporate colors are offensive to neighbors. He said photographs he submitted indicate other retail businesses on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, east of US 19, use garish colors. He said Amscot does not meet the Code's definition of a problematic use. In response to questions, Mr. Mastry said the Missouri Avenue Amscot signage matches the entire shopping center, which features only red and white colors. In response to a question, he said he did not know if Amscot had analyzed if the lack of corporate colors at that location had impacted business. Mr. Tefft said according to the company's application, the majority of Amscot's business is check cashing, defined by Code as a problematic use. He said awnings proposed for the site would be redundant. Mr. Mastry said less than half of Amscot's business is check cashing. He said double awnings are common in central Florida and are not prohibited by Code. Member Johnson moved to approve Item E1, Case FLD2005-09097 for 2760 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff report, and including Conditions of Approval, as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application Case: DVA2004-00002A - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea) Owner/Applicant: Crystal Beach Capital, LLC. Representative: Stephen J. Szabo, III, Foley & Lardner, LLP (100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700, Tampa, FL 33601; phone: 813-229-2300; fax: 813-221-4210; e-mail: sszabo@foley.com). Location: 1.63 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T). Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DV A2004-00002 by City Council on December 2, 2004). Approved Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached dwellings (11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck). Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Community Development 2006-01-17 7 . The existing properties total 1.63 acres and are located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. The properties previously were developed with two motels (Glass House and Beach Place Motel). These motels were demolished. The surrounding area is intensely developed with predominantly commercial uses including restaurants, motels, hotels, and retail sales and services. A City-owned parking lot is located across Gulfview Boulevard to the west. The site also includes a portion of the eastern half of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way and the Third Street right-of-way between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The site is located within the BeachWalk District of the Beach by Design Plan. . On February 20, 2002, a Flexible Development request was approved for this property to construct a 250-room full service hotel with an 800 parking space garage (of which 400 spaces are for public parking) (Case FL 01-01-01). The City Commission approved a companion Development Agreement on March 1, 2001 (Case DA 01-01-01). These development proposals approved included 183 rooms from the Density Pool, the hotel at a height of 150 feet, and the vacation of Third Street and the east ~ of South Gulfview Boulevard (vacation was approved but is not effective until actual construction of the hotel begins). On August 20,2002, the CDB (Community Development Board) approved the creation of a 155-space, public parking lot as an interim use (Case FLD 02-04-12). The City Commission approved a companion Development Agreement on August 22,2002 (Case DA 01-01-01 amended). This interim parking lot will not be constructed. On November 16, 2004, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application amending the prior project to include an additional 24 hotel units from the density pool, which were converted to 18 attached dwellings (Case FLD2004-07052). On December 2, 2004, the City Council approved the companion amended Development Agreement (Case DVA2004-00002). Building permits to construct the proposed improvements have been submitted to the City for review and approval. The proposed amended Development Agreement amends the previously approved 2004 Development Agreement to clarify certain issues and to bring certain dates into conformance with other approval dates. The amended Development Agreement sets forth the following main provisions: 1) Adds a definition for "operator," "hotel operator," or "single hotel operator," to indicate who is responsible for the daily operation of the hotel, provision of hotel services, and the maintenance of the hotel amenities and hotel units (Section 1.01); 2) Amends the scope of the project to account for projected vacancy rates and enable the hotel unit owners greater flexibility to use the hotel units when the hotel units might otherwise be vacant, leading to greater use of the hotel amenities and facilities (Section 2.03 and Section 2 of Exhibit F); 3) Modifies the construction start date so that it is the same as the outside date for commencement of construction under the vacating ordinances for Third Street and S. Gulfview Boulevard (Various Sections); 4) Amends the terms and provisions for the operation of concessions on City property west of S. Gulfview Boulevard, as part of the beach landing portion of the pedestrian overpass (Section 5.04, paragraph 7); 5) Amends the City's obligation regarding the construction of South Gulfview Boulevard and BeachWalk improvements based on the 100% drawings by Post Buckley (Section 5.04, paragraph 1); 6) Amends the developer's obligation regarding the payment of the pro rata share of the costs of the South Gulfview Boulevard and BeachWalk improvements (Section 5.05, paragraph 5b); and 7) Provides for a public pedestrian access easement 10 feet in width within the northernmost bay of the project from Coronado Drive to South Gulfview Boulevard. . Community Development 2006-01-17 8 . . . The CDB has been provided with the most recently negotiated Development Agreement. The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, ensure the provision of adequate public facilities for development, encourage the efficient use of resources, and reduce the economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 1, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DV A2004-00002 by City Council on December 2,2004) for the sites at 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea), with Bases for Aooroval: 1) The amended Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The amended Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4- 606; 3) The amended Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the construction of site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal (FLD2004-07052); and 4) The amended Development Agreement is in compliance with Beach by Design. Member Fritsch moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Senior Planner Wayne Wells reported the City had received a letter in opposition to the request. No representative for the applicant was present. One resident spoke in favor of attaching a condition to the agreement, requiring the City to provide ongoing oversight of the development's 400 public parking spaces, so that they remain public and are never used for hotel business. Discussion ensued regarding difficulties in monitoring the use of onsite parking spaces, with comments that public parking spaces should not be used for hotel activities. Member Fritsch moved to recommend approval of Item E2, Case: DV A2004-00002A - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive with Bases of Approval to include a suggested provision for the City to provide solid monitoring on frequency of parking space use to ensure the 400 public parking spaces remain public and are not available nor used for hotel activities. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2006-01-17 9 . . . 3. Case: ANX2005-10035 - 3012 Grand View Avenue Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: John & Gwynneth Kelley. Location: A 0.26-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Grand View Avenue, approximately 190 feet west of Moss Avenue. Atlas Page: 283A. Request: a) Annexation of 0.26 acre property to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to the Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R-3 (County) District to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.26-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side of Grand View Avenue, approximately 190 feet west of Moss Avenue. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) the annexation of 0.26-acres to the City of Clearwater; b) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and c) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See page 11 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2006-01-17 10 . . . 4. Case: ANX2005-10036 - 2066 The Mall Level Three Application Owner: Michael & Valerie Wilhite. Location: A 0.11-acre parcel of land located on the southwest corner of The Mall and Arbelia Street. Atlas Page: 251 B. Request: a) Annexation of 0 .11-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to Residential Urban (RU) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from R-4, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association (PO Box 7626 Clearwater, FL 33758); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. This annexation involves a 0.11-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the northeast corner of The Mall Street and Arbelia Street. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting.this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: a) annexation of 0.11 acre to the City of Clearwater; b) Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan classification; and c) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. Alternate member Dennehy moved to recommend approval of Item E3, Case: ANX2005- 10035 for 3012 Grand View Avenue and Item E4, Case: ANX2005-10036 for 2066 The Mall based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, and the Staff report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2006-01-17 11 . . . 5. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: DV A2004-00004A - 2506 Countryside Boulevard Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc. (5260 South Landings Drive, Ariel #704, Fort Myers, FL 33919; phone 239-433-1382). Representative: Timothy A. Johnson (Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, 911 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone 727-461-1818; fax 727-462-0365). Location: 44.2 acres, located at the northwest corner of the Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road intersection. Atlas Page: 221A. Request: Review of and recommendation to the City Council of an amended Development Agreement between Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc. and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DVA2004-00004 by City Council on May 19, 2005). Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Woodgate I & II (Jennifer Ritter, President, 2345 Ashmore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33763; Telephone: 727-791-0848; E-mail: jdelotto@tampabay.rr.com); Woodgate III (Steve Pashioian, VP, 2360 Hazlewood Lane, Clearwater, FL 33763; Telephone: 727-797-7070; E-mail: stevie@tampabay.rr.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Djw@gte.net). Presenter: Mike Reynolds, AICP. The subject site consists of one parcel of land, 44.2 acres in area, known as the Countryside Executive Golf Course. It is located at the northwest corner of the Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road intersection, approximately 1,000 feet west of U.S. Highway 19 North. The surrounding area is predominantly developed with low-medium to medium density residential and office uses. Single-family dwellings exist to the south, and single-family and multi-family dwellings are found to the west. Office and light industrial uses are located to the east, while to the north exists a place of worship, assisted living facility, and vehicle sales/display use. On December 29, 1977, the original developer of the golf course and surrounding residential areas, U.S. Home Corporation, recorded a warranty deed that required the subject site to operate as a golf course for a period of 20 years. The deed did not restrict the use of the property beyond that timeframe, which expired in 1997. In 2004, the applicant proposed to redevelop this site with a total of 280 townhomes. A development agreement was submitted in 2004, in conjunction with applications to amend the future land use plan designation of the site from Recreation/Open Space (RlOS) to Residential Urban (RU) and to rezone it from Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), which would permit a maximum of 331 residential units. The rezoning and land use plan amendment were approved. A Flexible Standard (FLS) application, for attached dwellings in the MDR zoning district, is still pending. The purpose of this amended development agreement is to amend language from the original agreement, adding language to address transportation issues, granting a replacement easement related to raw water wells, and affirming the provision of municipal solid waste removal service. The Development Agreement associated with the 44.2-acre site sets forth public and private obligations to ensure that the proposed development will limit the impact on surrounding areas and is in harmony with the existing surrounding uses and public facilities. The development agreement will be in effect for a period of 10 years and requires Community Development 2006-01-17 12 . . . redevelopment of the site to be consistent with the following requirements: 1) Density of the site shall not exceed 280 residential units; 2) The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the Concept Plan submitted as Exhibit "B" to the Development Agreement; 3) Building heights shall be limited to 35 feet; 4) The architectural style of the buildings shall be consistent with the rendered drawings submitted as Exhibit "C" to the Development Agreement; 5) A 20-foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to existing residential uses, consistent with Exhibit "D" of the Development Agreement, which includes canopy and accent trees placed at various locations along the buffer and a continuous low-lying hedge along the entire buffer; 6) The applicant must post the required security for traffic improvements to Enterprise Road and Countryside Boulevard, directly adjacent to the site to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposal. These improvements must be constructed prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the site; 7) The applicant shall grant a utility easement for water service five (5) feet on either side of the water lines on the site; 8) The owner will grant a replacement easement related to remaining active wells operated by the City, to replace the easement being vacated (OR 4223, Page 1502); and 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, approved by the City Attorney, encumbering the property and describing the development limitations of the Development Agreement. Additionally, the Development Agreement obligates the City to comply with the following: 1) Concurrently process the Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning requests (see case LUZ2004-08005) submitted by the applicant for the subject site; 2) Approve site and construction plans consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the submitted Concept Plan; 3) Vacate an easement that relates to two abandoned water well sites found in O.R. Book 4223, Page 1502, of the Public Records of Pinellas County Florida; and 4) City of Clearwater solid waste service will be made available to this property. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the following goals, policies and objectives of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan: 1) 2.0 - Goal - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development; 2) 2.1 - Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment; 3) 2.2.1 - Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible; 4) 2.4 - Objective - Compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code; 5) 3.0 - Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to accommodate publiC demand and promote infill development; 6) 4.2 - Objective - All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; 7) 4.2.1 - Policy - All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code; 8) 5.0 - Goal- The city shall not permit development to occur unless an adequate level of service is available to accommodate the impacts of development. Areas in which the impact of existing development exceed the desired levels of service will be upgraded consistent with the target Community Development 2006-01-17 13 . . . dates for infrastructure improvements included in the applicable functional plan element; and 9) 5.1.1 - Policy - No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the DRC on October 7, 2004, December 2, 2004 and January 27, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Development Agreement for the site at 2506 Countryside Boulevard, with the following Bases for Approval: 1) The Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606; and 3) The Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements of the Future land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning request found in lUZ2004-08005. Member Johnson moved to accept Mike Reynolds as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Senior Planner Mike ReynOlds reviewed changes made to the agreement since it was signed in May 2005. Concern was expressed that an entrance to the property is within 245 feet of a traffic signal and that the development will create other transportation problems. Tim Johnson, representative, said the entrance in question has existed for more than 25 years and was approved as part of the site plan when the development agreement was approved in May 2005. He said the entrance meets all regulations related to separation distances from intersections. He said this entrance never was a subject for discussion. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Item E5, Case: DV A2004-00004A for 2506 Countryside Boulevard based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, the staff report, and Bases for Approval. The motion was duly seconded. Members Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, Alternate Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Aye"; Member Fritsch voted "Nay." Motion carried. F. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Items 1 - 3) Community Development 2006-01-17 14 . . . ""-- 1. Case: FLD2005-07062 - 125 - 143 Island Way Level Two Application Owners: Miriam L. Cebula and Harley P. and Sharon R. Evans. Applicants/Representatives: Frank Salvo and Greg Singleton, GFB Development, LLC. (4208 W. Corona Street, Tampa, FL 33629; phone: 813-786-8087; fax: 813-805-7283; e- mail: afbdevelop(iUamail.com). Location: The 0.91-acre subject property is located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 350 feet north of Windward Passage. Atlas Page: 267B. Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District; Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation District. Request: Flexible Development request to permit 27 attached dwelling units in the High Density Residential (HDR) District /Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD) with: a) An increase to height from 30 feet to 79 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 90 inches for perimeter parapets (from roof deck); b) A reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building) and 12 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from ten feet to six feet (to building) and three feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (south) setback from ten feet to eight feet (to building/pavement) as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504.F; and c) A reduction to the widths of the perimeter landscape areas along the sides (north/south) of the property as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw(iUate.net). Dolphin Cove Condo Association (255 Dolphin Point, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail: dlphincove1 (iUnetzero.com), Village on Island Estates (Tom Baiocci, 240 Windward Passage, Unit 803, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-3861; e-mail: narctom(iUmsn.com). and Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #239, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727 -442-2237). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. On December 20, 2005, the COB continued this Flexible Development request based upon an error in the advertising for said item. The item subsequently has been re-advertised correctly and the Flexible Development request is now before the Board for action. The 0.91-acre subject property, located on the east side of Island Way between Windward Passage and Dory Passage, is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Residential High (RH). The subject property is located within the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD). According to City records, the subject property presently consists of two separate developments. The existing development at 125 Island Way is a two-story apartment building consisting of six dwelling units and an eight-space covered parking area as well as a wood dock. The existing development at 143 Island Way is a two-story apartment building consisting of eight dwelling units with back out parking onto Island Way as well as two wood docks. It is noted that the existing docks will be replaced via a separate application; however all other existing on-site improvements (Le. buildings, pavement, walkways, etc.) will be removed as part of this redevelopment application. The immediate vicinity predominantly consists of owner Community Development 2006-01-17 15 . occupied/rented attached dwellings with detached dwellings further to the east and nonresidential uses to the west across Island Way. The development proposal consists of the construction of a 79-foot high building (to roof deck) containing 27 attached dwelling units ranging in size from a 2,382 square-foot three- bedroom dwelling unit to a 3,296 square-foot four-bedroom dwelling unit. The existing back-out parking onto Island Way will be eliminated as part of this development proposal and a new five-foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed adjacent to the property line, except where the existing sidewalk is to remain. The development proposal also includes the provision of a swimming pool/spa with associated deck at the southeast side of the property. Pursuant to Section 2-504, there is no minimum required lot width for residential infill projects. It is noted, however, that the standard minimum lot width for development as attached dwellings would be 150 feet, and the width of the subject property is approximately 192 feet. Thus, the development proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 2-504. Pursuant to Section 2-504, the development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines that may be varied based upon the flexibility criteria specified for residential infill projects. The development standards in Section 2-504 set forth a front setback of 10-25 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback of 0-15 feet. . As proposed, the building will provide the rear (east) setback of 15 feet set forth by the Code; however lesser setbacks are requested for the front (west) and sides (north/south) of 21 feet, six feet and eight feet, respectively. These reduced setbacks are to accommodate the proposed garage structure, and do not involve the primary building containing the project's dwelling units. In order to mitigate these lesser building setbacks, the development proposal includes the provision of a six-foot high masonry wall and combination six-foot high masonry wall/metal picket fence as well as landscaping along the north and south property lines and along the western fayade of the garages. The development proposal also requests that lesser setbacks are permitted to pavement; specifically a setback of 12 feet at the front (west) to accommodate the refuse staging area, setbacks of three feet and eight feet at the sides (north/south) to accommodate surface parking, and a setback of zero feet at the rear (east) to accommodate the swimming pool deck and a dock walkway connection. The swimming pool deck/dock walkway constitutes only 23.5% of the rear (east) property line, and the deck actually tapers off slightly as it moves westward from the property line. The majority of the rear yard will exist as open/landscape space. As stated previously, the lesser setbacks along the sides (north/south) of the property will be mitigated through the provision of a six-foot high masonry wall and combination six-foot high masonry wall/metal picket fence as well as landscaping. Based upon the above as well as compliance with the flexibility criteria as set forth in Section 2-504, the requested setbacks can be supported. . Pursuant to Section 2-504, the maximum allowable height for the development of attached dwellings is 30 feet; however this may be increased to a maximum of 130 feet through a Level Two (FLD) development submittal as a residential infill project. The proposed building Community Development 2006-01-17 16 . . . has a height of 79 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 90 inches (from roof deck) for perimeter parapets. The flexibility criteria for residential infill projects states that flexibility in regard to height shall be justifiable based upon the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The applicant has indicated lithe project's design enhances the community by several factors. The main eight- story structure is set back a considerable distance from the street to lessen the impact. Garages are provided at street level to bring a human scale to the pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk. Side setbacks for the structure have been increased beyond the minimum to lessen the impact on both abutting properties." The proposed redevelopment will be more aesthetically appealing than what presently exists on site and certainly will benefit the immediate vicinity and City in that respect. With specific regard to height, a majority of the buildings in the surrounding area are between two and four stories in height with the existing adjacent building to the north being eight stories in height, which is consistent with the proposed development. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the flexibility criteria for residential infill projects as they most closely pertain to increases in building height. The development proposal is also compatible with existing and proposed development in the vicinity; therefore the requested increase to height to 79 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 90 inches (from roof deck) for perimeter parapets can be supported. Pursuant to Section 2-504, residential infill projects shall provide a minimum of one parking space per unit. As such the proposed 27-unit development would require 27 parking spaces. However, the development proposal provides 54 parking spaces, thereby exceeding the requirement of the Code (two per dwelling unit). The development proposal includes the provision of separate refuse holding and recycling areas within the building. In addition, a refuse staging area will be provided along the north side of the drive aisle at the entrance to the development. The applicant is not proposing any signage with this development proposal. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All on-site utility facilities (Le. electric and telecommunication lines) are required to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Provisions for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way must be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.0, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the north, south, and west property lines. At minimum, the buffer is to consist of one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage. The development proposal provides for the required buffer along the west property line, which in some instances exceeds the minimum 10-foot width; however with regard to the north and south property lines the minimum width can not be accommodated based upon the location of the proposed buildings and surface parking. Community Development 2006-01-17 17 . . . "'" Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements of the Code may be waived or modified as a part of a Level Two approval if the development proposal satisfies certain criteria. There are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 1, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request to permit 27 attached dwelling units in the High Density Residential (HDR) District/Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD) with an increase to building height from 30 feet to 79 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 90 inches for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building) and 12 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from ten feet to six feet (to building) and three feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (south) setback from ten feet to eight feet (to building/pavement) as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504.F, and a reduction to the widths of the perimeter landscape areas along the sides (north/south) of the property as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G for the site located at 125 and 143 Island Way, based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and conditions of approval: Findinas of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.91-acre subject property is located within the High Density Residential (HDR) District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property is located within the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD) and therefore subject to the requirements of Section 2-1602.H; 3) That the subject property is permitted a maximum density of 27 dwelling units (30 du/ac) and maximum building height of 130 feet; 4) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-913.A; 6) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria as per Sections 2-501.1 and 2-504; and 7) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development criteria as a residential infill project as per Section 2-504.F. Conditions of Approval: 1) That a completed application for the vacation of the existing ten-foot drainage easement is submitted prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 2) That the site plan is revised to provide a rear standpipe with four inch diameter supply pipeline for fire protection of marine facilities prior to the issuance of a Development Order; 3) That evidence of a filing of Unity of Title with Pinellas County be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 4) That any/all required Parks and Recreation fees are paid prior to the issuance of a building permit; 5) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 7) That all utility equipment including but not limited to electrical and water meters is screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 8) That any/all required Transportation Impact Fees are paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 9) That a condominium plat be recorded with Pinellas County prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 10) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 11) That any/all future signage meets the Community Development 2006-01-17 18 . . . requirements of Code and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 12) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 13) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground; 14) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the COB, and be approved by Staff; 15) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development are screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 16) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way; 17) That where walls impede maneuverability or vision, parking spaces shall be revised in order to provide for safe and efficient vehicular movement; 18) That the vertical clearance throughout parking garage is no less than eight feet-two inches (8'-2") in order to accommodate a handicap accessible van; 19) That the first building permit be applied for within one year (by January 17, 2007) of Community Development Board approval; and 20) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit. Member Johnson moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Tefft reported the City had received letters of objection related to building heights, setbacks, and loss of privacy. Ed Armstrong, representative, said the applicant had made many adjustments to the project's design to reduce deviations. He said the Islander Condominium Association, for the property to the south, supported the development. One person spoke in favor of the project and four people spoke in opposition. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said while most buildings to the south are two to three stories, a seven to eight story building is to the north. Mr. Armstrong said none of the objectors owns property abutting the subject site. He said the staff report indicates how the application complies with the Code. He said the Island Estates Civic Association president had complimented the project because it includes two parking spaces per unit. Acting Board Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-07062 for 125 - 143 Island Way based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed, the Staff Report, and including Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. It was stated that the project's height is consistent with the neighborhood. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Community Development 2006-01-17 19 . . . 2. Case: FLD2005-08090 - 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments LLC (Panayiotis Vasiloudes and Petrit Meroli). Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e- mail: nestech((i}mindsorina.com). Location: 0.30 acre located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Atlas Page: 258A. Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit eight attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the minimum lot area from 15,000 square-feet to 13,087 square-feet, reductions to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 120 feet along Bay Esplanade and from 150 feet to 110 feet along Somerset Street, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 22 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 11 feet (to building and pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase to building height from 30 feet to 44.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and to permit the building within the visibility triangles, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Bay Esplanade from five feet to three feet (for the retention pond planting area), and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Somerset Street from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), as a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (eight condominiums). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: oaoamurohv((i}aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw((i}ate.net; and Coral Resort Condominium (Peggy Harnung, 483 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-3711; e-mail: coraI443((i}aol.com). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. This case was continued at the applicant's request at the November 15, 2005, CDB meeting to December 20, 2005 in order to address staff concerns. While there was some initial staff discussion with the applicant after November 15, 2005, regarding how the site and building plans were going to be revised, revised site and building plans were submitted in mid- December. To provide staff adequate time to review the revised proposal in light of staff's recommendation, staff requested, and the CDB granted, a continuance to January 17, 2005. The 0.30 acre is located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. The site is a parallelogram corner lot with dimensions of 110 feet deep by 120 feet wide. The site currently is developed with a total of five apartments. All existing buildings and other site improvements will be demolished. Properties to the west and south are developed with a mixture of attached dwellings and overnight accommodation uses. The area to the north is developed with detached dwellings in the Low Medium Density Residential District (which is not part of Beach by Design). This site is located in the "Old Florida Districf of Beach by Design. Many properties within this district are Community Development 2006-01-17 20 . . :. undergoing change, where existing developments are being demolished and new attached dwelling buildings will be constructed. The proposal includes the construction of an eight-unit residential building 44.83 feet tall (to roof deck). Two dwellings per floor with approximately 2,227 square-feet of living area each are proposed on four floors. A total of 12 parking spaces are proposed, located under the building. A hot tub is proposed to the east of the building adjacent to the seawall. The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot area from 15,000 square-feet to 13,087 square-feet and reductions to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 120 feet along Bay Esplanade and from 150 feet to 110 feet along Somerset Street. The site is at the northern edge of the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. The lot area and width reduction is complicated by the applicant being unable to obtain any additional land area or lot width due to its location at the edge of the "Old Florida Districf of Beach by Design, as the detached dwelling area to the north is not part of Beach by Design and is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. Additionally, the site is a corner lot bounded by City rights-of-way, which will not be vacated (Bay Esplanade on the west and Somerset Street on the south), and there is water (Clearwater Harbor) located to the east of the site. A reduction to the lot area and lot width requirements appears appropriate, so long as site design is acceptable. The proposal includes a request for a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 22 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 11 feet (to building and pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to hot tub deck). The design of the proposed building includes a water feature in the center of the building facing Bay Esplanade, extending three feet from the base of the building. The building otherwise meets the minimum 25-foot front setback from, and has been designed parallel with, Bay Esplanade. The lot is a parallelogram, which creates angles to the north and south sides of the rectangular building in relation to lot lines. The building meets the required 10-foot side setback, being located 10.3 feet from the north property line at its northeast corner and approximately 18 feet at its northwest corner. The pavement for the parking area under the building meets the required 10- foot side setback to the north property line. Due to the angles created with the building parallel on the lot with Bay Esplanade, the proposal includes a reduction to the front setback adjacent to Somerset Street of 11 feet to the southwest corner of the building. Somerset Street dead-ends at the east side of this property. With the placement of the building and the angles of property lines, the southeast corner of the building is located 19.5 feet from the Somerset Street property line. With regard to the front setback reduction from Somerset Street related to the trash staging area, the building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor within the parking garage. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. This proposal includes a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to hot tub deck). Current development practices place the pool/hot tub area adjacent to the waterside of the property, which is generally the most private area of the property, with a pool/hot tub deck at a zero setback. The CDB has approved other properties along the water within the "Old Florida District" with a pool/hot tub in a similar location and setback as this proposal. These proposed front and side setbacks are consistent with the setbacks approved for similar projects within this "Old Florida District" to the south, however, the setbacks must be reviewed in light of compatibility issues. Community Development 2006-01-17 21 . . . The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along Bay Esplanade from five feet to three feet (for the retention pond planting area) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Somerset Street from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area). As stated above regarding the setback reduction for the trash staging area, its location at the property line and within the street landscape buffer is one of necessary function. It is noted the applicant proposes a solid fence along the north property line to assist landscape buffering. The requested reduction to the buffer for the retention pond is in response to Section 3-1202.D.2 that requires a minimum five-foot planting area for landscape materials when retention ponds and the slopes of such ponds are located within perimeter buffers. Rather than redesign the retention pond to meet the requirements of the Code, the applicant chose to request a reduction to the buffer planting area, which Staff objects to this reduction. The proposal includes 12 parking spaces, which meets the minimum parking requirement when this application was filed and reviewed (Code now has been amended to require two parking spaces per unit), accessed from a driveway from Somerset Street. On-site parking meeting Code requirements will eliminate existing parking conditions that require vehicles to back into the right-of-way for maneuvering, producing safer conditions. New public sidewalks will be constructed within the rights-of-way for both Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street, reducing impacts between pedestrians and motorists and increasing the safety for this area. An increase to building height from 30 feet to 44.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) is included in this proposal. Pursuant to Section 2-404, the Medium High Density Residential District allows a height of 30 feet that may be increased to a maximum height of 50 feet, based upon meeting certain criteria. The subject property is located within the "Old Florida District" of the Beach by Design special area plan. Beach by Design defines the "Old Florida Districf as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia (Street)." The applicant submitted this project with a twin project located across Somerset Street (FLD2005-08088, 685-689 Bay Esplanade), with one building designed to fit onto two sites. While designed essentially as mirror projects, the property on the south side of Somerset Street is zoned Tourist District which has different development standards (height range, setbacks, buffering, etc.). Prior to the submission of these two projects, staff advised the applicant that this proposal would be reviewed differently, especially in regard to compatibility issues, due to it being zoned differently with different development standards and due to its location at the edge of the "Old Florida District" and the Beach by Design Special Area. It is noted that this twin project (FLD2005-08088, 685-689 Bay Esplanade) was approved by the CDB on November 15, 2005. The primary issue with this proposal is compatibility with the detached dwelling area to the north, which is not part of the Beach by Design Special Area and the "Old Florida District." The maximum height for detached dwellings in the LMDR District to the north is 30 feet. The existing dwelling directly to the north is one living floor above ground level parking at an approximate height of 18 feet (to midpoint of the pitched roof). The applicant has inaccurately portrayed dwellings to the north as being "primarily large three-story residences" and "quite tall and are of substantial bulk." Most detached dwellings to the north within a block of the subject site are older dwellings constructed on the ground or newer dwellings with one or two floors Community Development 2006-01-17 22 . . . above ground level parking, meeting their required setbacks. The perceived bulk of these detached dwellings to the north may be the result of lot widths primarily less than 60 feet each (a minimum lot width of 50 feet is required in the LMDR District) and having to meet a minimum five-foot side setback. The proposed height of this building of four living floors over ground level parking is 44.83 feet (to roof deck). This proposed building height does not transition the intensity between adjacent uses, producing a use/building that is not compatible with the detached dwellings to the north. The "Old Florida District" supports varying building heights. While the proposed building and pavement meets the minimum side setback requirement of 10 feet, the scale, bulk and height of this building is not harmonious with, does not minimize adverse visual effects, nor is it consistent with the character of the detached dwelling area to the north. The applicant has stated within the responses to the criteria that "The additional height being requested will provide for better articulation of the architectural design of the proposed building and mitigation is achieved by providing elements (such as balconies and decorative overhangs), stepbacks and a beautiful mixture of materials." Staff is unaware of any "better articulation" proposed than what is normally found in many of these redevelopment projects in the "Old Florida District," including the provision of balconies and decorative overhangs. The building fa9ade materials are permissible by Beach by Design and have no bearing on the height of a structure. There are no stepbacks proposed with this building, as evidenced by the floor plans and elevations. Flexibility in regard to the proposed height has not been justified by the applicant. It is acknowledged that the proposed building and site design may be consistent and compatible with the emerging development designs for properties to the south within the "Old Florida District." The proposed height, as part of the overall site design, does not create a form and function enhancing the character of the surrounding community (primarily to the north). Based on the building design, one floor of the proposed building could be removed reducing the building height to approximately 35 feet, which staff considers compatible with the adjacent detached dwellings to the north. The redevelopment of this parcel may be impractical without deviations from the some of the intensity and development standards, however, it must be demonstrated with compatibility between the more intense uses within the "Old Florida District" and the detached dwelling area to the north. The proposed building has been designed using an Old Florida vernacular style utilizing a Iight-to-medium brown stone finish on the first two floors and other vertical portions of the fayade for accent. The upper portions of the building fayade will be white stucco with banding at the second and fourth levels. While the primary roof will be flat, pitched roofs finished with shades of brown barrel tiles over the stair tower, balconies and end units will provide visual interest to the perimeter of the roofline. Pursuant to Section 3-904.A, at street or driveway intersections no structure or landscaping may be installed within the sight visibility triangle that will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches and eight feet above grade. A building column on the east side of the driveway is located within the visibility triangle, as well as a column and a portion of the building on the west side of the driveway. The visibility will not be impacted, however, as Somerset Street dead ends at the water at the east side of the property. Granting the ability for the columns and portion of the building within the visibility triangle will not result in the grant of a special privilege, as similar reductions could be supported elsewhere under similar circumstances. Pursuant to Section 3-904.B, in order to enhance views of the water from residential waterfront property, no structure or landscaping may be installed, other than a fence Community Development 2006-01-17 23 . . . around a swimming pool or any non-opaque fence not exceeding 36 inches within the sight visibility triangles formed by the rear and side property lines. The proposal includes a four-foot high solid fence and hibiscus shrubs, an Oleander tree-form and a sabal palm within the waterfront sight visibility triangle at the northeast corner of the site. The fence will need to be lowered to a maximum of three feet and be non-opaque and the landscaping will need to be removed from the triangle. The site will be extensively landscaped with a variety of trees (Gold Trumpet, Oleander tree-form, Sabal palms, Mexican fan palms, Medjool date palms and Pygmy date palms), shrubs (hibiscus, ixora and schefflera arboricola) and ground covers (fakahatchee grass and dwarf jasmine). A retention pond is proposed on the east side of the building adjacent to Somerset Street and the seawall. The applicant has not indicated any freestanding signage for this site. Any future freestanding sign should meet the requirements of the Code, be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential I nfi II Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) have not been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 0.30 acre is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street; 2) The current use of the site is for five attached dwellings in two buildings; 3) The proposal includes the demolition of the residential buildings and all existing site improvements; 4) The subject property is zoned Medium High Density Residential District and is located within and at the northern edge of the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida District"; 5) The lot area is 13,087 square-feet, which requires a reduction from the 15,000 square-feet required; 6) The lot width is 120 feet along Bay Esplanade and 110 feet along Somerset Street, which requires a reduction from the 150-foot lot width required; 7) The proposal is for a four-story residential building over ground level parking at a height of 44.83 feet (to roof deck); 8) The site is adjacent to a detached dwelling area to the north zoned Low Medium Density Residential, which is not part of Beach by Design, and is restricted to a maximum height of 30 feet; 9) The "Old Florida District" supports varying building heights; 10) The proposed building encroaches into the front setback along Somerset Street, with the building's southwest corner located 11 feet from the front property line; 11) The proposed building height does not transition the intensity between adjacent uses, producing a use that is not compatible with the detached dwelling to the north; and 12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is not in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the analysis of this proposal and the above findings, Staff recommends denial of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial for the Flexible Development application to permit eight attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a Community Development 2006-01-17 24 . . . reduction to the minimum lot area from 15,000 square-feet to 13,087 square-feet, reductions to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 120 feet along Bay Esplanade and from 150 feet to 110 feet along Somerset Street, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 22 feet (to water feature), reductions to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 11 feet (to building and pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), an increase to building height from 30 feet to 44.83 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.17 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and to permit the building within the visibility triangles, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Bay Esplanade from five feet to three feet (for the retention pond planting area), and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Somerset Street from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area)-asa Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G with Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) The proposal is in not compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is incompatible with the surrounding area. Mark Smith requested Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant Party Status to Mark Smith. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Fritz Lewinski requested Party Status. Member Fritsch moved to grant Party Status to Fritz Lewinski. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Wells reviewed the request and staff reasons for recommending denial. Mr. Armstrong, representative, said since the original request was denied, the applicant revised the plan and reduced the number of deviations. He said the City Council had indicated on December 15, 2005, that Code changes to the "Old Florida District" were not intended to affect applications already submitted, such as this one. He said all staff comments related to new regulations were not relevant. Art Shane, representative, reviewed the development's architecture, stating that it was designed for the site, and includes a step effect. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to grant Ethel Hammer expert witness status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ethel Hammer, representative, reviewed the project, stating it would be economically unfeasible if the height of the project is limited to 35 feet. She said the project will be an asset to the community's character, is compatible with surrounding land uses, provides a transition to Community Development 2006-01-17 25 . . . the neighborhood to the north, will not be as tall as the average Old Florida structure, which is 55 feet, and is consistent with Code. Mark Smith, Party Status Grantee, spoke in support of the project, stating it will upgrade the neighborhood and is in the best interest of his abutting property. In response to a question, Mr. Smith said he owned no other nearby property and would garner no personal gain by this project's approval. Fritz Lewinski, Party Status Grantee, spoke in support of the project, including the proposed height. Four people spoke in support of the project. Petitions of support were submitted. Mr. Wells said staff had advised the applicant originally that this structure would be considered differently than the one to the south, as this property abuts a single-family residential use. He said the proposed structure is too tall. Mr. Armstrong said the project is well designed and aesthetically pleasing and no objections have been received. He said the City Council did not establish a moratorium on projects of this height nor apply new limits to pending applications. Planning Director Michael Delk said staffs recommendation of denial was based on compatibility issues and Code criteria, not on new pending standards. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said 50 feet was the maximum permitted height in the Old Florida District at the time the application was filed. It was noted the building's height was permitted when the application was filed. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F2, Case: FLD2005-08090 for 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade based on staffs Findings of Fact, with the exception of #11 as the proposed building height does transition the intensity between adjacent uses, producing a use that is compatible with the detached dwelling to the north as evident by testimony provided by an expert witness and neighboring property owners who feel the use transitions well with properties to the north, and the proposal complies with Section 2-404.F and is consistent with #1 as the development of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards, #4 as the uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses, #6, as the design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole, and #7 as flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole, the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F, and the proposal complies with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Coates, Tallman, Fritsch, Alternate Member Dennehy, and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Aye"; Member Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Wells submitted and reviewed recommended Conditions of Approval. Mr. Armstrong agreed to the conditions. Community Development 2006-01-17 26 . . . Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve for Item F2, Case: FLD2005-08090 for 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Conditions of Aooroval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB (Community Development Board): 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 6) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 7) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 8) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 9) That pool fencing be non-opaque within the waterfront sight visibility triangle; 10) That there be no landscaping (other than sod) within the waterfront sight visibility triangle; 11) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 12) 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; 13) That site and landscape plans be revised prior to the issuance of any permits showing the existing four-foot wide sidewalk to remain south of the existing asphalt driveway and adjacent to the 12-inch oak tree along Bay Esplanade; 14) That rooftop mechanical equipment be screened from view prior to the issuance of the building permit; and 15) That the retention pond be modified prior to the issuance of any permits to provide a five-foot planting area between the front property line and top of bank. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Level Three Application Case: T A2005-1 0003 - Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater, City Attorney's Office. Request: Amendments to Community Development Code approving a settlement agreement between the City of Clearwater and National Advertising Company and its parent company, Viacom Outdoor, Inc., regarding current litigation, providing for phased removal of certain billboards located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road, providing for maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the billboards, providing that in the event development or redevelopment of a covered property occurs, National shall be entitled to relocate and reconstruct the billboard on said property pending removal, within setback requirements and without size or height increases, providing for mutual releases, providing for enforcement, providing for filing of a joint motion for stipulated final judgment, providing for modifications which may arise from the hearing process, and related provisions. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@ate.net). Presenter: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney. Community Development 2006-01-17 27 . During the 1985 to.1993 timeframe, the City adopted several ordinances regulating signs, including billboards. These inclu~ed amortization provisions requiring removal of certain billboards, including those located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road. The amortization provisions were carried over into the 1999 Community Development Code. Notices of Violation pursuant to the Ordinances were issued to National Advertising Company and Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corporation regarding certain signs owned by them. The MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) found the billboards in violation; however, all code enforcement fines have been stayed pending the outcome of Circuit Court litigation. In 2000, National Advertising Company filed suit against the City of Clearwater, challenging the adoption and effectiveness of the ordinances, asserting vested rights and rights to the continuance of allegedly lawful nonconforming uses, challenging the City's actions on state and federal constitutional grounds and as impairment of contract, alleging inverse condemnation, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corporation filed suit with similar allegations, and during the pendency of the litigation the one billboard owned by Lamar was acquired by National or its parent company, Viacom Outdoor, Inc., and the suits were consolidated. National and the City entered into mediation discussions in the course of the litigation, the result of which is the proposed settlement agreement. . The agreement provides for phased removal of the five remaining billboards as follows: one in Year 1, one in Year 7, one in Year 8, one in Year 9, and one in Year 10. Certain maintenance and repair is allowed pending removal. If redevelopment occurs on any of the parcels necessitating relocation of the billboard pending removal, that is provided for. Enforcement of the agreement, including fines for noncompliance, are set forth. National agrees to a stipulation ending the litigation. The settlement agreement is being read as a text amendment to the Community Development Code because certain provisions such as the one on relocation might be considered to essentially permit billboards, which the Code does not allow. Pinellas County followed a similar approach with its Ordinance #03-19. Ordinance #7568-05 contains provisions allowing relocation during the removal period of the subject billboards if done on the same parcel within setback requirements and without size or height increases. In the event that this provision is viewed as an amendment to CDC Article 3, Division 18, including, inter alia, Section 3-1806B, or other provisions of the City's sign ordinances as incorporated by Section 1-106, Transitional Rules, the agreement is being treated as an amendment to the Community Development Code. Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any Code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposed amendments are not inconsistent with goals, policies, or objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and 3) The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. . These proposed amendments further the following purposes of the Code: 1) Section 1- 1 03.A - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Community Development 2006-01-17 28 . . . the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the City; 2) Section 1-103.E.3- Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the City's economic underpinnings; 3) Section 1-103.E.12 -Coordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions relating to parking, fences and walls, signs, minimum habitable area and like supplementary requirements designated to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water within the City; and 4) Section 3-1802 - Signs, General Principles. The City is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico. This City has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism. In order to preserve the City as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually attractive urban environment is of foremost importance. The regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end. These sign regulations are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the City. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. They will achieve the purpose, over time, of removing five billboards, which violate the City's sign codes and thus improve the appearance of Gulf-ta-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road. The City has achieved significant visual improvement of those roadways by application of its 1999 Community Development Code provisions requiring compliance with parking, landscaping, and signage requirements upon change of use and redevelopment of properties, as well as by working with other agencies such as FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) to provide landscaped medians in the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard corridor. This settlement agreement will further the City's efforts in that regard. The Planning Department and Legal Staff recommend approval of Ordinance #7568-05 which approves a settlement agreement between the City of Clearwater and National Advertising Company and its parent company, Viacom Outdoor, Inc. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed the proposed settlement and related ordinance. In response to a question, she said a sixth billboard sign, located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, is not involved in this litigation. She said until now, Code enforcement violation fines and an FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) order for removal have been stayed pending disposition of this case. The billboard sign's owner did not join in this litigation. Concern was expressed that the proposal does not treat all billboard signs on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard equally. One person spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Member Fritsch moved to recommend approval of Item F3, Case: TA2005-10003- Amendments to the Community Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, Fritsch, and Alternate Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Johnson and Chair Gildersleeve voted "Nay." Motion carried. The Community Development Board recessed from 2:44 to 2:54 p.m. Community Development 2006-01-17 29 . . . G. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2005-11106 - 125 -143 Island Way Level Two Application Owners: Miriam L. Cebula and Harley P. and Sharon R. Evans. Applicant: GFB Development, LLC. Representative: Bill Woods and/or Terry Skapik, Woods Consulting, Inc. (1714 County Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail: terriskaoik@woodsconsultina.ora). Location: The 0.91-acre subject property is located on the east side of Island Way, approximately 350 feet north of Windward Passage. Atlas Page: 267B. Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District; Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation District. Request: Flexible Development request for a 2,193 square-foot, ten wet slip commercial dock as an amenity to a 27-unit condominium development, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; e-mail: Diw@ate.net). Dolphin Cove Condo Association (255 Dolphin Point, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-7880; e-mail: dlohincove1@netzero.com), Village on Island Estates (Tom Baiocci, 240 Windward Passage, Unit 803, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-3861; e-mail: narctom@msn.com). and Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way #239, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237). Presenter: Robert G. Tem, Planner III. The 0.91-acre subject property, located on the east side of Island Way between Windward Passage and Dory Passage, is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Residential High (RH). The subject property is located within the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD). According to City records, the subject property presently consists of two separate developments: a six-unit apartment building with wood dock at 125 Island Way; and an eight- unit apartment building at 143 Island Way with two wood docks. It is noted that these existing improvements are proposed to be demolished and replaced with a 27 -unit condominium development with associated parking garage and amenities through a separate Flexible Development application (FLD2005-07062). The development proposal consists of the construction of a 2,193 square-foot, ten wet slip commercial dock as an amenity to the proposed 27 -unit condominium development on the upland portion of the subject property. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2, 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, 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 (2,193 square-feet), the dock is treated as commercial and is subject to the relevant review criteria. Community Development 2006-01-17 30 . . . The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the standards and criteria for commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with the application as "Attachment A" With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3- 601.C.3.h, 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 200.8 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the north and south property lines a minimum of 20.08 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back in excess of this requirement with a distance of 24.6 feet from the north property line, and a distance of 26.2 feet from the south property line. 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 150 feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 72 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 150 feet. The dock has a proposed width of 150 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. There are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 8, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request for a 2,193 square-foot, ten wet slip commercial dock as an amenity to a 27-unit condominium development, under the provisions of Section 3-601 for the site located at 125 and 143 Island Way, based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and conditions of approval. Findinas of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) That the 0.91-acre subject property is located within the High Density Residential (HDR) District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category; 2) That the subject property is located within the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD); 3) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria as per Sections 2-501.1 and 3-601.C.3; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3; and 6) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-913.A. Conditions of Approval: 1) That no Development Order is issued for these docks prior to the issuance of a Development Order for the upland improvements (FLD2005-07062); 2) That evidence of a filing of Unity of Title with Pinellas County be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits; 3) That boats moored at the docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City's existing 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm line shall be relocated and a right-of-way permit shall be obtained; 5) That no portion of the dock shall be located in front of the City or private storm pipe or to a width of five feet on either side of the center line of the pipe; 6) That lighting is installed at the ends of the docks to make the docks more visible to both recreational boaters and to slip owners finding their slips at night; 7) That a copy of the Community Development 2006-01-17 31 '. '. . 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; 8) That the first building permit be applied for within two years (by January 17, 2008) of Community Development Board approval; and 9) That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit. Member Tallman moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Tefft reviewed the proposal and opposition to the project. Terry Skapik, representative, reviewed the proposed dock, which she said meets Code. She said no variances are requested. Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item G 1, Case: FLD2005-111 06 for 125 - 143 Island Way based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the staff report with Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. H. DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1) 1. Special Joint Work Session, February 27, 2006 - (11 :00 a.m. - 1 :00 p.m.). Mr. Delk reported lunch will be served at the special Joint Work Session on February 27, 2006, at 11 :00 a.m. at the Main Library. It was requested that a copy of the agenda be distributed to COB members prior to the work session. It was requested that staff review garish colors used by businesses along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and consider ways to improve the aesthetics of this entryway into Clearwater. It was requested that staff consider increasing the number of parking spaces required for comprehensive infill to 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. AjU ~ lida )jl(JJev oard Reporter Community Development 2006-01-17 32