Loading...
02/21/2006 . . . -...::: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 21, 2006 Present: David Gildersleeve Alex Plisko Kathy Milam J. B. Johnson Thomas Coates Dana K. Tallman Nicholas C. Fritsch Daniel Dennehy Chair Vice-Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Leslie Dougall-Sides Michael L. Delk Brenda Moses Attorney for the Board Assistant City Attorney 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: January 17, 2006 D. 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 - 7): 1. Level Two Application Cases: FLD2005-111 09/TDR2005-11 029 - 150, 158, 162 and 166 Brightwater Drive Owners/Applicants: Cinnamon Bay of Clearwater, LLC. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e- mail: nestech@mindsprino.com). Location: 0.985 acre site located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 900 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 32 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 8.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 7.8 feet (to pavement), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 19.4 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 46.33 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 10.67 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16 feet for an open rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights for three units from 409 East Shore Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (TDR2005-11029). Community Development 2006-02-21 1 . . . Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (32 condominiums). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphv@aol.com): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. The 0.985-acre site is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 900 feet east of Hamden Drive. The site has 318 feet of frontage on Brightwater Drive and currently is developed with a total of 41 overnight accommodation rooms/units and one attached dwelling. The lot is located along a highly developed area within Clearwater beach and has frontage along Clearwater Harbor. The site is located within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which provides for the redevelopment of Brightwater Drive with townhomes and timeshares between two and four stories above parking. The property to the south across Brightwater Drive presently is developed with attached dwellings (condominiums and townhomes). The property to the east presently is developed with overnight accommodation uses, but was approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) on December 20,2005, (FLD2005-09101/TDR2005-09027, 170, 174,180, 184 and 188 Brightwater Drive) to be redeveloped with 27 attached dwellings in a four-story building over ground-level parking. The property to the west presently is developed with attached dwellings (townhomes). The proposal includes constructing a 32-unit, four-story (over ground-level parking) residential condominium building. A total of 29 dwelling units are permitted for the subject property, based on the maximum of 30 units per acre. The applicant is proposing the utilization of three dwelling units through TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights) from 409 East Shore Drive (which is less than the maximum of 20% of the maximum number of dwelling units allowed by Section 4-1402 of the Code [five dwelling units]). The first living level will contain eight units with an amenities common area in the center of the building (adjacent but above the pool). Levels two and three will contain nine units on each floor. The fourth level will have six units. The units on the first level will be approximately 1,587 square-feet each, the units on the second level will be approximately 1,887 square-feet, units on the third level will be approximately 2,103 square-feet each and the units on the fourth level will be approximately 2,581 square-feet each. The proposed building meets the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design where the plane of the building has been provided with offsets of greater than five feet to avoid long linear planes on the building. The proposal includes 63 parking spaces under the building, whereas a total of 48 parking spaces are required (1.97 spaces per unit) (Note: This project was submitted prior to the Code change to require two parking spaces per unit, which means that parking will be nonconforming to current Code requirements). The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to permit attached dwellings within the Tourist District due to the rear setback reductions being requested to the pool deck and boardwalk (otherwise the request would be only a Flexible Development for attached dwellings). The proposal includes reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 8.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 7.8 feet (to pavement) and reductions to the rear (north) Community Development 2006-02-21 2 . . . setback from 20 feet to 19.4 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk). While the property appears rectangular, there is some curvature of the property, which is a reason for some of the irregularity of and reduction to building setbacks. The front of the building is not at the same setback along the length of the fa9<lde of the building. The eastern elevator lobby is at a front setback of 11.7 feet, while the western elevator lobby is at a front setback of 14 feet. The eastern stairwell is at a front setback of 17 feet, while the western stairwell is approximately 19 feet from the front property line. The eastern trash tower is at a front setback of 14.8 feet, while the western trash tower is over 15 feet from the front property line. A decorative knee wall screening the parking from view from Brightwater Drive is at a front setback between 18-19 feet. The main portion of the building (entry walkways/access ways to the dwellings on the first to the fourth living levels) ranges between 22 and 24 feet at its closest point to the front property line, which is similar to the project at 170 Brightwater (23.4 feet) approved by the COB on December 20,2005 (FLD2005-09101/TDR2005-09027). With regard to the front setback reduction from Brightwater Drive related to the trash staging area, the building will have both a refuse collection and recycling room on the ground floor on either side of the driveway. Dumpsters or recycling carts will be rolled out to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front setback is necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments. Due to the angle of the eastern property line, the southeast corner of the building is at a side setback of 11 feet, while the northeast corner is at a 13.3-foot setback. The proposal includes an 8.6-foot east side setback to the parking backup flair. The western side setback to the corners of the building are closer, with the southwest corner at 11 feet and the northwest corner at 11.5 feet (with the parking backup flair reduction at 7.8 feet). The rear of the building also has its irregularity, with the northeast corner of the building at a 30.2-foot setback, while the northwest corner is at a 27.8-foot setback. The building has been designed, however, where a rear setback reduction is necessary. The 19.4-foot rear setback proposed to the building (which is only for a ground level restroom) is consistent with some of the other attached dwelling projects approved on Brightwater Drive and will still exceed the Building Code setback requirement of 18 feet from the seawall. The rear setback reduction is otherwise to the pool, pool deck and boardwalk, which is consistent with other approved projects on Brightwater Drive. Current development practices place the pool area adjacent to the waterside of the property, which generally is the most private area of the property, with the pool deck at a zero setback. Adjustments to the Building Code setback (less than 18 feet) are also reviewed by the Building Official prior to building permit issuance. The boardwalk will provide access to existing and future docks. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks is justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area. The proposal is compatible and consistent with the attached dwelling character of the immediate vicinity, specifically the projects already approved at 170, 190, 201 and 205 Brightwater Drive. The proposal includes an increase to building height from 35 feet to 46.33 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 10.67 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16 feet for an open rooftop pavilion (from roof deck). The proposed building of four stories over ground-level parking is consistent with that envisioned by Beach by Design for this street and with heights approved for 170,190,201 and 205 Brightwater Drive. Code provisions allow parapet walls to extend a maximum of 30-inches above the roof deck. The applicant is requesting to increase the parapet to a total of 10.67 feet from the roof deck. The majority of the parapet located on all sides of the building is at a height of four feet. The 10.67 -foot height for the parapet is only at Comm.unity Development 2006-02-21 3 . . . two locations at the front of the building, where the parapet is a pitched roof-type structure in the middle of each side of the building (when looking at the front elevation), providing visual interest to the roofline. The parapet will screen from view rooftop air condensing units and will be in proportion with the building fac;ade. The proposal also includes an open pavilion at the rear of the building that will be 16 feet in height (from roof deck to peak of the pavilion roof) as a common recreational element for the condominiums. This open pavilion adds architectural embellishment to the rear of the building. Code provisions allow, and the proposal includes, the elevator, stair and trash towers to be a maximum of 16 feet above the roof deck. The top of the proposed stair towers and elevator lobbies will be approximately 12.83 feet above the roof deck, whereas the actual elevator will be at 16 feet and the trash towers will be seven feet above the roof deck. The Mediterranean-style of architecture of the building will include apple blush stucco for the main building color, accented by baked apple on the elevator, trash and stair towers, as well as banding on the sides of the building. The parapet roof and the roof over the ground level walkway along the front of the building will contain an altusa brown barrel tile roofing. The windows, door frames and railings will be white in color. The landscape plan utilizes a colorful groundcover (crinum lily, arboricola and philodendron xanadu), shrubs (hibiscus, podocarpus, dwarf oleander, silver buttonwood, snowbush and croton) and trees (sable palmetto palm, Mexican fan palm, Senegal date palm, Medjool palm, oleander tree form and ligustrum tree). The front and most of the side areas will be heavily planted, which will provide a pleasing appearance for this project. The applicant is not proposing any signs with this development. Any future freestanding sign should be a monument-style sign of a maximum four feet in height and designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. On-site utility facilities (electric and communication lines) will be required to be placed underground as part of the site redevelopment. Provisions for the placement of conduits for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way should be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. A special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 409 East Shore Drive and being transferred to this site, must be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. This special warranty deed also must contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of 409 East Shore Drive due to the transfer of development rights. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 0.985 acre site is zoned Tourist District and has 318 feet of lot width; 2) The site is currently developed with a total of 41 overnight accommodation rooms/units and one attached dwelling; 3) The proposal includes constructing a 32-unit, four- story (over ground-level parking) residential condominium building; 4) The proposal includes the utilization of three dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights from 409 East Shore Drive; 5) The proposed building of four stories over ground-level parking is consistent with that envisioned by Beach by Design for this street, with the attached dwelling character and the approved heights of the immediate vicinity, specifically 170, 190, 201 and 205 Brightwater Drive;.6) The main portion of the building (entry walkways/access ways to the dwellings on the Community Development 2006-02-21 4 . . . first to the fourth living levels) ranges between 22 and 24 feet at its closest point to the front property line, which is similar to the project recently approved by the CDB at 170 Brightwater (23.4 feet); 7) While the property appears rectangular, there is some curvature of the property, which produces the irregularity of building setbacks to various portions of the front building fa98de (eastern elevator lobby: 11.7 feet; western elevator lobby: 14 feet; eastern stairwell: 17 feet; western stairwell: 19 feet; eastern trash tower: 14.8 feet; western trash tower: more than 15 feet; decorative knee wall screening the parking from view from Brightwater Drive: 18-19 feet); 8) The proposed building side setback of 11 feet exceeds the minimum 10-foot east and west side setback requirement, whereas proposed setback reductions are to parking backup flairs only (east: 8.6 feet; west: 7.8 feet); 9) The proposal includes a reduction to the rear setback to the building from 20 feet to 19.4 feet (ground level restroom only), which is consistent with other attached dwelling projects approved on Brightwater Drive; 10) The setback reductions requested are otherwise to the trash staging area, the pool and pool deck and the boardwalk along the seawall, which are consistent with other approved projects on Brightwater Drive; 11) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 8, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the (1) Flexible Development application to permit 32 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 8.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 7.8 feet (to pavement), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 19.4 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck and boardwalk) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 46.33 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 1 0.67 feet for parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 16 feet for an open rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights for three units from 409 East Shore Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (TDR2005- 11029), for the site at 150, 158, 162 and 166 Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 409 East Shore Drive and being transferred to this site, be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 409 East Shore Drive due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (409 East Shore Drive) shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits; 4) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum four feet in height and Community Development 2006-02-21 5 . . . designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 6) That boats moored at the existing or future docks, lift and/or slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 7) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 8) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 9) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 10) That the cabanas on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents, homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 11) That the restrooms on the ground floor meet all FEMA rules and guidelines; 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 all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be assessed and paid. See motion of approval on page 18. 2. Case: FLD2005-11110 - 706 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Harborside Condominiums, LLC. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e- mail: nestech@mindsprinQ.com). Location: 0.35 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of a pool to a previously approved attached dwelling project (FLD2005-07070, approved September 20,2005) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and a reduction to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Addition of pool to condominiums. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. The 0.35-acre site is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. The site has approximately 135 feet of frontage on Bayway Boulevard and formerly was developed with 16 attached dwellings (Demolition Permit #BCP2005-10528 issued November 23,2005). Parking for the former development was located partially within and backs into the right-of-way. The former building primarily was one- Community Development 2006-02-21 6 . story in height, except the front portion was two-stories in height, and wrapped around a pool in the center of the building. On June 21, 2005, the CDB denied Case FLD2005-03031, a proposal to permit 16 attached dwellings. Based on a determination that a new proposal with greater setbacks, especially to the side and rear of the site, was a substantial change over that previously denied, the CDB approved Case FLD2005-07070 on September 20, 2005, permitting 15 attached dwellings on this site. A City police substation abuts the west side of this site. There are attached dwellings (town homes and condominiums) east and west of this site on the north side of Bayway Boulevard. An existing overnight accommodation use is southwest across Bayway Boulevard (proposed to be redeveloped as a mixed use - see FLD2005-07071, 678 S. Gulfview Boulevard, on the same agenda), while a shopping center (retail sales) is south across Bayway Boulevard. . The proposal is to add a pool area to the rear of the property adjacent to the seawall. This pool was not proposed with the original application approved by the CDB. This proposal includes a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and a reduction to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck). Current development practices place the pool area at the rear of the property, which generally is the most private area of the property, with a pool deck at a zero setback. Most of the redevelopment projects approved by the CDB along the north side of Bayway Boulevard have had pool decks at a zero setback. The reduction to the west side setback is due to the approved location of the building and parking (approved under FLD2005-07070), the necessity for a pool of adequate size, and the need for sufficient decking around the pool for access and safety purposes. The Police Substation is located on the property to the west, where impacts of the pool will be negligible. The landscape plan presently indicates podocarpus shrubs proposed within the waterfront sight visibility triangle on the east side. In accordance with Section 3-904.B, there can be no landscaping within waterfront sight visibility triangles. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. . Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 0.35 acre is zoned Tourist District and is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The site was formerly developed with 16 attached dwellings, which was nonconforming to current density maximums; 3) On September 20, 2005, the CDB approved Case FLD2005-07070, which included the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the existing 16 attached dwelling units, to permit the redevelopment of the property with 15 attached dwellings in a residential building 87.25 feet tall; 4) This proposal is to add a pool area to the rear of the property adjacent to the seawall, which was not included in the original proposal, at a zero-foot rear and west side setbacks; 5) Current development practices place the pool area at the rear of the property; 6) Most other properties along Bayway Boulevard have been approved by the CDB with a pool in a similar location and setback as this proposal; 7) The Police Substation is to the west of this property where the impacts of the pool at a zero west side setback will be negligible; 8) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development; and 9) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Community Development 2006-02-21 7 . Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and conditions, staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 5,2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit the addition of a pool to a previously approved attached dwelling project (FLD2005-07070, approved September 20, 2005) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and a reduction to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 706 Bayway Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area. AND Conditions of Aooroval: 1) That all conditions of approval adopted by the CDB for Case FLD2005-07070 are still in effect and 2) That there be no landscaping (other than sod) within waterfront sight visibility triangles. See motion of approval on page 18. . 3. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-11112 - 1415 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Level Two Application Owner: Wicks, LLC. Applicant: Creative Avalanche Inc. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-mail: nestech@mindsorinQ.com). Location: 0.95 acre site located on the east side of Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard approximately 100 feet south of Kingsley Street. Atlas Page: 314A. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to construct an 8,000 square-foot warehouse facility and accessory 5,000 square-foot office in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 19.7 feet (to pavement), and an increase to building height from 25 feet to 37.42 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per section 2- 704.C. Proposed Use: Wholesale/distribution/warehouse facility. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner I. Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest. . The 0.95-acre lot is located on the east side of S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of Kingsley Street. The site is an internal lot and has Community Development 2006-02-21 8 . . . approximately 132 feet of frontage along S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The previous light assembly use recently relocated and the 6,000 square-foot building has been vacant for the last two months. The site is surrounded by both residential and industrial uses due to the alignment of zoning boundaries. The site is located in a commercially zoned area that has a history of industrial type uses, such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution centers. Industrial uses occupy more than 50 percent of the Commercial properties located on the east side of S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The existing buildings are located in the first 120 feet of the property and the remainder of the property (the rear) is undeveloped. An existing chain link fence secures the property from the residential uses to the east. The existing grade of the property slopes for the southeast (29.5) to the northwest (19.0) with approximately 10 feet of grade change. Many large trees exist at the rear of the site. Careful consideration of their preservation should be taken. The razing of the site includes the demolition of the two existing buildings. The proposal is to construct an approximately 13,000 square-foot building to include 8,000 square-feet of warehouse and 5,000 square-feet of accessory office for the David and Goliath corporate headquarters. The area designated as office is two-stories at approximately 38 feet in height with the remaining warehouse to be single-story, 24 feet in height. The site has been designed to have vehicular traffic enter from the west side of the site on S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. Traffic flow will circulate along the south side of the building to the rear of the property and across the south property line to the adjacent property, also owned by the applicant, through a cross access easement. This solution solves problems with a fire or garbage truck having to back through the property a distance greater than 150 feet and then out onto S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. Removal of the existing parking that backed out onto S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and the provision of a pedestrian sidewalk for the site frontage will improve safety conditions for persons residing or working along S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The applicant proposes parking in excess of the required 20 spaces by providing 26 spaces, calculated at 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of warehouse. The proposal includes reductions to side and rear setback requirements to pavement only. The building will meet all setback requirements. The proposed reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to proposed pavement) is for an area with a width of 24 feet and will allow appropriate room for a vehicle to back out of parking spaces along the rear of the property. The applicant requests the side (south) setback reduction because of the Fire Code requirement that a driveway that exceeds 145 feet must have a hammerhead or cul-de- sac to allow a fire vehicle the ability to be retracted from the site without having to traverse the site in reverse gear. This reduction with an ingress/egress easement with the property to the south will eliminate this problem issue and allow for better circulation on both sites. The rear (east) setback for the parking lot will be at 19.7 feet where 20 feet is required. However, the four inches of reduction will have a minimal impact to the rear of the property as the applicant has proposed a generous landscape area that complies with the perimeter landscape buffers of Section 3-1202.0. The overall proposed impervious surface ratio is 74.93%. While an increase from the existing impervious surface ratio, it is far from the maximum 95% coverage requirement. The proposed reductions and increase to building height will significantly improve the existing conditions and will upgrade and enhance the community character and visual Community Development 2006-02-21 9 . appearance of the immediate vicinity. Due to the proposed site design and extensive landscaping, this redevelopment proposal is compatible with the adjacent land uses. The proposal accommodates the transition in zoning by limiting major functions to the Commercial District and by buffering surrounding properties. The proposal includes the provision of the required side buffer of 10 feet and the required rear buffer of 20 feet in the Commercial District. A six-foot high vinyl-coated chain link fence with 12 feet of landscaping will further buffer the abutting residential uses along the east property line. Locating the landscaping on the inside of the fence will enhance the warehouses ability to maintain this landscaping (without going onto neighbor's property). The proposal includes an increase to building height from 25 feet to 37.42 feet (top of second story roof). Building heights along S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue in the Commercial District are typically one or two stories and the proposal will be consistent with that character. The hip roof architectural embellishment will provide additional aesthetic interest and supports the overall design of the building. The proposed building is attractive including the use of stucco on the front walls of the building and either painted masonry with flush joints or metal construction for the walls of the rear portion of the building. The roof on the front of the building will be either a galvalume natural metal or white dimensional shingles and the rear portion will be white metal roofing. The windows are bronze tinted glass with dark bronze frames. The railings are white aluminum. The entire building is to be white, with the exception of the bronze window and the possible natural colored galvalume metal roof. . The site will be extensively landscaped, including live oak, bald cypress, Nellie Stevens holly, and magnolia trees for shade, augmented by crape myrtle for accent. Shrubs along the fence and edges of pavement will be yew podocarpus, while viburnum will be utilized around the building. Planting beds will be enhanced by ginger, jasmine, and Indian hawthorn. Code requires on-site utilities (electric, cable, telephone, etc.) to be located underground. Flexibility in regard to required setbacks and building height 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. This proposal will improve the appearance of this unique industrial corridor on S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue through improved building design, extensive landscaping and improved signage. There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. . Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 0.g5-acre site is zoned Commercial District; 2) The current use of the site is for 6,000 square-feet of light assembly use in the Commercial District; 3) The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the entire site with a 13,000 square-foot office/warehouse building, divided into an 8,000 square-foot warehouse facility and a 5,000 square-foot accessory office located in the Commercial (C) District; 4) Industrial uses, including warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing uses, dominate the commercially zoned properties along the east side of S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue; 5) The properties to the east of the site are zoned Low Medium Density Residential and are residentially developed properties with detached dwellings; 6) The proposal increases the pervious area of the site from 36% to 74%; 7) The proposal increases the floor area ratio of the site from 14% to 31 %; 8) While reductions to setbacks to pavement are requested, these reductions are less than the setbacks to pavement for the existing development; g) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development, and will upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance of Community Development 2006-02-21 10 . . . the immediate vicinity; 10) Flexibility in regard to required setbacks and height 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; and 11) There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 27, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request to construct a 13,000 square-foot office/warehouse building, divided into an 8,000 square-foot warehouse facility and a 5,000 square-foot accessory office, located in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement), a reductionto the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 19.7 feet (to pavement), and an increase to building height from 25 feet to 37.42 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per section 2-704.C., with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a six-foot tall green or black vinyl coated chain link fence be constructed along the east property line and the forty count of seven-gallon Yew Podocarpus be 48 inches in height at time of install to help buffer the residential properties to the east; 3) That all proposed on-site utilities be placed underground prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That a tree preservation plan, prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture, be provided prior to is issuance of a building permit; 5) That prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is to provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit; 6) That transportation impact fees be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.); 7) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; and 8) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Member Coates moved to approve Item B3, Case FLD2005-11112 for 1415 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report, including Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Milam, Johnson, Coates, Tallman, and Fritsch voted "Aye." Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried. 4. Case: ANX2005-11 037 - 1425 Regal Road Level Three Application Owner: David & Sandra Riedinger (1425 Regal Road, Clearwater, FL 33756; Telephone 727-461-1673). Location: A 0.175-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Regal Road approximately 445 feet east of Sunny Park Road. Atlas Page: 315A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.175-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; Community Development 2006-02-21 11 . (b) Future land Use Plan amendment from Residential low (Rl) Category (County) to Residential low (Rl) Category (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to low Medium Density Residential (lMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Brookhill Association (1322 Ann Circle, Clearwater, Fl 33756); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, Fl 33758). Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, Planner III. This annexation involves a 0.175-acre property consisting of one parcel located on the south side of Regal Road between Braund Street and Sunny Park Road approximately 445 feet east of Sunny Park Road. The property is contiguous to the existing City boundary on two sides; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future land Use Plan designation of Residential low (Rl) and a zoning category of low Medium Density Residential (lMDR). Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has reviewed this annexation and determined that it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria. Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63(1 )(b) provides for the voluntary annexation of property that is located within and reduces an enclave on the effective date of the ordinance. The subject site is located within an enclave, is contiguous to City boundaries on the south and west and reduces the enclave. . The property proposed for annexation is contiguous to City boundaries on two sides of the property; therefore, the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63. There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the annexation of 0.175-acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) the Residential low (Rl) Future land Use Plan classification; and 3) the low Medium Density Residential (lMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See motion to recommend approval on page 18. . 5. Case: ANX2005-11038-1604 N. Betty lane Level Three Application Owner: Cleveland S. & Erma L. lang (1604 N. Betty lane, Clearwater, Fl 33755; Telephone 727-953-5880). location: A 0.182-acre parcel of land located on the west side of N. Betty lane immediately north of the intersection of N. Betty lane and Woodbine Street. Atlas Page: 269B. Request: a) Annexation of 0.182-acre of property to the City of Clearwater; Community Development 2006-02-21 12 . b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Single-family detached dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. The subject property is located on the west side of N. Betty Lane, immediately north of the intersection of N. Betty Lane and Woodbine Street. The property is contiguous to existing City bounda~ies to the east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pine lias County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. The subject site is approximately 0.182 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. . Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation of 0.182 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. See motion to recommend approval on page 18. 6. Level Three Application Case: TA2005-11005 - Community Development Code Amendment Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code making criteria and procedures revisions to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II. The City Council established a new planning tool in the 1999 Community Development Code known as the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). The purpose of the NCOD is to ensure that redevelopment activities and infill in existing stable neighborhoods are consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. Two neighborhoods in the City have been through the required process and have the NCOD designation: Coachman Ridge (August 2001) and Island Estates (September 2002). . In 2004, the Planning Department performed an evaluation to determine whether or not the two existing NCODs met their obligations with regard to the Community Development Code requirements regarding education and code enforcement and whether these neighborhoods have received a higher level of City services than other neighborhoods. Community Development 2006-02-21 13 . . . In addition to conclusions regarding the above, the Planning Department offers the following: 1) The amount of time required to develop a NCOD is significant and staff intensive; 2) Once approved, NCODs have not resulted in any code enforcement problems; 3) Once approved, NCODs have not result in significant zoning review issues; 4) Once approved, NCODs have not seemed to create neighborhood strife (once approved); and 5) Once approved, NCODs have not impacted the rate of redevelopment. Proposed Ordinance #7582-06 includes amendments addressing items below, with proposed amendments to existing ordinance underlined: 1) The intent of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts is to "provide a means of ensuring that infill and redevelopment activities in existing residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods requiring special consideration are consistent with the protection of the existing character of the neighborhood." The two neighborhoods with NCOD designations currently, Coachman Ridge and Island Estates both entered the process with the focus being to codify existing deed restrictions. The Planning Department is proposing to expand the "Purpose" portion of the ordinance Section 1, Article 4, Section 4-608 to include, "This is accomplished by the neiahborhood workina with the City to develop a specific area plan for the neiahborhood. which specifies development standards beyond those from the City's Community Development code, that would otherwise applY. It is not a purpose of this section that the City would become, in any way, involved in the enforcement of elements of individual Deed Restrictions." 2) Section 4-608.B.4 is intended to keep a neighborhood from using the NCOD designation as a means to stop road improvements or expansion. The proposed amendment revision would allow a neighborhood experiencing or with plans to undergo significant road improvements to remain eligible for a NCOD. The new Section 4-608.B.4 states, "There ore no Any significant planned road improvements within the boundaries of the area proposed to be designated as a neighborhood conservation district shall be acknowledaed bY the neiahborhood. and no amendments to the standards of this Development Code. nor any specified standards particular to this neiahborhood conservation district shall conflict with those plans; and" 3) The NCOD designation relies on an active homeowner's association for the purpose of educating and initial enforcement of the NGOD. The Planning Department is proposing to change Section 4-608.D.1 to read, "The process for the designation of a particular area as a neighborhood conservation district shall be commenced by a pre-application conference with the community development coordinator and initiated by a petition signed by the owners of at least 60 percent of the real property within the area proposed for designation as a neighborhood conservation district which shall be filed with the community development coordinator in addition to the petition. a list of at least 11 persons who have aareed to serve on a study committee. and proof of the existence. for at least the past 2 years, of an active homeowner's association with authority over the area proposed for desianation as a neiahborhood conservation district."; 4) The original NCOD ordinance set forth a gO-day special area planning process for the area proposed for designation. Planning staff is proposing a minimum of gO days for the special area planning process, however depending on the scope and size of the area proposed for designation more time may be necessary. The proposed amendments sets the time necessary for the special area planning process be identified by the neighborhood services manager, community development coordinator and the leadership of the study committee. Section 4-608.D.4 would be amended to read, "When a neighborhood conservation study committee is appointed, the city manager shall initiate a minimum gO-day special area planning process for the area proposed for designation, The time frame set for the plan study shall be reflective of the extent of the area under consideration and the complexity of the issues that may be addressed. The scope of the study shall be identified throuah a ioint process involvina the neiahborhood services manaaer, community development coordinator and the leadership of the study committee. The study committee shall serve as an advisory body Community Development 2006-02-21 14 . . . during the special area planning process and shall hold at least four public meetings during the process. The city manager shall provide staff assistance to the study committee and the study committee shall approve a special area plan including the goals, pOlicies and objectives for the proposed neighborhood conservation district, a specification of the provisions of this development code which would otherwise be applicable which should be modified for the proposed neighborhood conservation district and a specification of additional development standards which are necessary and appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the proposed neighborhood conservation district. The owners of real property within the proposed neighborhood conservation district shall vote on each development standard proposed to be included in the neighborhood conservation district. The format of the ballot and method of voting shall be approved by the community development coordinator. The results of the vote shall be provided to the community development board and the city commission to be considered when reviewing the proposed development standards. Each development standard forwarded for consideration shall have the support of at least 51 percent of the votes cast. Any costs associated with the conduct of such election shall be paid by the neighborhood."; and 5) Section 4-608.D.5&6 would be combined to read, "Upon completion of a special area plan for a proposed neighborhood conservation district, the city manager shall prep\lre amendmonts to tho comprohensive pl\ln and 3 schedule the special area plan for the proposed neighborhood conservation overlay district for approval. and take whatever actions. includina processina of text amendments under the community development code and amendments to the zonina atlas, which are necessary and appropriate to implement the special area plan for the proposed neighborhood conservation district. Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1) The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Below please find a selected list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: a) Goal 2 - "The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development." and b) Objective 2.3 - "The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City's Community Development Code."; 3) The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan; and 6) The proposed text amendments revise Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District criteria found in Article 4 of the Community Development Code. The proposed amendments are consistent with the following purposes of the Code: a) Section 1-103(A) -It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of 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; b) Section 1-103(C)- It is the further purpose of this Development Code to promote economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and regional cooperation to sustain efforts through which development will protect regionally significant water and other environmental resources; and c) Section 1-103(E)(2) - Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city. Community Development 2006-02-21 15 . The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The proposed amendments to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), Section 4-608 of the Community Development Code addresses issues identified in the 2004 NCOD evaluation and would further refine the process for neighborhoods to submit for the NCOD designation. The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance #7582-06 that revises the Community Development Code. See motion to recommend approval on page 18. . 7. Level Three Application Case: DVA2004-00001A-100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC. Representative: Patrick M. O'Connor (2240 Belleair Road, Suite 160, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727-539-6800). Location: 2.739 acres located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning District: Tourist (T). Request: Review of, and recommendation of a City initiated amendment to the approved Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DVA2004-00001 on February 17, 2005). Proposed Use: Hotel of 350 rooms (127.78 rooms/acre on total site), 75 attached dwellings (27.38 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical rooms/architectural embellishments (from roof deck). Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphv@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director. The existing properties total 2.427 acres and are located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The entire redevelopment site also includes a portion of the eastern and northern half of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way and the First Street right-of-way between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive (proposed to be vacated for a new acreage of 2.739 acres). The properties are developed with various motels (Days Inn, Beach Towers Motel, Spyglass Motel and Golden Beach Motel) and numerous retail sales and restaurant uses. The surrounding area is intensely developed with a variety of uses including restaurants, motels, hotels, retail sales and services and a City-owned public parking lot. The site is located within the Beach Walk District of the Beach by Design special area plan. . On August 17, 2004, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application for the construction of a 350-unit hotel with associated amenities and 75 attached dwellings as a mixed- use development (FLD2004-02013). The City Council approved a companion Development Agreement on February 17, 2005 (Case #DVA2004-00001). These development approvals authorized: 1) Use of 250 hotel rooms from the Beach by Design density pool; 2) Maximum building height of 150 feet; 3) Vacation of a portion of the right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard Community Development 2006-02-21 16 . . . between Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street; 4) Vacation of the First Street right-of-way between Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard; 5) Dedication of right-of-way for proposed Second Street between Coronado Avenue and Gulfview Boulevard; and 6) Dedication of right-of- way for Coronado Drive between proposed Second Street and Gulfview Boulevard. On May 17, 2005, the COB approved a Flexible Development application amending the prior project to modify the location of an elevated pedestrian walkway over South Gulfview Boulevard. The proposed amended Development Agreement revises the previously approved 2005 Development Agreement with regard to issues associated with Beach Walk construction and the timing of the dedication of land for Relocated 1st Street (to be known as Second Avenue once constructed), as well as for the construction of Relocated 1st Street. The amended Development Agreement makes the following revisions: 1) Adds a provision that the City will include the construction of Relocated First Street as an alternate when soliciting bids for Beach Walk and South Gulfview construction. (See Section 5.03 paragraph 8.); 2) Revises provisions relating to the timely completion of Beach Walk, South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Avenue. The original agreement specified that the City would use its "best efforts" to complete these public improvements according to a specific schedule provided the developer makes payment of its pro rata share of the improvements prior to the City awarding a construction contract. The proposed amendment obligates the city to use "reasonable efforts" to complete the construction of these improvements along the project's boundaries prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project and contingent upon the City receiving the developer's pro rata share prior to the City awarding the construction contract; and 3) Amends provisions relating to the developer's obligations for constructing Relocated 1st Street. The original agreement specified that upon the vacation of First Street, the developer would construct improvements for Relocated 151 Street within certain timeframes. The proposed revision requires the developer to convey the land needed for Relocated 1st Street to the City by March 30, 2006. In the event the developer has not demolished site improvements on this land, the City will remove the improvements at the developer's expense. The amendment also specifies that the developer must complete construction of Relocated 1st Street by June 1, 2009 or request the City to construct the improvements by January 2,2009 and pay for such improvements. Additionally, the revision obligates the developer to construct a temporary roadway and sidewalk within the Relocated 1st Street concurrent with the completion of Phase II of Beach Walk, which is the portion of improvements adjacent to the Hyatt and this property. Lastly the amendment requires the developer to establish a letter of credit or other mechanism to ensure that monies are available to construct both the permanent and temporary improvements to Relocated First Street. The COB is required to review the proposed Development Agreement amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. The most recent negotiated amendments have been attached to the staff report for the Board's review. Community Development Code Section 4-606.A. specifies that the City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment to 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 purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure the timely completion of this catalytic hotel development in conjunction with the public improvements to South Gulfview, Beach Walk, Coronado Avenue and Relocated First Street. Community Development 2006-02-21 17 . . . Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Department recommends approval, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DV A2004-00001 by City Council on February 17, 2005) for the site at 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive. Findinas of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1) There is a need to better coordinate and revise the timing and obligations of certain infrastructure improvements in conjunction with the construction of this hotel/residential mixed-use project; 2) The amended Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support beach redevelopment through the resort density pool and the enhancement of public rights-of-way and the vacation of rights-of-way on Clearwater Beach; 3) The amended Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4- 606; and 4) The amended Development Agreement furthers the vision of Beach redevelopment set forth in Beach by Design through the construction of catalytic resort development and the construction of Beach Walk. Member Coates moved to approve Item B 1, Case FLD2005-111 09/TDR2005-11 029 for 150, 158, 162 and 166 Brightwater Drive, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report and with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, Item B2, Case FLD2005-11110 for 706 Bayway Boulevard based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, and to recommend approval of Item B4, Case ANX2005-11037 for 1425 Regal Road based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report, recommend approval of Item B5, Case ANX2005-11038 for 1604 N. Betty Lane based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report, recommend approval of Item B6, Case TA2005-11005 - Community Development Code Amendment related to Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts, and recommend approval of Item B7, Case DV A2004-00001 A for 100 Coronado Drive and 201 , 215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard, based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. - CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 2): 1. Level Three Application Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines that revise the allowable uses maximum heights and other criteria 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 and increases allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: oaoamurohv@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III. Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach, established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4 acres of land Community Development 2006-02-21 18 . . . and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties fronting the north side of Somerset Street. Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition between resort uses to the south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north. The Plan supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing conditions and identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development. In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of a portion of the Old Florida District. The review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the underlying zoning. These inconsistencies make the administration of land development provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and developer expectations. There also is the potential for inconsistency in the review of development proposals. The study recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be determined and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council concurred with those findings. As a result, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 to determine the desired character of this District. As a result of the ideas generated by four public meetings that were held in the District, three options were developed that depicted the heights and uses that had been most frequently favored. These recommendations were presented at the City Council Work Session on August 29,2005. Subsequently, another meeting was held with the City Council on January 19, 2006 to further define the issues. After the Council's direction was received, Planning Department staff developed amendments to Beach by Design based on these comments. Also, as a result of the comments, the staff proposed a rezoning and future land use amendment of all areas within Old Florida zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to Tourist (T), and a change in the land use from Residential High (RH) to Resort Facilities High (RFH). (See LUZ 2005-10013.) Another accompanying case amends the Community Development Code so that it stipulates that specific design standards contained in this amendment supercede the Code. (See TA2005-11004.) The Planning Department also is proposing three other amendments to Beach by Design. One relates to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina Residential District. Another addresses the use of transfer of development rights, and the last one increases development potential for overnight accommodation uses. Old Florida District The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District. These are addressed in the paragraphs below. The mix of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight accommodations and Community Development 2006-02-21 19 . . . attached dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throughout the District. Additionally, it proposes a mixing of those uses where it results in a more viable, attractive and functional property. 1. The following height provisions shall apply: a. Buildings located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted a maximum building height of 35 feet; b. Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building height of 50 feet; and c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet. In order to better understand the height of buildings constructed or approved for construction within the last several years in the Old Florida District, a map was developed depicting the heights of those projects. All of the 17 projects, except one, were approved at 65 feet or below in height. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height limit of 65 feet is in conformance with what has occurred in the past. 2. The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be: a. A 15-foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the District,.except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line; and b. A 10- foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties throughout the district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero foot side building setback and a 10 foot rear setback. 3. The following requirements shall apply to require building stepbacks or alternative increased setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A building stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building mass toward the center of the building. The requirements are: a. A building stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of 35 feet in height is required. This minimum height requirement will not be reduced unless a provision is made for an increased setback on at least one side of the building in conformance with the ratios provided in Section 4. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors between buildings. (1) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on an east- west street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on the front side of the building; Community Development 2006-02-21 20 . . . (2) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on a north- south street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on the side of the building; and (3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on the front of the building. 4. The following are the step back/setback ratios that apply to Section 3: a. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width of less than 46 feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one foot in step back for every two feet in additional height above 35 feet; b. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one foot in stepback for every two and one-half feet in additional height above 35 feet; and c. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one foot in stepback for every three feet in additional height above 35 feet. 5. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height: a. Setbacks (1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum reduction of five feet from any required building setback may be possible if the decreased building setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; (2) To assure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a building is maintained, a minimum five foot unobstructed access must be provided along the entire side yard of properties, except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue, where a zero foot setback is permissible; and (3) Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in required setback per two feet in additional stepback, if desired. b. Step backs (1) A maximum reduction of .five feet from any required building stepback my be possible if the decreased building stepback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and (2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two feet in stepback per one foot in additional required setback, if desired. Community Development 2006-02-21 21 . . . 6. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks for buildings 35 feet and below in height: a. A maximum reduction of 10 feet from any required front or rear setback and a maximum reduction of five feet from any side setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and b. In all cases, a minimum five-foot unobstructed access must be provided along the side yards of properties, except for those fronting Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot setback is permissible. 7. The following landscape setback standards have been set for the District: a. A 10-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue; and b. A zero-foot setback may be permissible for 80 percent of the property frontage for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue. The remaining 20 percent is required to have a minimum landscaped area for a minimum of five feet in depth. The 20 percent may be located in several different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in only one location on the frontage. 8. The following parking/vehicular access standards have been set for the District: a. Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts. b. If the property fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is required from a side street or alley, and not from Mandalay Avenue. Marina Residential District Beach by Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in the District if the property is developed as a live/work product. This provision was explored in discussions with the CDB at its July 2005 meeting. Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with developers that this is not a workable provision for this particular area. Consequently, this provision will be removed from Beach by Design. Densityrrransfer of Development Rights (TORs) Historically, the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodation uses has been 40 units per acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, the Planning Department is proposing to increase the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre. When Beach by Design was originally adopted, the Community Development Code specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use of TDRs. The proposed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limitation for overnight accommodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for residential projects). Additionally, the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the additional 10 overnight Community Development 2006-02-21 22 . . . accommodations (the difference between 40 - 50 units per acre) shall be limited to hotel development and cannot be converted to another use. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the proposed amendment to Beach by Design. 1.2 Objective - Population densities (included in the Coastal Management Element and the Future Land Use Map) in coastal areas are restricted to the maximum density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, except for specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, and shall be consistent with the Pinellas County Hurricane Evacuation Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan and shall be maintained or decreased. 1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval and/or transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacities and shall only be approved if the proposed development will maintain evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 2.1.1 Policy - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plans. 2.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. 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. 3.0 Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development. Community Development 2006-02-21 23 . 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. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purpose of the Code: Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city. This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The amendments are as follows: . 1. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection A. revising the uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the Old Florida District; 2. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and 3. Amendment to Section V.S and VII.A by clarifying transfer of development rights provisions in Beach by Design; and by increasing resort density to 50 units per acre. The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance #7546-06 which makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. In response to questions, Senior Planner Sharen Jarzen said unobstructed access of five feet must be maintained along the entire side yard of properties, except for those fronting on Mandalay Avenue, to help provide access to mechanical features of a building. Language regarding exceptions to stepbacks, setbacks, etc. in these amendments are consistent with language regarding exceptions in other parts of the Code. Planning Director Michael Delk said attendees at the first public meeting voted in support of a maximum height of 65 feet, while attendees at the second meeting supported a maximum height of 75 feet. Staff has tried to find common ground between the heights. . Discussion ensued. It was remarked that only two projects, not under construction, are nonconforming, and if the permits expire, they would be subject to lower heights. Mr. Delk said no other projects are in this district's pipeline and affected by these changes. He said the Community Development 2006-02-21 24 . increase in allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre requires no changes to Code requirements for parking, traffic, etc. One person spoke in support of the amendment, and four spoke in opposition. In response to a question, Ms. Jarzen said public meeting attendees were asked where they resided in the City. As proposed, heights transition from lower on the north to higher on the south. Discussion ensued with comments that a 75-foot transition at the southern end of Bay Esplanade needs to be considered and the area consists of public uses. It was recommended that buildings on the north side of Somerset be permitted a maximum building height of 50 feet. It was stated once changes are approved it could take years before they are revised. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of staff's report and recommendations to the City Council, except that Item 1a on page 2 of the Staff Report be changed to a maximum building height of 50 feet, and that Item 1 c on page 2 of the Staff Report be changed to a maximum building height of 75 feet. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued with comments that the 75-foot maximum height is acceptable, but as homes on the other side of the street on Somerset would be affected if heights there exceed 35 feet, and that 40 feet is more realistic on Somerset. . Member Johnson moved to amend his motion to recommend approval of staff's report and recommendations to the City Council, except that Item 1 c on page 2 of the Staff Report be changed to permit a maximum building height of 75 feet for property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District. The seconder agreed. Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Plisko, Milam, Johnson, Coates, and Tallman voted "Aye"; Member Fritsch voted "Nay." Motion carried. . 2. Case: FLD2005-07077 - 107 McMullen-Booth Road Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Patrick and Toni Hickey. Representative: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA (701 Enterprise Road East, Suite 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855; e-mail: keith@keithzavac.com). Location: 0.264 acre located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 100 feet south of Bay Lane. Atlas Page: 292B. Zoning District: Office (0) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a doctor's office in the Office (0) District with a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 64.08 feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 16 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to sidewalk) and reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B, and reductions to the landscape buffer along the north property line from 12 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 12 feet to five feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 12 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), Community Development 2006-02-21 25 . from 12 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 12 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk) and a reduction to foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Doctor's office. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, Fl 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The CDB originally scheduled this case for public hearing on October 18, 2005. At the applicant's request, this case was continued to the December 20, 2005, CDB meeting. The CDB at their December 20, 2005, meeting approved the applicant's request for another continuance to February 21, 2006, to allow for the revision of application materials to address staff concerns outlined in the Staff Report and to provide a joint access driveway with the property to the north, which will require re-advertisement of the request. The application now is in front of the CDB as originally requested due to the applicant being unable to bring forward a joint application with the property to the north to provide for a joint access driveway. The 0.264-acre site is located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 100 feet south of Bay lane. The site has 64 feet of frontage on McMullen-Booth Road. The site currently is developed with a detached dwelling. . The land use category for this parcel was amended from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential/Office Limited (RlOl) and was rezoned from County R-3 zoning to Office District in May 2001 (lUZ 00-08-09). On July 20, 2004, the COB approved a Flexible Development case for this property to permit a doctor's office (FlD2004-04028). This request included removing the northern portion of the existing dwelling to provide a 20-foot wide drive aisle to the rear of the property where three parking spaces were to be constructed. The building's square-footage would have been 962.75 square-feet. A stormwater pond was approved in the front of the building. Reductions to side setbacks were approved, providing for a six-foot setback on the north side to the required handicap accessible path to the public sidewalk in the McMullen- Booth Road right-of-way and a 10-foot setback to pavement. A side setback to pavement of 9.52 feet was approved on the south side. While two tree removal permits were issued (and the trees removed) based on the CDB approval, no building permit has been applied for to construct the improvements included under FlD2004-04028 within the one year time frame provided by Code nor has any time extension been approved in order to apply for the building permit. Therefore, approval under FlD2004-04028 has expired. . The surrounding area east of McMullen-Booth Road south of Drew Street is primarily detached dwellings. There is a church south of the single-family subdivision directly south of the subject property. The parcel on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road between Bay lane and Drew Street is presently vacant, zoned Office District and has been approved by the CDB on March 16,2004, to permit an 11,350 square-foot office building (FlD2003-11061-117 N. McMullen-Booth Road). This case is now expired as no building permit was submitted to construct the project within the one-year time frame from the CDB approval date. The property directly north at 111 McMullen-Booth Road is developed with a detached dwelling, zoned Office District and is being used without authorization as an attorney office. The owner recently has been cited for such violation (CDC2005-02522). The proposal is to convert the 1,608 square-foot single family dwelling into a doctor's office. Four parking spaces are proposed on the west side and one parking space on the north Community Development 2006-02-21 26 . side of the building. The existing driveway will be expanded to provide for this nonresidential use. A stormwater pond is proposed within the 15-foot wide perimeter buffer along McMullen-Booth Road. The proposal includes utilizing the existing septic tank and drainfield in the rear yard. The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 64.08 feet. When converting existing single-family dwellings located on major arterial or collector roadways, site design usually is complicated due to the lot size, lot width, and the physical location of the dwelling on the property. Generally, residential lots are not as wide as nonresidential lots when the subdivision was platted, the dwellings are placed forward on the lot to maximize the rear or private yard (where recreational activities take place), and the dwellings are fairly close to the side property lines. A complicating issue to such conversion from residential to nonresidential is adequate lot width. The dimensional requirements for 90-degree parking require a north/south dimension of 43 feet minimum. Based on the lot width of 64 feet, this leaves only 21 feet to meet setback and buffering requirements. The minimum setback is 20 feet and the minimum landscape buffer is 12 feet for both the north and south sides of the property. . The property today utilizes a joint driveway on McMullen-Booth Road with the property to the north, which is also zoned Office District. As noted above, the property to the north appears to be used as an office for an attorney without authorization from the City. Technically, the property to the north is a detached dwelling just like the subject property and must be converted through the Flexible Standard (FLS) or the Flexible Development (FLD) process and building permits for site and building improvements. Staff has discussed with both this applicant and the property owner to the north regarding a joint project, where a joint driveway straddling the property line provides access to both lots and to the rear (east side) of the existing buildings where additional parking could be constructed. This, however, has not yet occurred. Absent a joint driveway for both this property and the parcel to the north, the applicant is attempting to comply with the Code requirements for their lot only. Based on the square-footage of the existing building and the required parking ratio, the applicant is providing the minimum number of parking spaces (five, including one handicap space). While the Code sets forth the minimum requirements for parking, property owners/developers must provide for their needs. Based on the submitted floor plan for the conversion of the dwelling to a doctor's office with employees, the size of the building and the number of parking spaces provided, Staff's objection includes inadequate parking from a need standpoint to avoid off-site parking either into the McMullen-Booth Road right-of-way or into the residential subdivision to the east accessed from Bay Lane. . The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 16 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to sidewalk) and reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk). Similarly, the proposal includes reductions to the landscape buffer along the north property line from 12 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 12 feet to five feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 12 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 12 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk) and a reduction to foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet. McMullen-Booth Road is designated a scenic corridor. The reduction to the front setback still provides adequate landscape area for buffering and beautification to complement this roadway designation. Due to the building's location on the Community Development 2006-02-21 27 . . . site, the site design compromises the required setback and buffering provisions. In order to comply with the minimum required number of parking spaces, an "employee-only" space has been squeezed in on the north side of the building. This northern space presents maneuvering issues and raises handicap access concerns. Due to the required width of this northern space, the setback and buffer for this area has been reduced to one-foot, which is inadequate to provide any landscaping in this area. Staff is unaware of approval of any other requests with such a significant reduction to the setback and buffer requirements. The proposal includes the elimination of the required foundation landscaping, which assists in site beautification not only to the traveling public but also to customers of the business. The requested elimination of the foundation landscaping is part of the issue related to the building's location and parking requirements. As such, the requested flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, buffer widths and foundation landscaping is not justified by not providing an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area nor will it enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity. Such approval could set an unnecessary precedent to future cases along McMullen-Booth Road and elsewhere in the City and could hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The proposal includes landscaping of the site. There have been trees removed from the rear portion of the property, with permits, but based on the prior approved Flexible Development case where parking was being provided in the rear yard. With this proposal that does not place parking to the rear of the building, the prior tree removal means there is a tree deficit for the property, as those trees would not otherwise have been approved to be removed. The applicant proposes to remodel the building, upgrading its appearance. The interior is proposed to feature two exam rooms, two offices (that look like exam rooms), a conference room, a receptionist/waiting room area, a break room and a lab. The applicant plans to re-roof the building and paint the exterior with two shades of brown/sand (antique velvet and Newport tint). The applicant has not indicated any freestanding signage for this site. Any freestanding sign most likely would be located within the stormwater pond area of the site and should be monument style at a maximum height of six feet. The site is proposed to utilize a black barrel for trash, with such being stored in the rear of the building. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-704.C) have not been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Findinas of Fact: 1) The subject 0.264-acre site is located on the east side of McMullen- Booth Road, approximately 100 feet south of Bay lane; 2) The site is currently developed with a detached dwelling; 3) The land use category for this parcel is Residential/Office Limited (RlOl) and is zoned Office District; 4) On July 20, 2004, the CDB approved a Flexible Development case for this property to permit a doctor's office (FlD2004-04028) in only a 962.75 square-foot portion of the existing building (the balance was to be removed). Parking of three spaces was to be provided to the rear of the building, via a 20-foot drive on the north side of the building. The approval of this case has expired; 5) The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 64.08 feet; 6) The proposal is to convert the existing 1,608 square-foot single family dwelling into a doctor's office with five parking spaces, meeting the minimum requirements of the Code; 7) The lot width and the physical location of the dwelling on the Community Development 2006-02-21 28 . . . property presents design constraints on the conversion to a doctor's office; 8) Due to the location of the existing building and the required width of the northern parking space, the setback and buffer on the north side has been reduced to one-foot, which is inadequate to provide any landscaping in this area; 9) The proposal includes the elimination of the required five-foot wide foundation landscaping; 10) The requested flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, buffer widths and foundation landscaping is not justified by not providing an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area nor enhancement of the community character of the immediate vicinity; 11) Approval of this case could set an unnecessary precedent to future cases along McMullen-Booth Road and elsewhere in the City and could hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings; 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 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2- 704.C; 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 above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends denial of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 1, 2005. The Planning Department recommends denial for the Flexible Development application to permit a doctor's office in the Office (0) District with a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 63.75 feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 16 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to sidewalk) and reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), from 20 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B, and reductions to the landscape buffer along the north property line from 12 feet to 10.7 feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 12 feet to five feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 12 feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), from 12 feet to 9.7 feet (to pavement) and from 12 feet to 7.3 feet (to sidewalk) and a reduction to foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the site at 107 McMullen-Booth Road with the following Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Tony Damianakis requested party status. Member Coates moved to grant Tony Damianakis party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alicia Kazzor requested party status. Member Johnson moved to grant Alicia Kazzor party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Marianne Thompson requested party status. Community Development 2006-02-21 29 . Member Coates moved to grant Marianne Thompson party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Tallman 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. Keith Zayac, representative, reviewed the project's history and improvements to be made on the property. He said the house is vacant. A joint driveway on McMullen-Booth Road separates into individual driveways for this project and the property to the north. He said the new Calvary Baptist Church is across the street. He said his client is not requesting rezoning to expand the property limits or increase the building height. He said the applicant proposes to remove the one-car garage, renovate the building, construct a driveway to the north, maintain a six-foot landscape buffer, and construct four parking spaces to the rear of the building. He said a camphor tree was removed when the original site plan was approved. He said problems regarding connecting to the City's sanitary sewer system delayed the project, as did the neighbor's desire to retain his easement, and design restraints due to an onsite septic tank. He said design changes have been made. He said the applicant wants to construct paved parking spaces in front of the project, increase the rear landscape buffer, increase the number of trees and their caliper, maintain the existing driveway apron which provides access to the property to the north, and reduce the impervious surface area. Mr. Zayac said staff had not seen the changes. He also offered a list of conditions of approval. . Party status holder Tony Damianakis spoke in support of the application. He said he is still trying to determine what to do with his building, which shares the driveway apron. He said the City properly zoned this property to office use in 2001, but has not been proactive in providing sewer access to the area. Party status holder Alicia Kazzor agreed with most of the staff report, but disagreed with Section 2-100(4)b(2), citing concerns that the fair market value of abutting properties will decrease. She requested current easements and boundaries remain. She said removal of the camphor tree was done on a weekend after 6:00 p.m. She requested information regarding the proposed business, its hours of operation, and how the applicant plans to address increased traffic and noise. Party status holder Marianne Thompson said her property abuts the applicant's property. She requested information regarding signage, lighting, road usage, driveways, and opposed placing parking on McMullen-Booth Road. Mr. Zayac said the applicant is not changing setbacks, property boundaries, or building height, and will retain the existing building. He said this project involves a small office use. He said permits were obtained for removal of the camphor tree. The 4 parking spaces on McMullen-Booth Road would not increase traffic, as there is a large church and a school across the street, and would benefit the community as they would not be seen by the neighbors. He said there will be monument signage, not lighted pole signage. The driveways will remain. . Ms. Kazzor requested the applicant maintain the south side setback at 20 feet instead of reducing it to 7.5 feet. Mr. Zayac said in order to maintain the 20-foot south side setback, he would have to demolish the existing building. Community Development 2006-02-21 30 . Property Owner Patrick Hickey said this project will be a doctor's office which will accept walk-in patients. He anticipates 15 to 20 patients a day at the end of two years. Office hours will be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The office will close for 2 hours in the afternoon. There will be no neon signs. He said he has been working on this project for 26 months and wants to make the project work. Mr. Zayac said the applicant is minimizing the impact to the surrounding area by not taking advantage of the opportunity to increase the height. He was agreeable to an opaque six- foot vinyl fence, vegetative hedges and trees extending the circumference of the property to buffer the noise and view from neighbors. Ms. Thompson expressed concern that the septic tank on the property would not accommodate the use. Mr. Zayac said the septic tank would be repaired. He said the applicant is required to submit construction plans to staff for review prior to address those types of issues. . Mr. Wells said in 2001, the property's use was rezoned for office use. The applicant has the ability to develop the property according to Code. The maximum height for fences on the property is 6 feet. The existing building height is 7.1 feet. Code required setbacks are 20 feet, and the septic tank would need to meet Code requirements. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said staff would need to review the interior layout, number of rooms being proposed, and the parking design. He said the parking cannot be located over the septic tank. Discussion ensued with comments that the applicant has proposed changes at today's meeting that staff has not seen, that no photographs, site plans, etc. were included in board packets, and that the case should be continued to ensure proper review of the changes. Member Plisko moved to reopen the publiC hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Tallman moved to continue Item E2, Case FLD2005-02077 for 107 McMullen- Booth Road to March 21, 2006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The CDB recessed from 3:17 to 3:25 p.m. F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1): . 1. Case: FLD2005-07071 - 678 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: SKTEL, Inc. Applicant: Playa Del Sol Resort. 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@mindsprina.com). Location: 1.0839 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Bayway Boulevard on the west side of Parkway Drive. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning District: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use (3,650 square-feet of office floor area, 27 attached dwellings and four overnight accommodation rooms/units) with reductions to the front (north along Bayway Blvd) setback from 15 feet to 9.6 feet (to building), from 15 feet to five feet (to existing pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Parkway Drive) setback from 15 Community Development 2006-02-21 31 . feet to 10.3 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool and patio decks) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement and sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 7.4 feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing sidewalk and pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool deck) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 85.08 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 5.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Mixed use (3,650 square-feet of office floor area, 27 attached dwellings and four overnight accommodation rooms/units). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Point 1 Beach House 16 (845 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-535-2424); Clearwater Point 3 Marina House 17 (868 Bayway Blvd #212, Clearwater, FI 33767); Clearwater Point 4 Island House 1 (895 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-530-4517); Clearwater Point 5 Admiral House 19 (825 S Gulfview Blvd #104, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-447-0290); Clearwater Point 7 Inc, Yacht House (851 Bayway Blvd, Clearwater, FI 33767; phone: 727-441-8212; e-mail: cpoint7ca>.knoloQv.net);ClearwaterPoint8Shipmaster, Sail (800 S Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater, F133767; phone: 727-442-0664; e-mail: clwpt8ca>.tampabav.rr.com); Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphvca>.aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. . Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 1.0839 acres is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Bayway Boulevard on the west side of Parkway Drive. The site is in the shape of a "T" and is triple fronted on South Gulfview Boulevard (south), Bayway Boulevard (north), and Parkway Drive (east). The site has 60 feet of frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard, 333 feet of frontage on Bayway Boulevard, and 117 feet of frontage on Parkway Drive. The site currently is developed with 42 overnight accommodation rooms/units (timeshare). The site is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design, which is a distinctive area of mixed uses including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels and commercial uses. Beach By Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater beach. The property to the south across South Gulfview Boulevard presently is developed with an overnight accommodation use, but has been approved to be redeveloped with 90 attached dwellings (condominiums) in a building 150 feet tall (Enchantment, 691 South Gulfview Boulevard). The property to the east presently is developed with one-story retail sales uses (adjacent and across Parkway Drive). The property to the west presently is developed with one- story retail sales uses (including Walgreen's). The property to the north is developed with attached dwelling uses, both townhomes (two-stories over ground-level parking) and condominiums (three-stories over ground level parking). The Police Department Substation is across Bayway Boulevard to the northeast. While there are still commercial uses in close proximity, redevelopment of properties in this area of the beach is changing the character from a tourist-dominated area of overnight accommodation uses to a residential area of attached dwellings (town homes and condominiums). . Community Development 2006-02-21 32 . . . As a part of this proposal, the applicant proposes to modify the south property line approximately three feet to the north on the west side to eliminate the present encroachment of the adjacent retail building onto the subject property. This lot line modification will need to be completed prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The change in the lot line location and its effect on land area has been reflected in the mixed-use calculation for density and intensity ratios for the proposed development on this property. The proposal includes constructing a mixed-use project consisting of 3,650 square-feet of office floor area, 27 attached dwellings, and four overnight accommodation rooms/units. As a mixed-use project, this proposal has been calculated to not exceed the density and intensity ratios contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The office uses are proposed on the ground floor of the new building, facing Bayway Boulevard. A concierge office area on the first floor off of the residential lobby has been provided for the condominium owners. Any approval of this request should include a condition restricting use of this area of the building, as this area is considered accessory to the residential use and cannot be rented out as a general office use. A clubhouse (accessory use) for the condominium residents is located on the south side of the ground floor. There are two levels of parking proposed. A fitness center and game room for the condominium residents are proposed on the second floor (accessory uses). The project includes four overnight accommodation rooms/units (two rooms/units each on the second and third floors) within an existing building facing South Gulfview Boulevard, which will be renovated to be consistent architecturally with the new building. The new building will contain 27 dwelling units on six living floors. Within the new building, the third, fourth and fifth floors will contain six units each, with one unit approximately 1,925 square-feet and the other units ranging between 2,637 and 2,784 square-feet. The sixth floor will contain two units of 3,012 square-feet each and the lower level of three, two-story units (composed of two units with a total of 3,539 square-feet between the two levels and one unit of 3,838 square-feet between the two levels). The seventh floor will have the upper levels of the three, two-story units from the sixth floor, as well as the lower level of four, two- story units (composed of two units with a total of 6,678 square-feet between the two levels and two units with a total of 4,038 square-feet between the two levels). The proposed building meets the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design where the plane of the building has been provided with offsets to avoid long linear planes of the building. The proposal includes a total of 86 parking spaces on two levels of the building, whereas a total of 73 parking spaces are required. This project is providing the new requirement of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Most of the parking is under the building, however, there is some parking on the west side not under the residential portion of the building. Parking for the offices, overnight accommodation guests, dwelling residents and their guests is proposed on the ground floor, which is accessed from Parkway Drive. Parking for dwelling residents only is provided on the second floor, which is accessed from Bayway Boulevard. This site also is retaining existing surface parking spaces for the retail sales businesses (including Walgreen's) on the west side of the site, which is covered through an existing parking easement with the adjacent property owner. The landscaping adjacent to the existing surface parking area must be improved with curbing and wheel stops (where missing) for the protection of the landscaping. Such curbing and wheel stops must be shown on revised civil plans prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due to a "mixed-use" not being a use permitted within the Tourist District. The proposal includes reductions to the front (north along Bayway Blvd) setback from 15 feet to 9.6 feet (to building), Community Development 2006-02-21 33 . . . from 15 feet to five feet (to existing pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Parkway Drive) setback from 15 feet to 10.3 feet (to building) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool and patio decks) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement and sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 7.4 feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing sidewalk and pavement) and a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool deck). The property is in the shape of a "T," where the property has the greatest property length along Bayway Boulevard. The proposal includes a reduction to the front setback to 9.6 feet to the northwest corner of the building and to 9.7 feet to the northeast corner of the building. This dimension is actually to the columns for the entry overhangs and the balconies for Floors 2 - 8. The wall of the building for the first two floors is at approximately 14 feet from the front property line along Bayway Boulevard. The exterior walls for the dwellings on Floors 3 - 8 are approximately 21 feet from the front property line along Bayway Boulevard. The project to the north at 692 Bayway Boulevard was approved and constructed with a front setback of five feet to the elevator and nine feet to the stairwell. This proposed building steps back to approximately 38 feet to the second floor parking deck on the west side. The existing parking area on the west side for the adjacent retail uses (Walgreen's), covered through a parking easement, must be retained. This existing parking area is at a five-foot front setback to Bayway Boulevard. The proposed reductions to the front setback to the east along Parkway Drive is 10.3 feet at the northeast corner of the building and 11.9 feet at the southeast corner of the building. Except for the stairwell on the east side of the building, these front setbacks are to the columns for the open balconies (actual exterior wall of the dwellings is at approximately 17 - 18 feet from the front property line along Parkway Drive. The commercial building for Surf Style at 700 South Gulfview Boulevard (across Parkway Drive) was approved and constructed at a front setback from Parkway Drive of two feet to the building. The side setback reduction to the south property line to the adjacent retail sales buildings of 7.4 feet on the east side and eight feet on the west side is to balcony "bump outs" for Floors 1 - 5, but is to the actual exterior wall of the dwellings for Floors 6 - 8. The side setback reduction to the west property lines occurs at two locations of the "T" shaped property. On the extreme west side adjacent to Walgreen's the pavement for the existing parking area for Walgreen's is at a zero setback, which must be retained due to this parking being required parking for the adjacent retail businesses and is covered under a parking easement. On the lower portion of the "T" where the existing overnight accommodation building is being retained, an existing patio/sidewalk on the west side of that building is being removed to create a five-foot wide landscape area along the property line. The existing pool on the property is being removed. A new pool between, and for, the residential and overnight accommodation buildings is proposed with the pool deck at a five-foot side setback on the east and west sides. All but a sidewalk adjacent to the east side of the overnight accommodation building is being removed, which will be landscaped as part of this proposal. Existing buildings, pavement and patios on the retail parcels to the east and west of the overnight accommodation building are located between zero and five feet. With regard to the front setback reductions from Bayway Boulevard and Parkway Drive related to the trash staging areas, the building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor next to the residential lobby. A dumpster enclosure for Walgreen's is being provided on this property at the southwest corner of the new building. Dumpsters or recycling carts will be rolled out to the staging areas on Community Development 2006-02-21 34 . collection days. The location of the trash staging areas within the front setback are necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and are common with many newer developments. The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks is justified by the benefits to an upgraded site appearance to the surrounding area. The proposal is compatible and consistent with the attached dwelling character of the immediate vicinity. . The proposal includes an increase to building height from 35 feet to 85.08 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 5.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck). The site is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design, which is a distinctive area of mixed-uses including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels, and commercial uses. Beach by Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater beach. The proposed building replaces three two-story over ground level parking overnight accommodation buildings. Attached dwelling projects constructed across Bayway Boulevard are lower in height (656: 31 feet; 674: 31 feet; and 692: 42 feet), while projects farther west are taller in height (600: 45.43 feet; 514: 93 feet). The project at 706 Bayway Boulevard northeast of the subject site was approved at a height of 87.25 feet. The residential buildings in the Clearwater Point attached dwelling project east of Gulf Boulevard are close to 100 feet in height. To the south across South Gulfview Boulevard, the existing Continental Towers building at 675 South Gulfview Boulevard is 94.7 feet in height, while there are other projects are approved to be constructed of similar height or taller (655: 99.5 feet; 691: 150 feet; and 715: 150 feet). The proposed height is compatible and consistent with other projects within this "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District." The proposal includes a request to increase the height of perimeter parapets around the edge of the roof deck an additional 5.67 feet (from roof deck), where the Code permitted maximum is 30-inches. This increase may be viewed as making the parapets proportional in respect to the height of the building and to aid in the screening of the rooftop air conditioning units. The Mediterranean-style of architecture of the building will include alternating vertical areas of the fayade in soft apricot and youthful coral stucco for the main building color, accented by corona (off white) on the horizontal bands and on columns, windows, door frames and railings. The landscape plan utilizes groundcover (variegated minima jasmine), shrubs (viburnum, Indian hawthorne, petite pink oleander and cast iron plant) and trees (cabbage palm, live oak, crape myrtle and ligustrum tree). All areas of the site will be heavily planted, including the area around the existing overnight accommodation building fronting on South Gulfview Boulevard, which will provide a pleasing appearance for this entire project. The areas on the west side of the site around the existing parking area for Walgreen's must also be improved to the same standard as the new areas of the site, which should be shown on a revised landscape plan prior to the issuance of any permits. . The applicant is proposing two monument-style signs oriented toward Bayway Boulevard and Parkway Drive. There is an existing freestanding sign in front of the existing, to-remain overnight accommodation building oriented to South Gulfview Boulevard, which is nonconforming to current Code provisions. The applicant acknowledges that this sign will need to be removed and any replacement freestanding sign will need to meet Code provisions. Any future freestanding sign should be a monument-style at a maximum four feet in height (unless a maximum six-foot height is approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program) and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. On-site utility facilities (electric and Community Development 2006-02-21 35 . . . communication lines) will be required to be placed underground as part of the site redevelopment. Provisions for the placement of conduits for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way should be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-803.C) have been met. There is an active enforcement issue associated with this site. The buildings on the north side are not being maintained, with facia missing allowing fowl and vermin access to the inside of the building (CDC2005-01801). FindinQs of Fact: 1) The subject 1.0839 acres is zoned Tourist District and is located within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" of Beach by Design; 2) The site is in the shape of a "T' and is triple fronted, with 333 feet of lot width on Bayway Boulevard, 117 feet of lot width on Parkway Drive and 60 feet of lot width on South Gulfview Boulevard; 3) The site currently is developed with a total of 42 overnight accommodation rooms/units; 4) The proposal includes constructing a mixed use (3,650 square-feet of office floor area, 27 attached dwellings and four overnight accommodation rooms/units), a use not permitted in the Tourist District, which is the reason for processing the request as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 5) As a mixed-use project, this proposal has been calculated to not exceed the density and intensity ratios contained in the Comprehensive Plan; 6) The proposal includes a modification to the south property line approximately three feet to the north on the west side to eliminate the encroachment of the adjacent retail building onto the subject property; 7) The proposed building of a total of eight stories (height of 85.08 feet to roof deck) is consistent with that envisioned for the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass District" by Beach by Design, where building heights range from 31 feet to 150 feet in the surrounding area; 8) Setback reductions along Bayway Boulevard, which is the main or longest fa9ade facing a roadway, are actually to the columns for the entry overhangs and the balconies for Floors 2 - 8, while the wall of the building for the first two floors is at approximately 14 feet from the front property line along Bayway Boulevard and the exterior walls for the dwellings on Floors 3 - 8 are approximately 21 feet from the front property line along Bayway Boulevard; 9) Setback reductions are consistent with existing or approved development projects within the surrounding area; 10) Parking provided for this project exceeds the minimum requirements for attached dwellings, overnight accommodations and office uses; 11) The proposal is compatible and consistent with the existing and emerging attached dwelling character of the surrounding area; and 12) There is an active code enforcement case for the parcel. Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and 3) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 29, 2005, and on December 8, 2005. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a mixed use (3,650 square-feet of office floor area, 27 attached dwellings and four overnight accommodation rooms/units) with reductions to the front (north along Bayway Blvd) setback from 15 feet to 9.6 feet (to building), from 15 feet to five feet (to existing pavement) and from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Parkway Drive) setback from 15 feet to 10.3 feet (to building) and from 15 feet Community Development 2006-02-21 36 . . . to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool and patio decks) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement and sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 7.4 feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), and from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing sidewalk and pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool deck) and an increase to building height from 35 feet to 85.08 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 5.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Aooroval: 1) That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Minor Lot Adjustment be submitted to the Planning Department, approved and recorded in the pUblic records; 4) That the condominium concierge office area be solely accessory to the attached dwellings on this property. This office area on the first floor shall not be converted to general tenant office space; 5) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the civil plans be revised to curb the edges of pavement and provide wheel stops for the existing surface parking area on the west side; 6) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan be revised to show the west side of the site improved to the same standard as the new areas of the site, acceptable to the Planning Department; 7) That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 8) That any future freestanding signs be monument-style designed to match the exterior materials and color of the buildings. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at a height of six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Existing signage shall be brought into compliance with Code provisions; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 12) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 13) That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, traffic impact fees be assessed and paid. Sher Mancuso requested party status. Member Johnson moved to grant Sher Mancuso party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Nicholas Economides requested party status. Member Johnson moved to grant Nicholas Economides party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2006-02-21 37 . . . Member Coates 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. Member Coates moved to accept Ethyl Hammer as an expert witness in the field of planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ethyl Hammer, representative, said she agrees with the Staff Report. She distributed a copy of her analysis and a map showing existing and approved building heights in the area. She said the high rises in this area create a tiering effect. She felt the building's design is a beautiful asset to Clearwater beach, will serve as a stimulus, is a use encouraged by Beach by Design, and is consistent with surrounding land uses. She said the property has three street frontages and the architect did a great job meeting the intent of the Code. She said parking exceeds minimum Code requirements, the proposed height is in character with the surrounding area, and the project is in conformity with the criteria the COB is to use to evaluate it per land development regulations. Ed Armstrong, representative, said one resident seeking party status has concerns regarding easements. The applicant is proposing a remedy that has not been put in writing yet. He said the project will be built to accommodate all parties. The applicant is waiting to pull a building permit until after the issue regarding the easement has been resolved. Party status holder Sher Mancuso showed photographs of the property and surrounding area. She said the project will not be consistent with townhomes and condominiums on her street. She said heights and setbacks are not compatible or consistent with the 600 block of the street. She said the street is becoming mostly residential and the height proposed ranges from 35 feet to 85 feet, plus an additional 5.67 feet, making it a total of 91 feet high. However, the heights across the street are only 35 feet. She said there is parking on both sides of the street and felt this project would create a tunnel effect and set a precedent. She said the project's setbacks are insufficient for landscaping in comparison to the building's height. She said the average setback for properties on the 600 block of Bayway Boulevard is 25 feet. In response to questions from Ed Armstrong, Mr. Wells said 656 Bayway Boulevard was a town home project. When it was proposed along with other town homes along Bayway Boulevard, that project was pushed back 25 feet because back-out parking was not appropriate in the area. Mr. Wells reviewed the proposed setbacks. He said the predominant size of setbacks for properties in the area are 15 feet and 692 Bayway has even less. Two persons spoke in support of the project and one spoke in opposition. Mr. Armstrong said a remark had been made that this project is not compatible with 656 and 692 Bayway Boulevard. He said those two properties actually stand out, as they are shorter in height than other buildings in the area. He said many projects on Ms. Hammer's height map were approved by staff and the COB. He said this office use is de minimis in terms of traffic impact, exceeds Code parking requirements, and meets all applicable criteria of the Code. The architect was complimented on the building's design. It was remarked thatthis style is different than many on the beach. Community Development 2006-02-21 38 . . . Member Fritsch moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2005-07071 for 678 South Gulfview Boulevard based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Staff Report with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. DIRECTOR'S ITEM Mr. Delk reported the Council/CDB Special Joint Work Session is scheduled for 11 :00 a.m. on February 27,2006, at the Main Library. Member Plisko was thanked for his service on the board. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m. Community Development 2006-02-21 Board 39 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ~;~ NAME Al e- CITY COUNTY NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSI N. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ~~ THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WH~H I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ~ITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: ~vJ-~ lAST NAME-FIRST MAILING ADDRESS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: o ELECTIVE I8"'APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, counci commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly dependin on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form beforl completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whicr inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the 'parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described abGve, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the ass~mbly the nature of your interest in. the measure on which you are.abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 1~ DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing thisfonm with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the fonm in the minutes. .: APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although YOlJmust abstain from voting in the -sitvations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclos.e the nature of the conflict before making iJ,ny aUempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or ~t your direction. YOU INTEl';!,D T9 MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THEDECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE AKEN: . You must,complete and filethi,s form (before r:naking any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of themeeting; who wili incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CEFORM8B-EF~1nooo PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of thE meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I,~\m vU-?~ , hereby disclose that on J=" e. ':J . 2--1 ,20 0 " (a) A ~sure came or will come before my agency which (check one) Linured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom J am retained; or , by inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ,which r:: L:P 2..-00 -S - I \\ '2.. - I Lf \ 5" 5, }J..(l.-f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.h.e. - 1==1~\C,~(e... ""DeveiD~ ~ +t> ~-t ~ eJODO ~t..t::+. t,)./tLf~ ..J- ~ 5',OOQ ?l,;~-l--. 6.J:;J:;'t.e.., . Date Filed _J Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DIS,cLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIM4-ND, OR. CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 21, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Items: ca~2005-07077 - 107 McMullen Booth Road Yes no Level Two Avvlication Level Two Applications C7LD2005-11109/TDR2005-11029 -150,158,162 and 166 Brightwater Drive Yes no Case: FLD2005-07071 - 678 South Gulfview Boulevard ~Yes no Case: FLD2005-11112 -1415 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave dYes no Case: FLD2005-11110 - 706 Bayway Boulevard ~Yes no Level Three Applications Case: ANX2005-11037 -1425 Regal Road ~Yes no Case: ANX2005-11038-1604 N. Betty Lane -V Yes no Case: ~ A2004-0000lA - 100 Coronado Dr & 201,215 and 219 S Gulfview Blvd V Yes no Signature: S:\Planning Date: B-/S-<< nt\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 21, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Items: Case: ~D2005-07077 - 107 McMullen Booth Road ./ Yes no Level Two Aoolication Level Two Applications Cases;..FLD2005-11109/TDR2005-11029 -150,158,162 and 166 Brightwater Drive ../ Yes no Case: FLD2005-07071 - 678 South Gulfview Boulevard '/Yes no Case: FLD2005-11112 -1415 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave / Yes no Case: FLD2005-11110 -706 Bayway Boulevard /' Yes no Level Three Applications Case: ANX2005-11037 - 1425 Regal Road /Yes no Case: ANX2005-11038-1604 N. Betty Lane /' Yes no Case: DV A2004-00001A - 100 Coronado Dr & 201,215 and 219 S Gulfview Blvd / -' no Signature: S:\Planning Date: ~/Z I/O {", artment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 21, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Items: caK'D2005-07077 - 107 McMullen Booth Road Yes no Level Two Applications Cases: FLD2005-11109/TDR2005-11029 -150,158,162 and 166 Brightwater Drive +Yes no Case: FLD2005-07071 - 678 South Gulfview Boulevard ~Yes no Case: FLD2005-11112 -1415 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave ---4-- Yes no Case: FLD2005-11110 -706 Bayway Boulevard ----X- Yes no Level Three Applications Level Two Aoolication Case: ANX2005-11037 -1425 Regal Road Yes ~no Case: ANX200S-U038-l04 N. Betty Lane Yes no V A2004-00001A - 100 Coronado Dr & 201, 215 and 219 S Gulfview Blvd no Signature: S:\Planning Department\C D B\ Date: '2..2\.o~ , property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 21, 2006 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Continued Items: Case~FLD2005-07077 - 107 McMullen Booth Road .; Yes no Level Two Avvlication Level Two Applications Cases: FLD2005-11109/T!}R2005-11029 -150,158,162 and 166 Brightwater Drive Yes V no Case: F'y>2005-07071 - 678 South Gulfview Boulevard / Yes no Case: F-y>2005-11112 -1415 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave / Yes no Case: F~2005-11110 -706 Bayway Boulevard ./ Yes no Level Three Applications Case: ANX2005-11037 -1425 Regal Road Yes ~o Case: ANX2005-11038-1604 N. Betty Lane Yes / no Case: DV A2004-00001A - 100 Coronado Dr & 201, 215 and 219 S Gulfview Blvd no Signature: S:\Planning Departme Date: r9- !2-J IV~ DB, property investigation cheCK list.doc