02/20/2007
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
February 20, 2007
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board – arrived 1:05 p.m.
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Neil Thompson Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
January 16, 2007
Member Fritsch moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 16,
2007, as corrected: page four, first sentence of paragraph two to read: “Ken Reynolds…”; page
seven, paragraph three to read “…page 32.”; page 12, paragraph three to read “…page 32.”;
page 15, paragraph two to read “…page 32.”; and page 27, paragraph six to read “…page 32.”
motioncarried
The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy
did not vote.
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 – 8):
1. Pulled from, and later returned to Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-07072 – 645 – 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Grande Holdings, L.L.C.
Representative: Doreen Williams, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 1.437 acres located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard
approximately 1,200 feet west of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development 2007-02-20 1
Doreen Williams of Northside Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Clearwater
Grande Holdings, L.L.C., has requested an extension of time for Case FLD2005-07072. The
requested one-year extension would expire on March 20, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but is not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for economic
reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that, pursuant to
Section 4-407, the Planning Director previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB (Community Development Board) may consider
whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or
approved Code amendments, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by
the Board that in the intervening period subsequent to the original approval, Code amendments
affect this project: 1) The requirement for parking has been amended to two parking spaces per
unit. This project was approved with 108 parking spaces for 68 attached dwelling units, at a
parking ratio of 1.59 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 2) The requirement for parapet height
for buildings with flat roofs has been amended to a maximum of 42-inches. The project was
approved with a parapet height of 11.5 feet (from roof deck).
Section 6-109.B was amended to not allow the conversion of a nonconforming density to
a different use. Approval of this project provided for the conversion of nonconforming overnight
accommodation density to dwelling unit density.
See page 5 for discussion and motion of approval.
2. Pulled from, and later returned to Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-07065 – 64 and 566 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Hess Properties II LLC and Mediterraneo Developments, LLC.
Representative: Stephen Hess (901 N. Hercules Avenue, Suite D, Clearwater, FL
33765; phone: 727-443-4377).
Location: 0.55 acre located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Cypress
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Stephen Hess, on behalf of Hess Properties II LLC and Mediterraneo Developments,
LLC, has requested an extension of time relative to Case: FLD2005-07065 located at 64 and
566 Bay Esplanade. The one-year extension requested would expire on March 20, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for
Community Development 2007-02-20 2
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments,
which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the intervening
period subsequent to the original approval, Code amendments affect this project: 1) Section 6-
109.B of the Community Development Code was amended to not allow the conversion of a
nonconforming density to a different use. Approval of this project provided for the conversion of
nonconforming overnight accommodation density to attached dwelling unit density; 2) The parking
requirement for attached dwellings has been amended to two parking spaces per dwelling unit.
This project was approved with 33 parking spaces for 21 attached dwelling units, a rate of 1.57
parking spaces per dwelling unit; 3) The allowable parapet height for buildings with flat roofs has
been amended to a maximum of 42 inches. The project approved by the CDB included a parapet
height of 11 feet; 4) The definition of “Height, building or structure” has been amended so that only
elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment enclosures are permitted to project up
to 16 feet higher than the maximum height within the district. As approved, the project included
appurtenances (architectural embellishments) not consistent with the above definition that
projected 19 feet above the roof deck; and 5) The “Old Florida” District of the Beach by Design
special area plan has been revised such that it requires a 6.8-foot building stepback along the
south façade of the building at a height of 35 feet. As approved, the project did not incorporate
any stepback at this height.
See page 5 for discussion and motion of approval.
3. Pulled from, and later returned to Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2005-07064 – 621 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Coates 1, Inc.
Representative: Marysia M. Coates (621 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone:
727-441-4421).
Location: 0.37 acre located along the east side of Bay Esplanade and west of Cypress
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Marysia M. and Graham Coates, on behalf of Coates 1, Inc., has requested an extension
of time relative to Case FLD2005-07064 for 621 Bay Esplanade. The one-year extension
requested would expire on March 20, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time “shall
be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that good
cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant
downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the like.” In this
particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for economic reasons
as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that, pursuant to Section 4-407,
the Planning Director has previously granted a six-month extension.
Community Development 2007-02-20 3
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on
the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved Code
amendments, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board
that in the intervening period subsequent to the original approval, Code amendments affect
this project. Section 6-109.B of the Community Development Code was amended to not
allow the conversion of a nonconforming density to a different use. Approval of this project
1) provided for the conversion of nonconforming overnight accommodation density to
attached dwelling unit density; 2) The parking requirement for attached dwellings has been
amended to two parking spaces per dwelling unit. This project was approved with 20
parking spaces for 13 attached dwelling units, a rate of 1.53 parking spaces per dwelling
unit; 3) The allowable parapet height for buildings with flat roofs has been amended to a
maximum of 42-inches. The project approved by the CDB included a parapet height of nine
feet; 4) The definition of “Height, building or structure” has been amended so that only
elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment enclosures are permitted to
project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum height within the district. As approved, the
project included appurtenances (architectural embellishments) not consistent with the above
definition that projected 22 feet above the roof deck; and 5) The “Old Florida” District of the
Beach by Design special area plan has been revised such that it requires a 7.3-foot building
stepback along either the north or south façade of the building at a height of 35 feet. As
approved, the project does not incorporate a stepback at this height consistent with District
requirements.
See page 5 for discussion and motion of approval.
4. Pulled from, and later returned to Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2005-07066 – 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive
Owner/Applicant: Jerry and Teresa Tas.
Representative: Ed Hooper (P.O. Box 4268, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Location: 0.35 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive between Coronado
and Hamden Drives.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Ed Hooper, on behalf of Jerry and Teresa Tas, has requested an extension of time
relative to the Case: FLD2005-07066 located at 342 Hamden Drive and 343 Coronado Drive.
The one-year extension requested would expire on May 15, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for
economic reasons as it relates to deteriorating market conditions. It should be noted that,
pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a six-month extension.
The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the
project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments
Community Development 2007-02-20 4
which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the
intervening period subsequent to the original approval, Code amendments affect this project: 1)
The parking requirement for attached dwellings has been amended to two parking spaces per
dwelling unit. This project was approved with 26 parking spaces for 17 attached dwelling units,
a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit; 2) The definition of “Height, building or structure”
has been amended so that only elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment
enclosures are permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum height within the
district; 3) As approved, the project included appurtenances (architectural embellishments) not
consistent with the above definition that project 14 feet above the roof deck.
In reference to Items 1 – 4, it was stated that Code amendments had increased required
parking from 1.5 parking spaces/unit to 2 parking spaces/ per unit. Concern was expressed that
applicants have had sufficient time to pull permits and had been granted previous extensions.
Due to significant parking problems on the beach and the size of proposed condominiums, it
was recommended that the CDB deny requests related to Items D1 - D4 and require applicants
to submit new applications that meet current Code requirements. It was requested that the CDB
consider the economy and advanced stage of planning for each project, as it would be difficult
to redesign these projects to meet current Code. It was remarked that the projects had
complied with the current Code at the time of application and are eligible to request extensions.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells said applicants can request extensions up to one year. These are
the last time extensions the applicants can receive.
motion
Member Coates moved to return Items D1 - D4 to the Consent Agenda. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2005-07072, FLD2005-07065, FLD2005-
07064, and FLD2005-07066 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record,
motioncarried
including the applications and the Staff Reports. The was duly seconded and
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2007-02-20 5
5. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-11062 – 2316, 2346, 2352, 2358, 2364 and 2370 Drew Street
Owners/Applicants: 2340 Drew Street, LLC and Drew Professional Park Condominium
Association, Inc.
Representative: Robert E. Gregg (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-796-8774; fax: 727-791-6942).
Location: 3.97 acres generally located at the northeast corner of Anna Avenue and Drew
Street.
Atlas Page: 281A.
Zoning District: Office (O) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to allow a Governmental Use within the Office (O)
District at 2316 Drew Street with a maximum building height of 38 feet; front (south) setbacks of
25 feet (to building) and 15 feet (to pavement); front (west) setbacks of 62 feet (to building) and
15 feet (to pavement); side (north) setbacks of 55 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement);
side (east) setbacks of 171 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); a minimum off-street
parking requirement of 3.76 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area; and to
reduce the side (west) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement) for the existing
Office and Medical Clinic uses at 2346-2370 Drew Street as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project pursuant to Section 2-1004.B of the Community Development Code
along with a reduction to the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to 10 feet, a
reduction to the interior tree requirement from 25 to 19, and an increase to the maximum
percentage of palms that can be incorporated into the landscape plan from 25% to 29% at 2316
Drew Street; and a reduction to the side (west) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero
feet at 2346-2370 Drew Street as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Governmental Use.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
James Newkirk requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant James Newkirk party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. At its meeting of December 12, 2002,
the DRC (Development Review Committee) approved a Flexible Standard Development
application (FLS2002-11080) for a 40,328 square-foot office development to be constructed
over three phases. The first phase of development included the construction of five single-story
buildings (20,570 square-feet) with associated off-street parking and drainage facilities on the
easternmost 2.18 acres of the site and a sliver of land along the north property line of the
western 1.79 acres of the site.
As approved, the second and third phases were to consist of five additional single-story
office buildings (17,870 square-feet) with associated off-street parking and connections to the
existing drainage facilities constructed as part of the first phase, and were to be constructed on
Community Development 2007-02-20 6
the western 1.79 acres of the site. While the first phase of the development was constructed,
the second and third phases remain undeveloped as vacant land.
It is noted that on November 3, 2005, the DRC approved a Flexible Standard
Development application (FLS2005-09075) to convert one of the office buildings (2370 Drew
Street) previously approved as part of the first phase of development of the subject property to a
Medical Clinic. The interior renovations associated with this conversion have occurred and the
building is presently being occupied accordingly.
The development proposal includes the construction of a 26,000 square-foot, two-story
building on the vacant 1.79 acres remaining from the original approval to accommodate a
Governmental Use (Social Security Administration) along with the construction of associated off-
street parking and the installation of landscaping.
The request includes the establishment of minimum building and pavement setbacks, a
maximum building height, and a parking requirement for the proposed Governmental Use. In
addition, the request includes a setback reduction for an existing drive aisle constructed as part
of the first phase of development. With the construction of the first buildings, the property was
platted as commercial condominiums and the land that was to comprise the second and third
phases was sold off. As a result of this subdivision, a property line was created along the
western edge of the drive aisle adjacent to building “F” (2346 Drew Street), which in turn created
a zero foot setback to pavement and rendered the provision of a required perimeter landscape
buffer impossible.
Pursuant to Section 2-1001.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum FAR
(Floor Area Ratio) within the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use category is
0.50. As proposed, the development will have a FAR of 0.22 and therefore meets the
requirement.
Pursuant to Section 2-1001.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum ISR
(Impervious Surface Ratio) within the R/OG Future Land Use category is 0.75. As proposed,
the development will have an ISR of 0.69 and therefore meets the requirement.
Pursuant to Section 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, within the Office (O)
District there are no applicable setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects.
Further, as Governmental Uses are not a specifically permitted use within the O District, there
are no setbacks that can be transferred from the development standards of the Minimum
Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application types for this development
proposal. Without any applicable setback standards, the development proposes a front (south)
setback of 25 feet to building and 15 feet to pavement; a front (west) setback of 62 feet to
building and 15 feet to pavement; a side (north) setback of 55 feet to building and 10 feet to
pavement; and a side (east) setback of 171 feet to building and zero feet to pavement.
The proposed setbacks are consistent with closely appreciable uses within the O
District, such as offices. In fact, the setbacks proposed either meet or exceed those that would
be required for typical office development through a Flexible Standard (FLS) development
application with the noted exception of the side (east) setback to pavement. However, this
requested reduction is to provide a cross access driveway between the two halves of the
development, and outside of the driveway the side (east) setback also will meet those standards
noted above.
Community Development 2007-02-20 7
In addition to the establishment of setbacks for the proposed Governmental Use, the
request also includes a setback deviation from 20 feet to zero feet for an existing drive aisle
associated with the previously established Office and Medical Clinic uses at 2346-2370 Drew
Street. As noted previously, subsequent to construction of the first buildings on the property,
the eastern 2.18 acres were platted as commercial condominiums with the balance of the
subject property sold off. The sale resulted in the creation of a property line along the western
edge of the aforementioned drive aisle and a zero-foot setback. The existing and proposed
halves of the development will effectively act as one cohesive whole and the perimeter
landscaping included with the currently proposed half of the development will provide a buffer
that effectively obscures the existence of the property line so that it is visible only on paper.
Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with the proposed setbacks to building
and pavement for both the proposed Governmental Use and the existing Office/Medical Clinic
uses.
Pursuant to Section 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, within the O District
there is no applicable maximum building height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Projects. Further, as Governmental Uses are not a specifically permitted use within the O
District, there is no maximum building height that can be transferred from the development
standards of the Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application
types for this development proposal. Without any applicable building height standards, the
development proposes a building height of 38 feet to midpoint of the pitched roof. In
comparison to the building height standards for closely appreciable uses within the O District,
the proposed height of 38 feet is well below what could potentially be achieved (80 feet).
Further, the height proposed will not be inconsistent with the established character of the area.
Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with the proposed building height.
Pursuant to Section 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, within the O District
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects shall have their minimum off-street parking
requirement determined by the Community Development Coordinator based upon the specific
use and/or the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual standards. It is noted that
Governmental Uses are not a specifically permitted use within the O District; therefore no
minimum off-street parking requirement can be transferred from the development standards of
the Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application types upon which
the development proposal’s off-street parking requirement can be based. However, in
comparison to the off-street parking requirements for those closely appreciable uses within the
zoning district, such as offices, which have a requirement of 3:1,000 GFA, the proposed parking
ratio of 3.76:1,000 GFA (97 off-street parking spaces) is clearly satisfactory and supportable.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste
containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate,
wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The development proposal includes the provision of a
refuse enclosure at the northeast corner of what is presently the vacant portion of the site. The
enclosure, as proposed, will measure six feet in height with concrete block walls on three sides
and a double swing gate on the fourth side. It is noted, however, that the detail of the enclosure
provided does not indicate the materials from which the swing gates are to be constructed. As
such, it is unclear as to whether the gates will completely screen the refuse facility from view.
Therefore, it has been attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any
building permits, further information shall be provided on the refuse enclosure detail that
specifies the materials to be utilized, and further that said materials and the enclosure as a
Community Development 2007-02-20 8
whole are in compliance with the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community
Development Code.
The mechanical equipment associated with the development is proposed to be located
behind four-foot high screen walls along the south side of the proposed building, which in
conjunction with landscaping and said building, will screen the mechanical equipment from view
of abutting properties and public streets. It is noted and attached as a condition of approval that
the screen walls are painted to match the building.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to
be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Community Development Code, palm trees can
be used to satisfy a maximum of 25% of the tree requirements. As proposed (inclusive of those
revisions recommended by staff), the percentage of palm trees being incorporated into the
landscape plan would be approximately 29%.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, where non-
residential uses are adjacent to detached dwellings, a 12-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer
with trees 35 feet on center is required. The proposed development (Governmental Use) abuts
existing detached dwellings along its northern perimeter; however a buffer of only ten-feet in
width has been proposed between the two uses. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the
Community Development Code, where two non-residential uses abut one another, a five-foot
wide perimeter landscape buffer with trees 35 feet on center is required. The existing
Office/Medical Clinic development does not provide for any buffer along its west property line
between the existing drive aisle and the proposed Governmental Use.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, one tree shall be
provided for every 150 square-feet of required green space. As the development requires
approximately 3,818 square-feet of green space, a total of 25 trees are required; however a
reduction to 19 is requested (inclusive of revisions recommended by staff).
Based upon the above, the applicant has requested approval of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program with the above referenced deviation to the maximum utilization of palm
trees, reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers, and reduction to the interior tree
requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria.
It is noted that as a part of the above deviations incorporated into the Comprehensive
Landscape Program, there are several additional shade, accent, and palm trees that will need to
be incorporated into the landscape plan. These additional elements shall need to be included
on a revised plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits and include the
installation of shade trees along both sides of the north stair tower; two accent trees in the open
area west of the north stair tower; two staggered clusters of three palms along both sides of the
patio on the west side of the building; a shade tree at the southeast corner of the building; a
Community Development 2007-02-20 9
staggered cluster of three palms to the northwest of the 45-inch Oak tree being retained;
doubling the quantity of Washingtonia Palms in the terminal landscape islands for the parking
tier east of the building; replacement of the Dahoon Holly along the north side of the cross
access drive aisle with a shade tree; and the addition of another Southern Live Oak along the
north perimeter landscape buffer (northeast corner) so as to maintain the required spacing of 35
feet on center.
With the implementation of the above, the quantity of palms incorporated in the
landscape plan will exceed the percentage set forth in the Code by approximately 4%.
However, the palms will be dispersed across the site and located in such a manner so as to be
integral to the overall architectural theme for the building and site. The palms, while of slightly
greater quantity than the maximum set forth in the Code, will not be excessive and their
utilization will be consistent with the applicable criteria.
The reduced width of the northern perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to 10 feet will
not be a detriment of the site, nor will it negatively impact the adjacent single-family detached
dwellings to the north. The buffer will, however, incorporate a substantial number of the existing
shade and accent trees (Oak and Cherry Laurel) along the property line as well as introducing
several additional shade and accent trees (Southern Live Oak and Southern Wax Myrtle) where
conditions permit in order to provide for all of the required landscape materials.
The deviation to reduce the western perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero
feet on the developed portion of the subject property will have no impact on the site. As noted
above, the Code requires a five-foot wide landscape buffer along each side of the common
property line where non-residential properties abut – a total buffer width of ten feet. The
landscape buffer proposed as part of the development of the vacant lots is ten feet in width and
includes the provision of all required trees and shrubs; thus there is no loss of buffer between
the two halves of the development.
With the installation of the additional landscape materials discussed above, a total of 19
interior trees will be provided – six fewer than required by the Code. However, the landscape
plan also includes the retention of an existing 45-inch Oak tree at the center of the property that,
if removed, would likely facilitate the provision of these trees.
As expressed above, the Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be
consistent with all applicable criteria. Therefore, subject to the conditions of approval being
addressed, positive findings can be made with regard to the proposed Comprehensive
Landscape Program.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 4,
2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 3.97-acre subject property is generally located at the
northeast corner of Anna Avenue and Drew Street; 2) That the property is located within the
Office (O) District; 3) That the property is located within the Residential/Office General (R/OG)
Future Land Use Plan category; 4) That the development proposal is compatible with the
Community Development 2007-02-20 10
surrounding area; and 5) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal will enhance other
redevelopment efforts in the area; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the
applicable Standards and Criteria as per Sections 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 of the Community
Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria
as per Section 2-1004.B of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project); 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the General
Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to allow a Governmental Use within the Office (O) District at 2316
Drew Street with a maximum building height of 38 feet; front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to
building) and 15 feet (to pavement); front (west) setbacks of 62 feet (to building) and 15 feet (to
pavement); side (north) setbacks of 55 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement); side (east)
setbacks of 171 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); a minimum off-street parking
requirement of 3.76 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area; and to reduce the
side (west) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement) for the existing Office and
Medical Clinic uses at 2346-2370 Drew Street as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
pursuant to Section 2-1004.B of the Community Development Code along with a reduction to
the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the interior
tree requirement from 25 to 19, and an increase to the maximum percentage of palms that can
be incorporated into the landscape plan from 25% to 29% at 2316 Drew Street; and a reduction
to the side (west) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet at 2346-2370 Drew
Street as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the
Community Development Code with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, further information shall be provided on the refuse enclosure
detail that specifies the materials to be utilized, and further that said materials and the enclosure
as a whole are in compliance with the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community
Development Code; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a revised landscape
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department that includes the installation of shade trees
along both sides of the north stair tower; two accent trees in the open area west of the north
stair tower; two staggered clusters of three palms along both sides of the patio on the west side
of the building; a shade tree at the southeast corner of the building; a staggered cluster of three
palms to the northwest of the 45-inch Oak tree being retained; doubling the quantity of
Washingtonia Palms in the terminal landscape islands for the parking tier east of the building;
replacement of the Dahoon Holly along the north side of the cross access drive aisle with a
shade tree; and the addition of another Southern Live Oak along the north perimeter landscape
buffer (northeast corner) so as to maintain the required spacing of 35 feet on center; 3) That
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be
existing or proposed, are to be placed underground; 4) That the final design and color of the
building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the
CDB, and be approved by staff; 5) That the screen walls are painted to match the building; 6)
That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to
the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to
match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 7) That any/all future signage must
meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building
Community Development 2007-02-20 11
with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to
and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully
dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size and b)
All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors,
materials and architectural style of the building; 8) That the first building permit must be applied
for within one year of CDB approval (by February 20, 2008); and 9) That the final Certificate of
Occupancy must be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Robert Gregg, applicant, stated the project will house the Social Security Administration
and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) office. He said the project originally was proposed as
a one-story, 125-foot long building 15 feet from the property line. This proposal is for a two-
story, 38-foot high building that is nearly 75 feet from the property line. He said the Social
Security Administration and FBI offices are being relocated from downtown to this facility. Mr.
Gregg said he had spoken to the Homeowner’s Association representative regarding his
concerns about the two-story building. Mr. Gregg said six windows will be on the building’s rear.
He estimated the Social Security Administration and FBI will have 105 employees. He said a
public parking area separates Phase One from this project. Employee only parking will be to
the west. He said the majority of facility traffic will use the Drew Street driveway. He reported
the County had denied his request for an additional driveway on Drew Street. Anna Street
access is necessary for emergency vehicles and traffic control, although lower usage is
anticipated.
Party status holder James Newkirk expressed safety concerns regarding the effects of
the project, which will increase traffic on Anna Street and accidents on Drew Street. He said
this development will adversely affect over 300 homeowners in the area, who were only advised
that five additional buildings would be constructed on the property’s western portion. He
questioned how a two-story building would be considered compatible with the surrounding area,
where no two-story buildings exist.
Assistant Engineering Director Scott Rice said the City’s Traffic Operations Division
reviewed this project and determined that the applicant’s plan improves access safety. Two
driveways are necessary to meet Fire Department requirements. Pinellas County would not
permit two driveways on Drew Street.
In response to questions from Mr. Newkirk, Mr. Gregg said he has no control over
activity in Mr. Newkirk’s subdivision, which is in the County. He said tenants for the remainder
of the building have not been identified.
Three persons spoke in opposition of the application.
In response to resident concerns, Mr. Tefft said the Fire Department had endorsed the
access design. He said the five referenced buildings were previously constructed. This is the
last building to be constructed on the property.
Mr. Newkirk said according to the Staff Report, governmental properties are not
specifically permitted in the Office District and questioned if zoning is being changed. Mr. Tefft
said this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill request, which would allow
governmental office uses. While “Governmental Uses” refers to many types of uses, this
application is for a traditional office use by two governmental entities. He said 30-foot heights
are permitted under Code.
Community Development 2007-02-20 12
Mr. Gregg said SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) approved the
plan’s water use and retention. He said it is unlikely that traffic would use Anna Street rather
than Drew Street. He said the project is consistent with the area as two-story buildings across
the street include a church, etc. He said the project exceeds required setbacks.
Discussion ensued with comments that the building’s design and site layout are
complementary to the neighborhood, the intensity of use is consistent with the original proposal,
and staff reports that the project meets requirements. It was felt with increased setbacks, the
small increase in height is not a concern. It was stated the traffic on Anna Street will be
minimally effected.
Member Behar moved to approve Case FLD2006-11062 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
motioncarried
approval as listed. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate
Member Dennehy did not vote.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2007-01001 – 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304
Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea)
Owner /Applicant: Crystal Beach Capital, LLC.
Representative: Stephen J. Szabo, III (100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700, Tampa, FL
33602; phone: 813-225-4193; fax: 813-221-4210; e-mail: sszabo@foley.com).
Location: 1.56 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at
Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the elimination of a pedestrian overpass over
South Gulfview Boulevard and to permit a standalone concession facility in lieu of the bridge
landing area for such concessions for the Hyatt/Aqualea project, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached dwellings
(11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98 FAR on total site) of
amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Mr. Wells presented the request. The 1.56 acres is located between South Gulfview
Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. The original site was 1.63 acres, but the
dedication of 10 feet for Coronado Drive reduced the site size to 1.56 acres. The CDB originally
approved this project on February 20, 2001, under Cases FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01,
permitting a 250-room hotel. On November 16, 2004, the CDB approved Case FLD2004-
07052, adding 24 rooms to the hotel and converting those additional rooms to 18 attached
dwellings.
The subject property currently is vacant but is under construction with the proposed
building. Property to the north is approved for the Kiran Grand mixed-use project.
Improvements on portions of that property to the north have been demolished and are currently
Community Development 2007-02-20 13
vacant, whereas other improvements still remain. The owners of the Kiran Grand have
dedicated the right-of-way for Second Street, which will be on the north side of this property.
Properties to the east are developed with overnight accommodation uses and a restaurant. The
parcel to the south is developed with restaurant and retail sales uses. Beach Walk
improvements to Coronado Drive are currently being completed, while construction of Phase 2
improvements to South Gulfview Boulevard are slated to begin construction soon.
On January 25, 2007, a Development Order was issued for a Minor Revision to the
previously approved project for the following: 1) With the availability of the Second Street right-
of-way (deeded to the City), traffic circulations patterns on the ground floor have been revised to
provide egress from the building to Second Street; 2) Loading and trash collection access has
been relocated to Second Street; 3) The internal helix has been replaced with a speed ramp to
gain access from the ground floor to Parking Level 3; 4) The parking garage cashier booths
have been relocated to Parking Level 3; 5) Driveways on the west side on South Gulfview
Boulevard have been removed; 6) Monumental stairs have been provided on the west side
allowing access from the ground floor to the Hotel Level 2; 7) The east, north, and south
elevations of the building have been modified, replacing the “solid” walls of the parking levels
with decorative railings, arches, and columns to more closely match that of the habitable floors
of the hotel; 8) Vertical elements of the hotel towers on the north and south elevations have
been modified to improve views and to coordinate with the parking levels; and 9) The roof profile
has been modified to reduce the size of the mansard roof portions.
The development proposal is to eliminate the pedestrian overpass over South Gulfview
Boulevard and to permit a standalone concession facility in lieu of the bridge landing area for
such concessions for the Hyatt/Aqualea project. The elimination of the pedestrian overpass will
present a more aesthetically pleasing view by not having such a large structure above the
roadway, which could block views. The elimination also will remove a structure that may have
questionable use, as potentially most people going to or from the beach would use elevators
that go to the ground level of the hotel/parking garage and walk across South Gulfview
Boulevard. The safety of motorists would be increased by the elimination of the pedestrian
overpass, by eliminating the opportunity to distract motorists by pedestrians on the bridge or by
pedestrians dropping items from the bridge. The viability of the construction of the pedestrian
overpass is also questionable, due the need for an elevator, which would occur seaward of the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Long-term maintenance of such a bridge structure,
especially the elevator, would be high. The proposal does not change the floor area ratio, the
impervious surface ratio, the density of the project, the minimum lot area or width, the building
height, the minimum off-street parking, the location of mechanical equipment (on the roof), sight
visibility triangles or utilities for this project.
From a site plan standpoint, there is no change to the site plan for on-site improvements.
The pedestrian bridge was to occur within the City’s right-of-way or property. The proposal
replaces the pedestrian overpass with a crosswalk across from the building elevators providing
access to the parking garage. The design of the crosswalk will be similar to other proposed
crosswalks on South Gulfview Boulevard. A “sundial” plaza will be constructed in line with this
proposed crosswalk.
The proposed concessions facility is designed as a freestanding, one-story octagonal
building. It is proposed seaward of the CCCL, which will require FDEP (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection) approval prior to the issuance of any permits. The location of this
concession facility is also within a velocity flood zone, where its construction must allow for flow-
through wave action with breakaway walls. Its construction must be in compliance with FEMA
Community Development 2007-02-20 14
(Federal Emergency Management Association) regulations. While no building elevations have
been submitted, the concessions facility will be no more than 1,200 square-feet in size and will
need to be consistent in design, materials and colors with the primary building and with Beach
Walk design guidelines.
Since Phase 1 construction of Beach Walk improvements is nearing completion, there
has been a stormwater inlet installed at the southwest corner of Coronado Drive and the new
Second Street, adjacent to the solid waste compactor area. There may be a conflict between
the plans submitted and the existing conditions. Any modification to this stormwater inlet will be
the responsibility of the hotel developer. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues
associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 1,
2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That 1.56 acres is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and
Coronado Drive at Third Street; 2) That the property is located within the Tourist (T) District and
the Community Redevelopment District (CRD) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the CDB
originally approved this project on February 20, 2001, under Cases FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-
01, permitting a 250-room hotel; 4) That on November 16, 2004, the CDB approved Case
FLD2004-07052, adding 24 rooms to the hotel and converting those additional rooms to 18
attached dwellings; 5) That the project is currently under construction; 6) That the approved
project included a pedestrian overpass to provide access between the public parking in the hotel
parking garage and the beach; 7) That the proposal is for the elimination of the pedestrian
overpass on South Gulfview Boulevard; 8) That elimination of the pedestrian overpass would
present a more aesthetically pleasing view, would not block views, would present a safer
interface between motorists and pedestrians, would reduce long-term maintenance of the
pedestrian walkway; 9) That the proposal provides for an alternative concession facility as a
freestanding building rather than as part of the beach landing portion of the pedestrian
overpass; and 10) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the
subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the
Community Development Code; and 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the
General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit the elimination of a pedestrian overpass over South Gulfview
Boulevard and to permit a standalone concession facility in lieu of the bridge landing area for
such concessions for the Hyatt/Aqualea project, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to
the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2007-00001); 2) That the
final design of hotel building be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted and/or modified
by the Community Development Board; 3) That the concession facility not exceed 1,200 square-
feet in area, be one-story in height and its design, materials and color be consistent with the
Community Development 2007-02-20 15
hotel building and with Beach by Design guidelines and be designed to meet FEMA
requirements within a Velocity Flood Zone; 4) That, prior to the issuance of the building permit
for the concession facility, the State Department of Environmental Protection approve its
location seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; 5) That any modification to the
stormwater inlet at the southwest corner of Coronado Drive and the new Second Street be the
responsibility of the hotel developer.
See pages 18-19 for discussion and motion of approval.
7. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: DVA2007-00001 – 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304
Coronado Drive (Hyatt, aka Aqualea)
Owner/Applicant: Crystal Beach Capital, LLC.
Representative: Stephen J. Szabo, III (100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2700, Tampa, FL
33602; phone: 813-225-4193; fax: 813-221-4210; e-mail: sszabo@foley.com).
Location: 1.56 acres located between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at
Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development
Agreement between Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater
(previously DVA 2004-00002 approved by City Council on December 2, 2004, and amended
under DVA2004-00002A, approved by City Council on January 19, 2006) to eliminate a
pedestrian overpass over South Gulfview Boulevard.
Proposed Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached dwellings
(11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98 FAR on total site) of
amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Linda Christman requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Linda Christman party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Member Tallman moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 1.56 acres is located between South Gulfview
Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third Street. The original site was 1.63 acres, but the
dedication of 10 feet for Coronado Drive reduced the site size to 1.56 acres. The CDB originally
approved this project on February 20, 2001, under Cases FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01,
permitting a 250-room hotel. On November 16, 2004, the CDB approved Case FLD2004-
07052, adding 24 rooms to the hotel and converting those additional rooms to 18 attached
dwellings.
Community Development 2007-02-20 16
The subject property currently is vacant but is under construction with the proposed
building. Property to the north is approved for the Kiran Grand mixed use project.
Improvements on portions of that property to the north have been demolished and are currently
vacant, whereas other improvements still remain. The owners of the Kiran Grand have
dedicated the right-of-way for Second Street, which will be on the north side of this property.
Properties to the east are developed with overnight accommodation uses and a restaurant. The
parcel to the south is developed with restaurant and retail sales uses. Beach Walk
improvements to Coronado Drive are currently being completed, while construction of Phase 2
improvements to South Gulfview Boulevard are slated to begin construction soon.
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application to
eliminate a pedestrian overpass over South Gulfview Boulevard (FLD2007-01001).
The proposed Development Agreement amends the Development Agreement between
Crystal Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously DVA
2004-00002 approved by City Council on December 2, 2004, and amended under DVA2004-
00002A, approved by City Council on January 19, 2006) to eliminate a pedestrian overpass
over South Gulfview Boulevard, including the following main provisions: 1) Amends the
definition of “garage access improvements” to eliminate reference to the pedestrian overpass; 2)
Amends Paragraph 7 of Section 5.04 by referencing the location of a concession facility as
shown on Exhibit H rather than as part of the beach landing portion of the pedestrian overpass.
This paragraph deals with the size (1,200 square-feet maximum), design characteristics and
operation of the concession facility; 3) Amends Paragraph 11 of Section 5.04 by deleting
entirely the existing language and replacing it with the requirement of the Developer to design,
construct and fund the Garage Access Improvements. The City will grant an easement for the
construction, use and occupancy of the Garage Access Improvements; 4) Replaces the floor
plans and elevations in the recorded Development Agreement with new floor plans and
elevations, based on the Minor Revisions approved in January 2007 and by eliminating the
pedestrian overpass; 5) Amends the Approvals and Permit Lists of Exhibit “G” of the
Development Agreement to reflect the elimination of the pedestrian overpass with the proposed
concession facility; 6) Replaces in its entirety Exhibit “H” of the Development Agreement dealing
with Beach Walk Public Improvements; and 7) Amends the License Agreements of Exhibit “K” of
the Development Agreement by deleting references to the “Elevated Beach Access Facility.”
The CDB has been provided with the most recent Development Agreement. The CDB is
required to review the proposed Development Agreement and make a recommendation to the
City Council.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 1,
2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.56 acres is located between South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive at Third Street; 2) That the property is located within the Tourist (T) District
and the Community Redevelopment District (CRD) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the
CDB originally approved this project on February 20, 2001, under Cases FL 01-01-01 and DA
01-01-01, permitting a 250-room hotel; 4) That on November 16, 2004, the CDB approved Case
FLD2004-07052, adding 24 rooms to the hotel and converting those additional rooms to 18
attached dwellings; 5) That the project is currently under construction; 6) That the proposal is for
the elimination of the pedestrian overpass on South Gulfview Boulevard; 7) That the proposal
provides for an alternative concession facility as a freestanding building rather than as part of
Community Development 2007-02-20 17
the beach landing portion of the pedestrian overpass; 8) That the proposal replaces the floor
plans and elevations in the recorded Development Agreement with new floor plans and
elevations, based on changed conditions; and 9) That the proposal updates language in the
Development Agreement consistent with the elimination of the pedestrian overpass.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the
requirements for the related site plan proposal (FLD2007-01001); 2) That the Development
Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606 of the Community
Development Code; and 3) That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions,
Goals, Objectives and Policies of Beach by Design.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends the approval, and
recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Crystal
Beach Capital, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously DVA 2004-
00002 approved by City Council on December 2, 2004, and amended under DVA2004-00002A,
approved by City Council on January 19, 2006) for the sites at 229 and 301 South Gulfview
Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Kiran Grand had requested a pedestrian
crossing at the lifeguard station, however this pedestrian overpass predates that request.
Concern was expressed that staff previously had supported the pedestrian bridge but now is
concerned regarding maintenance issues. Mr. Wells said the pedestrian bridge would have
been inconvenient for those using the parking garage. He said Second Street did not exist
when the Hyatt project was approved.
Concern was expressed that increased traffic and pedestrian crossings on Gulfview and
Coronado will create problems, especially for nearby residents. Mr. Wells said handicapped
accessibility and the elevator previously were part of the plan. Under this proposal, pedestrians
will go to the ground level of the parking garage and cross Gulfview at the marked crosswalk.
Concern was expressed that this proposal redirects pedestrian traffic to the ground level
crosswalk. Mr. Wells said previously, pedestrians could have been directed to the ground floor.
The previous proposal did not include a signalized crosswalk. It was stated when this proposal
originally was presented, significant debate had occurred related to pedestrian crossings.
Steve Szabo, representative, said the plans always included parking garage elevators to
access the ground level. He said one elevator was to provide access to the pedestrian bridge.
The applicant now has determined that it would be easier to direct patrons to the ground level
crosswalk. He said while the previous plan had crosswalks on both sides of the pedestrian
bridge, this plan has a signalized crosswalk. He said the applicant wants to retain the
standalone concession stand.
Party status holder Linda Christman suggested that the Development Order could not be
modified without a referendum, as the standalone concession is on a public beach. She said
operators of the City’s two nearby concession stands were chosen through a bid process. She
questioned if operation of the new concession stand will be put out to bid and if the City will
receive income from it. She said the City is giving up too much for developers. She questioned
how long use of the City right-of-way will be in effect and what permissions the developer has
park trailers on the new Second Street. She said the lack of marked pedestrian access
frustrates tourists, local residents, and local businesses.
Community Development 2007-02-20 18
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said modifications to Items D6 and D7 do
not require a referendum. The vacation issue is addressed by City ordinance. Mr. Szabo said
the applicant has worked with the City to use the Second Street right-of-way for construction
staging for an undetermined period of time. Mr. Wells said the developer dedicated the land for
Second Street and is paying for its construction. Infrastructure for the office trailers has been
constructed. Mr. Szabo said Second Street will be open when the hotel opens, in approximately
24 months. He said staging is required until interior work begins. Mr. Szabo said the developer
is paying to construct the concession facility through a license agreement with the City.
Discussion ensued with comments that the 50-year license agreement in the
Development Agreement is extensive and significantly longer than other concession leases on
the beach. It was stated that 400 additional parking spaces will create traffic issues on the
beach. It was questioned if a pedestrian bridge would have alleviated safety issues.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the length of the lease in the Development Agreement has not
changed. It was stated that the Development Agreement predates City Charter revisions done
five years ago. Discussion ensued with support expressed for elimination of the bridge and
elevator. It was stated that pedestrian traffic would cross the street even with a pedestrian
bridge, which could confuse pedestrians and be rarely used.
Member Tallman moved to approved Case FLD2007-01001 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
motion
approval as listed. The was duly seconded. Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, Dame,
carried.
and Behar, and Chair Giildersleeve voted “Aye”; Member Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion
Member Behar moved to recommend approval of Case DVA 2007-00001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
8. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2007-01001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan amending and adding policies and objectives.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758)
Presenter: Felicia Leonard, AICP, Administrative Support Manager.
The text amendments proposed will assist the Parks and Recreation Department’s efforts
to compete for grants from the State of Florida to acquire and enhance open space and natural
lands. The text amendments proposed to the Recreation and Open Space section of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan recognize the importance of preserving, maintaining, and
enhancing Clearwater’s open spaces, blueways, greenways and trails. The proposed text
amendments also further the coordination with other private and public entities to preserve,
maintain, and enhance such areas.
A total of five amendments are proposed to the text of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan in Ordinance 7782-07. This text amendment is considered a large-scale plan amendment
and requires review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Community Development 2007-02-20 19
A summary of each amendment: 1) Amendment 1 – Revise Objective 27.1 - Proposed
revised objective 27.1 adds the City of Clearwater’s trails to the list of facilities that should be
efficiently and adequately maintained. The City has been maintaining trails for over a decade and
developed their first Bikeways and Trails Plan in 1996. The Bikeways and Trails Plan has been
recently updated and replaced by Shifting Gears: Clearwater’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (2006); 2) Amendment 2 – Revise Objective 27.2 - Proposed revised objective 27.1 strikes
the word intergovernmental and adds other public entities for clarification. Presently, the City
actively coordinates with the private sector, other public entities and non-profit organizations to
provide recreation and open space on a regular basis.; 3) Amendment 3 – Revise Policy 27.2.5
- Proposed revised policy 27.2.5 reflects the agencies with which the Parks and Recreation
Department presently has joint use agreements. It also reflects the change in name of St.
Petersburg Junior College to St. Petersburg College; 4) Amendment 4 – Revise Objective 27.5
and change/add appropriate policies - Proposed revised objective 27.5 proposes to include
open spaces as well as land used for recreation purposes. Proposed revised policy 27.5.3 adds
the words preserve and when possible for clarification. Proposed policies 27.5.5 and 27.5.6 add
specific policies to reflect the management and enhancement of open space areas. The City of
Clearwater actively manages open spaces and natural areas and coordinates with other entities
when possible. As part of that management, the City currently enhances open space and
natural areas by restoring degraded natural communities and eradicating non-native vegetation;
5) Amendment 5 – Add Objective 27.6 and associated policies - Proposed objective 27.6 and
policies 27.6.1 and 27.6.2 add an objective and associated policies for the purpose of
developing and enhancing existing blueways, greenways and trails. The City of Clearwater has
been developing and enhancing existing greenways and recreational trail systems throughout
Clearwater over the last decade. Shifting Gears: Clearwater’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (2006) identified a comprehensive trail system for future development.
The City recently supported efforts of the Pinellas County Planning Department to
develop a Blueways Guide that includes blueway opportunities in Clearwater. Blueways are
small boat and paddling routes that combine recreation and environmental awareness and allow
users to travel to specific destinations. The City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation
Department presently provides access and maintains/enhances access to water bodies for the
purpose of recreation.
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1) The
amendment will further implementation of the comprehensive plan consistent with the goals,
policies and objectives contained in the plan. The proposed amendments to the Recreation and
Open Space Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan further refine the City’s existing
policies and objectives. The proposed amendments are consistent with the existing goals,
policies and objectives contained in the plan and actually expand the city’s long range planning
policies related to the provision and preservation of recreation and open space in the City in
general; 2) The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. They
broaden the City’s approach to the provision of recreation and open space opportunities and gain
consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and Shifting Gears: Clearwater’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan; 3) The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are
appropriate to the property in questions and compatible with existing and planned uses in the
area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific
property; and 4) Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
Community Development 2007-02-20 20
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific
property: 1) The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed
amendments seek to preserve, maintain and enhance the natural environment by including
important open space, greenways, blueways and trail provisions and 2) The amendment will not
adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments are text
amendments that are not directly related to a specific property.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan recognize the
importance of preserving, maintaining and enhancing Clearwater’s valuable trails, greenways
and open spaces. The proposed amendments also recognize the desire to coordinate
Clearwater’s effort in preserving, maintaining and enhancing recreation and open spaces with
other private sector and public entities. These proposed amendments will also assist in the
development of competitive grant applications to further such efforts.
The Planning and Parks and Recreation Department Staff recommend approval of
Ordinance 7782-07 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Member Milam moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2007-01001 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
motioncarried
Report. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
E. CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 – 3):
Community Development 2007-02-20 21
1. Case: FLD2006-05032 – 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application
(Continued from December 19, 2006)
Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc.
Applicant: Mark LeBlanc.
Representatives: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.253 acre located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600
feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue.
Atlas Page: 306A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a
reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions
to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building),
from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to
the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet
to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three
feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the
pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation
to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers
along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10
feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along
the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape
requirement from 10% to 5.5% and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet
wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tieman, 1120
Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; e-mail: duketieman@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Michael Matheny requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Michael Matheny party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Jerry Spilatro requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Jerry Spilatro party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Kevin Sexton requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Kevin Sexton party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2007-02-20 22
Member Coates moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. This case originally was scheduled for the November
21, 2006, CDB meeting. Due to an advertising error, this case was continued by the CDB to
December 19, 2006. On December 19, 2006, at the request of the applicant, the CDB
continued this application to February 20, 2007.
The 0.253-acre site is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600
feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. The property has been
zoned commercially for some time. The existing building on the property has some historic
value, as it previously was used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but it is not listed on the
Florida or National Register of Historic Places. The last legal use of the property was for four
attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with
accessory storage on the ground floor. A complaint was received in August 2004 regarding
inadequate fire separation between the storage unit and the dwellings (UNS2004-00088). This
case is still ongoing, as property ownership has changed and this case has been filed pending
CDB action. That portion of the building with two dwelling units on the south side of the ground
floor has been demolished but the concrete slab for such building still exists. There is a
driveway on Lakeview Road that provided access to the front of the building, with a small
concrete area adjacent to the front of the building that could have been used for parking;
otherwise all on-site parking area is unpaved.
The property to the north is zoned Institutional (I) District and is developed as a
cemetery. To the east and north of the cemetery, properties are zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts and developed with
detached dwellings. The property to the east is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed
with offices immediately adjacent and a detached dwelling farther east at Ewing Avenue. The
property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with an automotive parts
re-manufacturer. The properties to the south on Dempsey Street are zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings.
The development proposal is to permit a restaurant within the existing building, with the
construction of accessory parking, retention, landscaping and trash facilities. Restaurants are a
permitted use within the Commercial District. The applicant proposes to utilize the downstairs
as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed upstairs.
The proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton
Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site. The applicant has entered into a
Commercial Lease for this 25-foot wide lot, which is for a time period of 15 years with the ability
for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB should include a condition
requiring continued possession of this Lot 17 with the parking and landscaping improvements
for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available
and assignable to this restaurant should require the closure of the restaurant until such time as
required parking, in location(s) acceptable to the City, is procured. This potential condition also
should apply to the circumstance where the lessee defaults on the lease and the lessor takes
back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon.
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. As such, the
Community Development 2007-02-20 23
maximum development potential of the 0.253-acre parcel is 6,059.9 square-feet. The existing
building (both floors) is 2,890 square-feet in size, which results in a FAR of 0.26. Based upon
the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
with regard to the maximum allowable FAR.
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for
restaurants ranges between 3,500 – 10,000 square-feet. The lot area for this proposal is
11,018 square-feet, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot width for
restaurants ranges between 35 – 100 feet. The site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along
both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south. The total lot width along
Lakeview Road is 146.79 feet, which is consistent with Code provisions. The total lot width along
Dempsey Street is only 89.77 feet and the applicant is requesting a reduction to the lot width
requirement along this street. Some of the lots that make up the property for this proposal are
pie-shaped, with the large outside part of the pie on Lakeview Road and only the opposite side
inside point of the pie on Dempsey Street. Due to this configuration of lots that are part of this
property, the reduction to lot width along Dempsey Street may be acceptable. The reduction to lot
width in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal
discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the
restaurant at this location.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front
setback is 25 feet and the minimum side setback is 10 feet. The proposed restaurant being
processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project includes reductions to the front
(north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet
to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south
along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to
dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing
building) and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement).
The property is a double fronted lot with two fronts and two sides. This proposal
includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite some time.
Staff is supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any re-use
proposed will need setback reductions to this existing building. It is the other setback reductions
that concern Staff. The curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the
location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking,
landscaping, and drainage improvements. However, the proposed use of a restaurant requires
more parking than less intense uses within the Commercial District. The need to provide
necessary on-site parking has produced issues of reduced setbacks. The setback reductions in
this case also must be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal
discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of
the restaurant at this location.
The reduction to setbacks to pavement on the north side along Lakeview Road is from
25 feet to four feet, while the reduction to setbacks to pavement on the south side along
Dempsey Street is from 25 feet to three feet adjacent to the parking spaces and one-foot for the
drive aisle. These proposed reductions provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to
Community Development 2007-02-20 24
mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. The proposed landscape plan
provides little landscaping within these areas. The proposed location of the end of the drive
aisle one-foot from the Dempsey Street property line does not provide any ability to plant
landscape materials to block headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached
dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street.
The proposal includes a front setback reduction from 25 feet to zero feet along Dempsey
Street for the dumpster enclosure. Due to the need to provide as much on-site parking as
possible and given the site configuration and existing building location, the dumpster has been
placed in the only location possible. It is not optimal, as it requires the trash truck to traverse
Dempsey Street for this dumpster pickup and requires the truck to stage within the right-of-way
while collecting the trash. With such orientation, this impacts the detached dwellings to the
south. Additionally, since it is at a zero front setback, it is visually more obtrusive as well as
bringing unwarranted negative odors closer to the residential neighborhood. Finally, the
proposal includes a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet to the proposed
pavement. While this setback is in compliance with the landscape buffer requirement along this
side between nonresidential properties, the setback reduction on the west side should be
viewed in light of all other reductions requested as to its appropriateness. As such, the proposed
site design does not minimize the adverse effects of the use, especially from visual, olfactory
and hours of operation aspects, on adjacent properties. The proposed development also does
not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances
between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires. When the reductions to required setbacks
are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is
incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not
support the established character of an area.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable
height can range between 25 – 50 feet. The existing building has a pitched roof at a height of
29.5 feet at midpoint. Given this is existing building height has blended well with the surrounding
neighborhood, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the
maximum allowable height.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required
parking could range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA. Since the upstairs will
be used for an accessory office for the restaurant, the entire second floor must be counted
toward the provision of required parking. Based on the 2,890 square-feet GFA of the existing
building, a minimum of between 20 and 43 parking spaces are required for this proposed
restaurant. The applicant proposes 16 parking spaces, which includes one handicap space, at
a parking ratio of 5.53 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet. The proposal includes a request
to reduce the required parking from 43 to 16 spaces, representing the provision of only 37.2
percent of the required parking.
The 975 square-foot second floor currently is developed with two attached dwelling
units, accessed by a doorway to a stairwell directly to the exterior of the building. The applicant
has indicated they will use the second floor only as an accessory office to the restaurant. Staff
has concerns of this arrangement as potentially only 50 – 100 square-feet of the second floor is
necessary for such accessory use, yet there would be 875 – 925 square-feet “un-used.” It is
also difficult for the City to monitor this “accessory” use to the restaurant when there is no direct
connection between the first and second floors, since this “accessory” space has no interior
access. Based on information submitted by the applicant, only the restaurant owner will have
access to the second floor for the office function. From a parking standpoint, this second floor is
Community Development 2007-02-20 25
required to have 15 parking spaces as part of the restaurant. If one looks at the second floor
function and use as an accessory office by the restaurant owner only (whom also is running the
restaurant), it may be argued that the 15 spaces can be discounted in the total count of required
parking. Such a discount would still require 28 parking spaces, with only 16 spaces being
provided.
The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study to justify the requested reduction
to required parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a family-style
restaurant, where a family of four would travel to the site in one car. City Code does not
differentiate between the styles of restaurant, nor is it based on the number of intended
passengers in a car. The City does not have the staff necessary to enforce such standards for
every restaurant; hence the reason for generalized parking standards. The reality is that
restaurants open and close to business all the time and the next restaurant proposed for the
same site may not be the same style. The Parking Demand Study refers to restaurants located
within downtown locations, where no on-site parking is provided. This is true even in downtown
Clearwater (also for retail businesses). There are, however, municipal parking lots and metered
or timed on-street parking for patrons of all downtown businesses. Workers in the downtown
area, where usually off-street parking is provided by the employer, also walk to patronize
businesses. The subject location, however, is not a downtown location and patrons of this
proposed restaurant will have to drive to this location.
The application material indicates they are working with a neighborhood business for
shared parking (Candy Factory, 701 Lakeview Road). There has not been any documentation
provided to indicate this existing business has excess parking available for this restaurant. This
business is also located over 600 feet to the west, which may be acceptable for employee
parking but is suspect for patron parking. The Parking Demand Study also indicates there is on-
street parking available within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff in unaware of any such
approved and designated on-street parking, other than at detached dwellings in the
neighborhood. Staff does not support a parking reduction for a commercial business that relies
upon on-street parking in established residential neighborhoods. As such, the proposed
development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic
congestion on the surrounding neighborhood.
The re-use of this structure should occur. The location of this site, however, is not in a
high intense area from a land use and traffic standpoint. The applicant has proposed the most
intense use (restaurant) from a required parking standpoint, where inadequate land area and
land configuration squeezes the required improvements onto the site, resulting in inadequate
setbacks and resultant inadequate landscape area to mitigate associated negative impacts. A
lesser intense use would be more appropriate and would have a reduced parking demand.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is inconsistent with the Code with regard to
the minimum required number of parking spaces.
The request has been advertised including a deviation to allow direct access to
Lakeview Road, as criteria of Section 2-704.M (restaurants) restricts direct access to major
arterial streets. Upon further review, Lakeview Road is classified as a collector street, not an
arterial street, which makes the deviation request unnecessary. The reduction to required
setbacks in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this
proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the
appropriateness of the restaurant at this location.
Community Development 2007-02-20 26
Section 3-201.C provides for sidewalk cafes as a permitted accessory use to a
restaurant, whether located within the public right-of-way or on private property. These
regulations do not require any additional parking for the sidewalk café portion of a restaurant.
However, since provided parking for this proposed restaurant is extremely limited, any approval
by the CDB should include a condition prohibiting the establishment of a sidewalk café in
conjunction with the restaurant.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside
mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or
abutting properties. The applicant proposes air-conditioning units on the second floor of the
building behind the existing parapet walls, which should provide the required screening. As
such, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor
mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards
at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. The only driveway proposed is on Lakeview Road. The parking
spaces adjacent to Lakeview Road encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles on both
sides of the driveway. The first parking space on the east side of the driveway will encroach
into the required sight visibility triangle by five feet. The first two parking spaces on the west
side of the driveway will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by 16 feet.
The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing a right-of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a
clear and unobstructed view of one another. The location of this site is at a curvature of
Lakeview Road. Due to this curvature, the City’s Engineering Department required the removal
of one proposed parking space located on the east side of the driveway adjacent to Lakeview
Road to improve the ability of motorists to see oncoming westbound traffic. The location of the
sidewalk and pavement within the Lakeview Road right-of-way does not pose the same issues
for parking spaces located within the sight visibility triangle on the west side of the driveway.
The City’s Engineering Department has indicated no objection to the location of the parking
spaces on either side of the driveway as proposed. These encroachments upon the sight
visibility triangles will not result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions have been
approved elsewhere under similar circumstances. The applicant has also noted that
landscaping proposed within the visibility triangles will be maintained below 30 inches to avoid
sight visibility issues and no trees are proposed within the sight visibility triangles. Based upon
the above, positive findings can be made with respect to allowing encroachments of pavement
within the sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the Community Development
Code.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Overhead utilities exist along the
north sides of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. The existing electrical service to this
building comes from the overhead lines on the north side of Lakeview Road to a utility pole at
the northeast corner of the site feeding a drop to the northwest corner of the building. The civil
site plan for this proposal indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines will be
placed underground in conformance with this Code requirement. Any approval of this request
should include a condition requiring such undergrounding of the existing overhead on-site utility
lines. The overhead utility lines that exist along the site’s frontage along Dempsey Street, due
Community Development 2007-02-20 27
to the curvature of the roadway, are approximately located at the edge of the roadway
pavement. The location of these overhead lines may present some issues for the Solid Waste
Department picking up the dumpster from the trash enclosure, but has indicated the location is
acceptable. Due to limited frontage of this site in relation to the length these overhead lines are
located, it is impracticable to require the undergrounding of these existing overhead lines within
the right-of-way.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is
required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer
along Dempsey Street and a five-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to other nonresidential
development (offices to the east and the automotive parts re-manufacturer to the west). Buffers
are to be planted with one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The
proposal includes reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15
feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement)
and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three
feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10% to 5.5%
and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide.
Landscaping reductions requested are a result of the need to provide required parking
for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and
property and the location of this existing building. Given these design constraints on the
provision of required parking and the design of required drainage retention, landscaping
improvements are minimal or nonexistent. The staff concerns relative to required setbacks
discussed above are similar to the landscape buffer reductions requested. Inadequate parking
is being provided, as well as inadequate setbacks and landscaping. The applicant has
attempted to place as much parking on the property as possible, to the detriment of setbacks
and landscaping. The reductions requested do not adequately mitigate negative impacts of the
proposed use on the surrounding neighborhood or the community at-large.
The front perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with a variegated dwarf
schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with xanadu philendendron, and winged elm,
ligustrum, and bald cypress trees. The front buffer along Dempsey Street will be planted with
variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with crape myrtle and ligustrum
trees. Along Dempsey Street there are no trees proposed between the parking lot and the
property line. The other buffers will be planted with variegated dwarf schefflera and yew
podocarpus, with crape myrtle, magnolia, bald cypress and sabal palm trees. The reduction to
landscape buffers in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of
this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the
appropriateness of the restaurant at this location.
The proposal includes a reduction to required interior landscaping from 10% to 5.5%.
The only area counted toward interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This
requested reduction is also a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed
use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location
of this existing building. The purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the
expanse of pavement and provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors
the other reductions requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code
requirements for the intended use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with
xanadu and Maui red ixora and crape myrtle and magnolia trees.
Community Development 2007-02-20 28
The applicant is requesting a reduction to the required foundation landscaping facing
Lakeview Road from five feet wide to zero feet. This reduction is due to the need to provide
sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical wall retention pond in the
front setback/buffer. Inadequate area is available to meet all of the Code requirements,
including foundation landscaping, to provide for the proposed use. Foundation landscaping is
being provided on the east side of the building facing Lakeview Road, consisting of Maui red
Ixora and Xanadu.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria.
The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be inconsistent
with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the perimeters of the
parking lot is requested to be reduced to a degree where only minimal or no landscaping can be
planted. As such, the proposal will not visually enhance views of the site both by the traveling
public, patrons, and the surrounding primarily residential neighborhood. Further, due to
inadequate area for the planting of landscape material, the landscape treatment proposed in the
comprehensive landscape program are not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping
otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards, in deference to the criteria above.
The landscape treatment proposed will not have a beneficial impact on the value of property in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, especially the detached
dwellings to the south. The applicant asserts that the landscape treatment proposed is part of
an architectural theme, but with so little area for such landscape treatment, it is difficult for staff
to accept such. The applicant has proposed “historical planters” along the edge of the sidewalk
from Lakeview Road as a landscape enhancement.
The development proposal includes the construction of a 10-foot by 10-foot dumpster
enclosure on the south side of the property at the front property line on Dempsey Street. While
not the most visually unobtrusive location to the detached dwellings on the south side of
Dempsey Street, its location functionally is the best location based on the proposed site design.
It is safer for the trash truck to access the dumpster enclosure in its proposed location, rather
than having to potentially back out onto Lakeview Road. However, the proposed location is also
a function of the size and configuration of the property and its existing building and proposed
parking. A larger site providing required parking most likely would have had a different parking
configuration, potentially allowing for a trash enclosure better located in relation to on-site traffic
circulation patterns where use of Dempsey Street would not be required. Section 3-201.D.1
requires the enclosure to be of materials and colors consistent with those used with the
proposed building, which the applicant indicates this proposal will comply with the requirement.
The proposed solid waste facility has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
The applicant is not proposing any freestanding signage concurrent with this
development proposal, but is proposing attached signage on the front of the building. It is noted
that the front building elevation depicts attached signage that may not meet the area
requirements of the Code. Actual review of allowable attached signage is at a later time frame,
should this request be approved by the CDB. The flexibility criteria for restaurants in the
Commercial District restricts freestanding signage to a maximum height of six feet unless part of
a Comprehensive Sign Program. Due to the character of the area this site is located, a
freestanding sign may not be necessary for this property, but any approval of this request
should be conditioned on restricting its height to a maximum of six feet, even through the
Community Development 2007-02-20 29
Comprehensive Sign Program, and its design to match the exterior materials and color of the
building.
There is an ongoing Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property. The
building has been deemed unsafe due to inadequate fire separation between the downstairs
storage area (proposed to be a restaurant) and the upstairs (two attached dwellings) (UNS2004-
00088). The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of August 3
and October 5, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to
the CDB, based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.253-acre property is located on the south side of
Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of
Prospect Avenue; 2) That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the
Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the existing building on the
property has some historic value, as it previously was used by Coca Cola as a distribution
facility, but it is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places; 4) That the last
legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the
south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor; 5) That the two dwelling
units on the south side of the building have been removed/demolished; 6) That the proposal is
to re-use the site and building for a restaurant in the total 2,890 square-foot building; 7) That the
applicant proposes to utilize the 1,915 square-foot downstairs as the restaurant, however, an
accessory office for the restaurant is proposed in the 975 square-foot upstairs area; 8) That
there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this “accessory” space
has no interior access, raising a question of appropriateness; 9) That the proposal includes the
eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the
subject site and the applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25-foot wide lot for a
time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years; 10) That the site is a double
fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the
south; 11) That detached dwellings exist to the south across Dempsey Street zoned MDR
District; 12) That, in order to provide for a restaurant use on this property, reductions to lot width
along Dempsey Street, setbacks, required parking, landscape buffers, interior landscape area
and foundation landscape area have been requested; 13) That the curvature of the adjacent
roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design
constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements; 14)
That inadequate area exists to provide the required off-street parking for the proposed
restaurant and the submitted Parking Demand Study does not justify the requested reduction to
parking, which represents the provision of only 37.2% of the required parking; 15) That the
proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize
traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood; 16) That the proposed reductions to
required setbacks provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the
parking lot and for site beautification; 17) That the landscape material proposed is minimal or
nonexistent to mitigate adverse effects of the use on the surrounding area, especially on the
detached dwellings to the south; 18) That the proposed development does not provide for
appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings,
as the flexibility criteria requires; 19) That, when the reductions to required setbacks are viewed
in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with
the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the
established character of an area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 20) That
there are outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development 2007-02-20 30
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the
Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the development
proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community
Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code;
and 4) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Landscape
Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible
Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the
lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north
along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14
feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south
along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to
dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing
building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an
increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a
reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct
access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along
Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to
one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east
from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape
requirement from 10% to 5.5% and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet
wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said he did not understand the parking requirements.
He said parking spaces are not part of this application, but have been secured by contract with
the Candy Factory. He did not know how to proceed but indicated the applicant’s desire to
move forward with this application. He did not know why parking was excluded from the
application.
Marc LeBlanc, representative, said the parking agreement with the Candy Factory was
signed late Friday afternoon and the City was closed on Monday. It was remarked that staff
generally does not review new information submitted at CDB meetings. Mr. Ghovaee was
offered the opportunity to request a continuance.
Mr. Ghovaee said staff has concerns with application parking and landscaping issues.
He requested discussions with the CDB so the applicant knows how to proceed. He did not
want to jeopardize his ability to request a continuance. It was suggested that staff review the
application for parking requirements.
Party status holder Michael Matheny said the Candy Factory’s parking lot is small. He
felt the project would have inadequate parking and restaurant patrons would park on the small,
narrow street and walk on Lakeview. He said this project would require three large trees to be
removed. He expressed concerns regarding proposed setbacks, the dumpster’s location,
subsequent noise, litter, and alcohol service. He said the restaurant would be open too late for
a residential area. He said the applicant has had sufficient time to address the parking issue.
He opposed continuing the item.
Community Development 2007-02-20 31
Party status holder Jerry Spilatro said this application does not meet the intent of the
Code and is requesting 15 variances. He expressed concern regarding the loss of trees, the
dumpster location, safety hazards associated with Lakeview Road, and the restaurant’s location
at a curve in the road. He said it is difficult and dangerous to exit his nearby business onto
Lakeview. He expressed concern that restaurant patrons would use his parking lot. He also
expressed concerns regarding related litter and noise. He said this use is not compatible with
the improving neighborhood. He recommended that all related parking contracts be legally
recorded.
Mr. Ghovaee stated 15 neighbors support the application. He said with insufficient
information regarding parking requirements, he requested a continuance.
Member Milam moved to deny the request for a continuance as the applicant has had
sufficient time to address parking requirements and, based on staff’s recommendation, this
motion
property needs a lesser use. The was duly seconded.
It was remarked that this Case has been on the agenda at least three times, that the
applicant’s claim that he has had insufficient time to make his case is inaccurate, and that
modifications to the site plan would come back to the CDB.
carried
Upon the vote being taken, the motion unanimously. Alternate Member
Dennehy did not vote.
Mr. Wells stated he was advised today around noon that the applicant had secured a
parking agreement with the Candy Factory, but had not reviewed the agreement. He
referenced letters of opposition included in board packets.
Mr. Ghovaee favored growth and redevelopment. He said the applicant wants to
contribute to the City’s growth and a restaurant would be a wonderful addition to the City. He
said the site is zoned for restaurants and the location is appropriate. He acknowledged the
applicant is addressing some parking issues. He said this building is architecturally beautiful
and is nearly a landmark. He said the applicant can provide more landscaping with offsite
parking. It was felt that the building does not fit the proposed use and a significantly different
application is necessary.
Member Coates moved to deny Case FLD2006-05032 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
motion
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2007-02-20 32
2. Case: FLD2006-07045 – 240-250 Skiff Point Level Two Application
(Continued from January 16, 2007)
Owners: New Horizons Properties, LLC and Affordable Dental, LLC.
Applicant: Mize and Sefair Development.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e-
mail: doreen@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.39 acre at the northwest corner of the intersection of Skiff Point and
Larboard Way.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning Districts: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 11 attached dwellings within the Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR) District / Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District (IENCOD) with an increase to height from 30 feet to 46.2 feet (roof deck) with an
additional 10.3 feet for a mechanical equipment enclosure, a reduction to the front (south)
setback from 25 feet to 18.3 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
rear (north) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to 5 feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10
feet to 5 feet (to pavement) as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-
404.F of the Community Development Code; and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer
widths along the east and west sides of the property from 10 feet to 5 feet as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings (11 units).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Island Estates Civic Association (Sharon Wexler, 460
Palm Island NE, Clearwater, FL 33767).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Carroll Lovett requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Carroll Lovett party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Neil Spillane requested party status and extra time, as another party had offered to
donate his. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes reviewed speaker time limits.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Neil Spillane party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Senior Planner Tefft reviewed the request. The development proposal was originally
scheduled for the CDB meeting of December 19, 2006; however was rescheduled to the
Board’s meeting of January 16, 2007 due to an error in the public notice/advertisement.
Subsequent to this continuance being granted, staff had discussions with the applicant
the requested deviation to the rear setback (to pavement) and asked that attempts be made to
Community Development 2007-02-20 33
accommodate those parking spaces at the rear of the property within the required setback. The
applicant requested and was granted by the Board an additional continuance to February 20,
2007, to accomplish this.
The revised plans submitted by the applicant have not only accommodated these off-
street parking spaces within the required rear setback, but also have modified the location of the
swimming pool equipment enclosure along the east side of the building so that it also meets
setbacks; thus eliminating the deviation that originally required the proposal to be continued on
December 19, 2006. The revised plans also have increased the front building setback from
15.3 feet, as originally proposed, to 18.3 feet.
The 0.39-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Skiff Point and Larboard Way and is comprised of two separate parcels, both of which are
occupied by a triplex with associated back-out parking. The property is zoned Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR) and located within the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (IENCOD). It is noted that while the subject property is located within the
IENCOD, all development standards and criteria of the MHDR zoning district apply.
The development proposal includes demolition of existing improvements on site
(including elimination of non-conforming back-out parking) and construction of 11 attached
dwellings within a 46.2-foot high (to top of roof deck) building over associated off-street parking
and amenities. The architecture of the proposed building is different from any other style
presently found in the vicinity. The architect has classified the style of the building as Miami
Vernacular, and where the majority of the buildings in the vicinity have a “square box look,” the
proposed building has “unusual lines, balconies and mixed roof heights to aesthetically hide
mechanical equipment.” The applicant and architect believe that the proposed architectural
style will be a vibrant new addition to the neighborhood. The development proposal’s
compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code is
discussed below.
Pursuant to Section 2-401.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum ISR
within the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use category is 0.85. As proposed, the
development will have an ISR of 0.69 and therefore meets the above requirement.
Pursuant to Section 2-401.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
density within the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use category is 30 dwelling units per acre.
Therefore, the 0.39-acre subject property is permitted a maximum of 11 dwelling units, which is
consistent with the proposed development.
Pursuant to Section 2-404 of the Community Development Code, the development
standards set forth for residential infill projects are guidelines that may be varied based upon the
flexibility criteria specified for residential infill projects. The development standards set forth in
Section 2-404 call for a front setback of 10-25 feet, a side setback of zero-10 feet, and a rear
setback of zero-15 feet.
The development proposal requests a reduced front (south) setback of 18.3 feet (to
building) and zero feet (to pavement); a reduced rear (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement);
a reduced side (east/west) setbacks of five feet (to pavement).
With regard to the proposed building, the required rear and side setbacks will be met
with only a deviation to the front setback from 25 feet to 18.3 feet being requested. This
Community Development 2007-02-20 34
reduction is supportable based upon the proposed landscaping which will mitigate the reduction
and buffer the adjacent uses, thereby adhering to neighborhood character. With regard to the
various requested setback reductions to pavement, it is noted that the reduction to the front
(south) setback to zero feet is supportable as the deviation is for the trash staging area, which
function dictates that it be located adjacent to the property/right-of-way line. The reduction to
the rear (north) setback to zero feet will accommodate a portion of the deck surrounding the
swimming pool. The reduction of the side (east) setback to 5 feet will accommodate a required
egress walkway and a portion of the deck surrounding the swimming pool, while the similar
reduction to the side (west) setback will aid in the accommodation of off-street parking. The
rear and side setback reductions will not impact the ability to provide required perimeter
landscaping, and by reducing these setbacks accordingly, the development is able to provide a
greater front setback, which it more visible and beneficial to the surrounding area.
Pursuant to Section 2-404 of the Community Development Code, within the MHDR
District the maximum building height for residential infill projects is 30 feet. However, the
development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based
upon the criteria specified in Section 2-404.F [ref.: Table 2-404, footnote 3]. It also is noted that
within the MHDR District the maximum building height for attached dwellings is 50 feet. The
building is proposed with a height of 46.2 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 10.3 feet above
for a mechanical equipment enclosure. Based upon the above, while the development proposal
meets the applicable development standard for attached dwellings, the development proposal
requires a deviation to height as it is being processed as a residential infill project.
The flexibility criteria for residential infill projects states that flexibility in regard to height
shall be justifiable based upon the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposed
redevelopment will be more aesthetically appealing than what presently exists on site and will
benefit the immediate vicinity and City in that respect.
Pursuant to Section 8-102, elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment
enclosures shall be permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum height otherwise
specified for the zoning district assigned to the property. The proposed mechanical equipment
enclosure projects 10.3 feet above the roof deck, which is within the above referenced
parameters. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the flexibility
criteria for residential infill projects as they most closely pertain to increases in building height.
The development proposal is also compatible with existing and proposed development in the
vicinity; therefore the requested increase to height to 46.2 feet (to roof deck) with an additional
10.3 feet for a mechanical equipment enclosure can be supported.
Pursuant to Section 2-404 of the Community Development Code, within the MHDR
District off-street parking is required to be provided at a rate of 2.0 parking spaces per attached
dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 11 attached dwellings require 22 off-street parking
spaces. As proposed, 22 off-street parking spaces will exist; thus the development proposal
meets its parking requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste
containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate,
wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The development proposal includes a refuse enclosure
within the building; thus it will be screened in keeping with the Code. Mechanical equipment
associated with the development is proposed to be located on the roof within a 3.2-foot high
Community Development 2007-02-20 35
opaque acrylic/aluminum enclosure, which will screen the equipment from view of abutting
properties and public streets.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to
be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, where attached
dwellings will abut other attached dwellings, a 10-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer with
trees 35 feet on center is required. The development proposal (attached dwellings) will abut
existing attached dwellings on both its eastern and western perimeters; however buffers of only
5 feet in width have been proposed. As such, the applicant has requested the approval of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program with reductions to the eastern and western perimeter
landscape buffers as noted above.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria.
The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with
all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the eastern and western
perimeter is still accommodated despite the reduced buffer, and through their reduction enables
a southern buffer width that is greater than required. However, it is noted that the overall
number of required perimeter trees, pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community
Development Code, is not being met. The development requires a total of 13 trees along the
perimeter and only 11 have been proposed (two accent trees or three palms are equivalent to
one shade tree). In addition to the above, pursuant to Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Community
Development Code, no more than 25% of the required trees on-site may be accent trees and
approximately 75% of the trees proposed are accent trees. Therefore, it is attached as a
condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, a revised landscape plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department that meets the perimeter tree requirement while
having no more than 25% of the total required trees as accent trees. Based upon the above
and subject to the attached condition being addressed, positive findings can be made with
regard to the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Community Development Code,
shrubs used as part of a perimeter buffer shall have a height of 18 inches – 24 inches at time of
planting. The Indian Hawthorne is proposed at a height of 14 inches; thus it has been attached
as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape plan
must be revised so that at time of planting the proposed Indian Hawthorne has a height of 18
inches – 24 inches. Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-1204.D. of the Community Development
Code, all landscaping must be protected from vehicular traffic by the installation of curbing
and/or wheel stops. The proposed civil and landscape plans do not depict the provision of
curbing at all locations where vehicular traffic abuts landscaping; thus it is attached as a
condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the civil and landscape
plans must be revised to depict all of the required curbing separating landscaping from vehicular
traffic.
Community Development 2007-02-20 36
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
The Island Estates Neighborhood Plan identifies various goals and objectives in an effort
to emphasize strengths and minimize weaknesses in the neighborhood. These goals and
objectives have been reviewed, and the following are noted: 1) Objective 3.a.: Install sidewalks
and bike paths where they do not exist. While a sidewalk already exists adjacent to the subject
property, the existing back-out parking on Skiff Point may often obstruct this sidewalk. As the
development proposal includes the elimination of existing back-out parking, the intent of this
objective (to have functional sidewalks) will be furthered through the development proposal; 2)
Objective 4.l.: Promote the screening of all mechanical equipment, dumpsters and trash
containers from public rights-of-way, adjacent property and the waterfront. As discussed
previously, the development proposal includes a refuse enclosure within the building and
locates associated mechanical equipment on the roof within a 3.2-foot high opaque
acrylic/aluminum enclosure, which will screen the equipment from view of abutting properties
and public streets. As such, the development proposal is consistent with this objective; and 3)
Objective 5.e.: Development and redevelopment must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. As concluded through this review, as well
as a review of Section 2-1602.H of the Community Development Code, the development
proposal is found to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan.
Based upon the above, the development proposal has been found to be consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Island Estates Neighborhood Plan. There are no outstanding
Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November
2, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.39-acre subject property is located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Skiff Point and Larboard Way; 2) That the property is located within
the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District of the Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD); 3) That the property is located within the Residential
High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category; 4) That the development proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area; and 5) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues
associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal will enhance other
redevelopment efforts in the area; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Standards and Criteria as per Sections 2-401.1 and 2-404 of the Community Development
Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section
2-404.A of the Community Development Code (Attached Dwellings); 4) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-404.F of the Community
Development Code (Residential Infill Project); 5) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-1602.H of the Community Development Code and
with the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD); 6) That the
development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 7) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Community Development 2007-02-20 37
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit 11 attached dwellings within the Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) District / Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(IENCOD) with an increase to height from 30 feet to 46.2 feet (roof deck) with an additional 10.3
feet for a mechanical equipment enclosure, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet
to 18.3 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (north) setback
from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5
feet (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5 feet (to
pavement) as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F of the
Community Development Code; and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer widths along
the east and west sides of the property from 10 feet to 5 feet as part of a Comprehensive
Landscape Plan under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development
Code with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department that meets the
perimeter tree requirement while having no more than 25% of the total required trees as accent
trees; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a revised landscape plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department stating that at time of planting the proposed Indian
Hawthorne has a height of 18 inches – 24 inches; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the civil and landscape plans must be revised to depict all of the required curbing
and/or wheel stops separating landscaping from vehicular traffic; 4) That prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the architectural plans are revised to be consistent with the civil plans with
regard to the depiction of the north parking tier; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the civil plans are revised to be consistent with the architectural plans with regard to the
depiction of balcony projections; 6) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a copy of
the approved SWFWMD permit must be provided; 7) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, a tree preservation plan that has been prepared by a certified arborist, consulting
arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture must be provided; 8)
That all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed
underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 9) That the final design and color of the
building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the
CDB, and be approved by staff; 10) That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure
modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or
wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at
their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the
installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire
Department requirements; 11) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed
concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened
from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 12)
That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally
integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as
part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any
permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the
same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality
materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building;
13) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to
seawall setbacks; 14) That any/all boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use of the
residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be sub-leased separately from the
condominiums; 15) That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of CDB
approval (by February 20, 2008); and 16) That the final Certificate of Occupancy must be
obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Community Development 2007-02-20 38
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said original objections to the project related to the
location of the parking spaces. This revised proposal moved parking closer to the seawall. He
said the project is several inches shorter than the previously approved Skiff Point project.
Party status holder Neil Spillane opposed granting variances. He said while the front
setbacks were revised, side setbacks do not comply with Code. He said approval would create
another Brightwater Drive. He recommended specific mandates require view corridors. He said
over 220 submitted petitions oppose this proposal. He said the building is too large and has
inadequate parking as the street lacks space for overflow parking. He said the street already
has major traffic problems, which will worsen when construction begins. He said maintaining
the proposed hedge would require access to neighbor properties. He suggested ten-foot side
setbacks would be more appropriate, even though the Code mandates 15-foot setbacks.
Party status holder Carroll Lovett complimented staff for listening to residents’ concerns,
and ensuring the elimination of parking facing north and lights shining into nearby homes. He
supported the condition requiring the applicant to pay for necessary infrastructure modifications.
He said the building’s actual height would be nearly 70 feet, while adjacent properties are less
than 30 feet. He requested that parking garage lighting not mirror fluorescent lighting on
Windward Pass. He questioned how standing water will be eliminated and ensure no standing
water on the garage floor, leaves, etc.
Mr. Tefft said the application requests one setback deviation, reducing the front setback
from 25 feet to 18.3 feet. Side and rear setbacks meet code. The only deviations to side and
rear setbacks are to the pavement.
In response to questions from Mr. Lovett, Mr. Ghovaee said no lights from the parking
area will disturb neighbors. He said SWFWMD must approve drainage. The property owner
has an agreement with SWFWMD to maintain the pond, etc. and periodically sends certification.
He said the height conforms with the neighborhood and is supported by staff. He said the
Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the retention ponds.
Mr. Tefft said view corridors, setbacks, etc. referenced by Mr. Lovett are exclusive to
Island Estates and East Shore Drive. The required setback is 10 feet. The request is for a 5-
foot deviation to pavement, not to the building.
One person spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Ghovaee said minimum setbacks to the building are 18.3 feet and five-foot buffers
for parking, pavement, etc. are unusual. He said the applicant worked with staff to provide
enhanced landscaping in return for variances. Mr. Tefft said staff reviews each proposal to
ensure that cantilevered balconies are acceptable to specific criteria.
Discussion ensued with comments that the building seems to angle outward from the
roof deck on the west side, and concern expressed that although the building is set back from
the property, the project is too massive for site. Other concerns were expressed regarding side
yard setbacks in relation to view corridors, cantilevered balconies encroaching on view
corridors, and the building’s height. It was questioned if an increased height results in an
improved site plan. Mr. Tefft said the side setbacks without the balconies meet Code. Only the
building’s front will encroach into the setback.
Community Development 2007-02-20 39
Member Tallman moved to approve Case FLD2006-07045 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
motion
approval as listed. The was duly seconded. Members Fritsch and Tallman, and Chair
Gildersleeve voted “Aye”; Members Coates, Behar, Dame, and Milam voted “Nay.” Motion
failed.
Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Dame moved to deny Case FLD2006-07045 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby
make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: That the increased height does not
result in an improved site plan; that landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required do not
improve the design and appearance; that the increased height will not reduce the vertical
component of the view from a parcel of land that is designated as Medium Density Residential
(LDR) in the Zoning Atlas; that the design of the proposed residential infill project does not
create a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole, and that the
development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is practical without
motion
deviations from the intensity or other development standards. The was duly seconded.
Planning Director Michael Delk did not know if the applicant would have to wait 90 days
before the CDB hears a revised plan. He said the balconies’ encroachment is consistent with
Code. Mr. Tefft said the application meets Code requirements.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Behar, Coates, Milam, and Dame voted “Aye”.
carried.
Members Fritsch and Tallman, and Chair Gildersleeve voted “Nay.” Motion Alternate
Member Dennehy did not vote.
nd
3. Case: FLD2006-10056 – 2695 2 Avenue South Level Two Application
(Continued from January 16, 2007)
Owner/Applicant: Rottlund Homes of Florida, Inc
Representative: Sean P. Cashen, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 ICOT Boulevard,
Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090; e-mail:
scashen@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com).
Location: Approximately 4.8 acres located at the intersection of Chautauqua Avenue and
Third Avenue South.
Atlas Page: 244A.
Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to construct a subdivision perimeter wall in the Low
Density Residential (LDR) District with an increase to the maximum wall height from three feet
to eight feet along the front (west) boundary and an increase to the maximum wall height from
three feet to six feet along the front (south) boundary of the subdivision, as a Residential Infill
Project, pursuant to Section 2-103.B.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II / A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Community Development 2007-02-20 40
Planner Scott Kurleman reviewed the request and referred to photographs of the
property. These approximately 4.8 acres are located at the intersection of Chautauqua Avenue
and Third Avenue South. The site has approximately 204 feet of frontage on Chautauqua
Avenue and 540 feet of frontage on Third Avenue South. The site was formerly developed with
a detached dwelling. The existing site was previously developed with a four-foot tall chain link
fence. On September 29, 2005, the DRC approved with conditions Case Numbers FLS2005-
08066 and PLT2005-00023, a proposal to plat ten residential lots and construct ten new-
detached dwelling units. Building Permit #BCP2006-03171 has been submitted to construct site
improvements. Detached dwellings to the north and south dominate the area around this site.
Vehicle Sales establishments exist to the west of this site. Lake Chautauqua exists to the east
of the site.
The development proposal consists of the construction of a subdivision perimeter wall
with an increase to the maximum wall height from three feet to eight feet along the front (west)
boundary and an increase to the maximum wall height from three feet to six feet along the front
(south) boundary of the subdivision as an amenity to an approved 10-unit detached dwelling
development.
Pursuant to Section 3-804.A of the Community Development Code, Walls and fences
located in front of a principal structure shall be permitted to a maximum height of 36 inches. As
both proposed walls exceed this threshold (eight feet and six feet), the proposal is treated as a
Residential Infill Redevelopment Project and is subject to the relevant review criteria.
The development proposal consists of two components. The first component is the
construction of a solid eight-foot tall subdivision wall along the front (west) boundary. This
component has been designed to match the Lake Chautauqua I subdivision wall previously
approved by the DRC on January 29, 2004, as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project, under
Case FLS2003-10054.
The second component is the construction of a non-opaque six-foot tall subdivision wall
along the front (south) boundary. This component has been designed to provide security to
properties fronting Third Avenue South while maintaining an open presence through the use of
wrought iron and columns.
A review of the standards for setback and height requirements for fences and walls was
conducted and the following consistencies have been identified. The construction of the solid
eight-foot tall subdivision wall along the front (west) boundary of Lot Number One, a corner lot,
complies with the following standard. For the purposes of fence placement on corner lots, the
front yard shall be the side of the property from which the property is addressed. The
placement of any fence on this side of the property shall adhere to the front setback provisions.
The other side of the property shall be considered a side yard. A fence may be erected in
compliance with the side yard setback provisions provided the fence is consistent with the
character and placement of any structures and setbacks on the adjoining properties, including
the placement of the fence on the property line. The solid eight-foot tall subdivision wall
proposal has been designed to match the previously approved Lake Chautauqua I subdivision
wall. The placements of both subdivision walls are within required setback areas. The proposal
orients both walls so that the side of the wall viewable from a street right-of-way or an adjoining
property is the finished side.
The design of the eight-foot tall subdivision wall provides a visual and acoustic barrier for
the ten detached dwelling units from the service and body shop areas of the vehicle sales uses
Community Development 2007-02-20 41
to the west. It also creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a
whole. In addition it is in harmony with the scale and characteristic of adjacent properties and
properties in the immediate vicinity.
The design of the six-foot tall subdivision wall is not characteristic of a typical
subdivision. The broken up pattern the driveways and sight visibility triangles create are not
characteristic of a subdivision wall. The proposal is six foot tall for approximately 70% of the
width of the property and 30 to 36 inches tall for the remainder, which are the driveway and
sight visibility triangles. Due to lack of staff’s support for the six-foot tall portion of the proposal,
the applicant had chosen to remove this portion of the request and construct a fence/wall to
minimum fence code standards but later decided to pursue it. The placement of the subdivision
wall is located within a required structural setback adjacent to a public right-of-way and provides
a four-foot wide landscape strip where a minimum of three feet is required on the street side of
the fence. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 4.8 acre subdivision is located at the intersection of
Chautauqua Avenue and Third Avenue South; 2) That the property is located within the Low
Density Residential (LDR) District and Residential Suburban (RS) Future Land Use Plan
category; 3) That on September 29, 2005, the DRC approved with conditions Cases FLS2005-
08066 and PLT2005-00023, a proposal to plat ten residential lots and construct ten new-
detached dwelling units; 4) That the development proposal for the eight foot tall wall is
consistent with the Wall and Fencing Code; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with
the Landscaping Code; 6) That the six foot tall proposed wall on the south is not compatible with
surrounding area and other subdivision walls; 7) That the development proposal will enhance
other redevelopment efforts; and 8) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues
associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as per Section 3-104 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-103.B of the
Community Development Code; and 3) That the development proposal regarding the eight foot
tall wall is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913
of the Community Development Code.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color be consistent with the
conceptual elevations submitted and 2) That the proposed landscape be installed prior to final
inspection.
Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Department recommends approval of the request to construct a subdivision perimeter wall in the
Low Density Residential (LDR) District with an increase to the maximum wall height from three
feet to eight feet along the front (west) boundary, as a Residential Infill Project, pursuant to
Section 2-103.B.
Community Development 2007-02-20 42
Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Department recommends denial of the request to construct a wall/fence in the Low Density
Residential (LDR) District with an increase to the maximum wall/fence height from three feet to
six feet along the front (south) boundary, as a Residential Infill Project, pursuant to Section 2-
103.B.
In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said if the broken area of fencing were raised
from three feet to six feet, it still would not be permissible in the site triangle where fencing can
only be 30 inches high.
Sean Cashman, applicant, distributed aerial photographs of the area. He said no one
objects to the 8-foot high wall, which will buffer the body shop to the west. He said proposed
fencing provides a contrast and variety to the property instead of the typical straight six-foot high
fence, would be more appealing, and is not out of character with the community. The fence is
proposed on the south side of Lots 1 – 7. He said Lots 1 through 4 will have a six-foot high
fence to help separate lots from Chautauqua Avenue. He said residents would have more
privacy by staggering fence heights. He said 90% of the fencing is open wrought iron. He said
many nearby properties are fenced to provide privacy or separation from commercial properties.
In response to questions, Mr. Cashman said Lots 1 through 4 sit back approximately 40
feet from the right-of-way. He said sliding gates would be installed near foundations close to
driveway entrances. He said Second Avenue South is fairly busy as it connects to US 19.
Mr. Kurleman disagreed that the proposed fence is compatible with adjacent properties
or the City as a whole.
Mr. Cashman said the proposed fence complies with site triangle requirements by
dropping down in some areas. Gates that cross the driveway will be higher. He said most of
the fencing will be six feet high. He said the fencing, as proposed, meets the intent of Code.
Concern was expressed that it is difficult to visualize the proposal and that the six-foot
high gate would be in the site triangle when it swings open. In response to questions, Mr.
Cashman said gates for Lots 1 through 5 will swing inward. It was remarked that submitted
information indicates the gate would swing out. Concern was expressed that the widest
driveway between the gate and building is 20 feet. Mr. Cashman said the gatepost will be 12 –
18 inches off the edge of the driveway. It was remarked that the fencing appears to be set back
far enough from the street to not pose a safety issue.
Member Coates moved to approve the first portion of Case FLD2006-10056 to construct
a subdivision perimeter wall in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with an increase to the
maximum wall height from three feet to eight feet along the front (west) boundary, as a
Residential Infill Project, pursuant to Section 2-103.B, based on the evidence and testimony
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval
motioncarried
as listed. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member
Dennehy did not vote.
Member Coates moved to approve the second portion of Case FLD2006-10056 for the
request to construct a wall/fence in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with an increase
to the maximum wall/fence height from three feet to six feet along the front (south) boundary, as
a Residential Infill Project, pursuant to Section 2-103.B, based on the evidence and testimony
Community Development 2007-02-20 43
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the
following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: That the site triangle in this case is not a
safety issue and that it would be irrelevant to apply it in this condition given the setback of the
fence and gate from the street, and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application
motion
complies with City Code Section 3-913. The was duly seconded. Members Fritsch,
Milam, Coates, Tallman, and Dame and Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye.” Member Behar voted
carried.
“Nay.” Motion Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
The CDB recessed from 2:59 to 3:11 p.m.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 – 2):
1. Cases: FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 – 635 Mandalay Ave Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Don R. Whitehurst.
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: renee@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 0.28 acre located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Mandalay
Avenue and Royal Way.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use (eight attached dwellings
and 1,253 square-feet of retail floor area) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the front
(west along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the
side (north) setback from 10 feet to 2.1 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (east) setback
from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), an increase to building height from 35 feet to
58.83 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), a reduction to required off-street parking from 22 spaces
(16 spaces for attached dwellings; 6 spaces for retail sales) to 18 spaces and deviations to
allow the building within the sight visibility triangles and to allow a reduction to the minimum
vehicle stacking distance, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-803.C, and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along
Mandalay Avenue from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under
the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2006-09031)
of one dwelling unit from 689 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4-1402.
Proposed Use: Mixed Use (eight attached dwellings and 1,253 square-feet of retail floor area).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. This item would have been on the Consent Agenda
except for two e-mails received from Mandalay Avenue residents. The 0.28-acre site is at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way. The rectangular site
is currently vacant, but formerly was developed with an automobile service station, which was
demolished in August 1990. Due to this prior development, there is no existing on-street
parking on Mandalay Avenue in front of the subject property. This site is located in the “Old
Florida” District of Beach by Design.
Community Development 2007-02-20 44
Property to the north along Mandalay Avenue is currently developed with retail sales and
service uses, and with overnight accommodation uses farther north. The properties to the east,
west and south are currently developed with overnight accommodation uses.
The development proposal for this property is for mixed use of eight attached dwellings
and 1,253 square-feet of retail sales floor area. This site is in the “Old Florida” District of Beach by
Design. This District specifically calls for limited retail/commercial and mixed-use development
along Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. This redevelopment
proposal for the subject property is for a mixed use, in compliance with the vision in Beach by
Design for this area. Mixed-use, however, is not a use provided for in the Tourist (T) District, and
is the reason such a request must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project. The retail floor area has been designed to provide two retail units facing Mandalay
Avenue at a three-foot front setback. Eight attached dwellings are proposed above the ground
floor retail area and ground level parking garage. The building is 58.83 feet tall (to mid-point of
pitched roof). Two dwellings are proposed per floor, with the units on the first level of
approximately 2,535 square-feet of conditioned living area, the units on the second and third
levels of approximately 2,325 square-feet of conditioned living area and the units on the top floor
of approximately 2,045 square-feet of conditioned living area. Residential units will have
balconies on the east and west sides of the units. Each unit is designed for a hot tub on the
western balcony. A total of 18 parking spaces are proposed on-site, primarily located under the
building east of the retail floor area.
Beach by Design Guidelines requires as least 60% of any elevation to be covered with
windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has submitted information that the project is
in compliance with the 60% Guideline through the use of windows, sliding glass doors,
aluminum railings, balconies, and trim to meet this requirement.
The proposed building has been designed using a Millennium Mediterranean
architectural theme. The ground level parking and retail sales level, as well as the first level will
be stucco painted sierra snow (a beige color). The second through fourth living floors will also
be stucco painted inner peace (a light blue). Columns and trim will be painted mercury (white).
The roof is a pitched hip roof finished with gray asphaltic shingles.
Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum allowable FAR for
properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0 and the maximum density is 30
dwelling units per acre. As a mixed use, the maximum development potential of the property is
based on a mixed-use calculation. A mixed-use calculation indicates the proposed 1,253
square-feet of nonresidential floor area and eight dwelling units is consistent with the maximums
allowable. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide
Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable FAR and maximum allowable
density.
Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable ISR is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.73, which is consistent with the Code
provisions.
Mixed-se is not a use provided for in the Tourist (T) District, and is the reason such
request must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However,
comparison can be made to “Attached Dwellings” and “Retail Sales and Services”. Pursuant to
Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for both uses can
Community Development 2007-02-20 45
range between 5,000 – 10,000 square-feet. The subject property is 12,218 square-feet in area.
Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for both uses can range between 50 – 100
feet. The lot width of the subject property along Mandalay Avenue is 119.2 feet and along
Royal Way is 102.5 feet. Based on this comparison, the proposal is consistent with Code
provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front
setback for attached dwellings and retail sales can range between 0 – 15 feet and the minimum
side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet. The proposal includes a reduction to the front
(west along Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the
side (north) setback from 10 feet to 2.1 feet (to building) and a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area).
The western stairwell for this proposal is designed at a zero front setback along
Mandalay Avenue. The retail floor areas are designed at a three-foot front setback along
Mandalay Avenue. The setbacks along Mandalay Avenue are in conformance with the Beach
by Design “Old Florida” District requirements, which provides for a zero-foot front setback along
Mandalay Avenue for 80% of the property line. The first level of the building is designed with the
center of the building (stairwell) located at a zero front setback, with the living area at
approximately 11 feet from the front property line of Mandalay Avenue. Balconies for all four
living levels are further stepped back at approximately 25 feet from the Mandalay Avenue
property line. The proposed stepback from Mandalay Avenue is in compliance with the Beach
by Design “Old Florida” District requirements. The proposed building is located 15 feet from
Royal Way, which meets the Tourist District requirement, as well as the minimum front setback
requirement under the Beach by Design “Old Florida” District. The north side setback under the
Beach by Design “Old Florida” District allows for a zero-foot side setback, however, the
proposed building is located 2.08 feet from the north property line for the ground level and for
the columns and roof for the first level. The first floor living area is further set back from the
north property line an additional three feet to comply with Building Code requirements for
percentage of openings (windows) on this north side. Looking at the west elevation of this
proposed building, the building is stepped back on both the north and south sides of the building
at the second and third levels 6.33 feet and an additional seven feet for the fourth level. These
stepbacks are in compliance with Beach by Design “Old Florida” District requirements. While
this is a corner lot where a side setback is required by Code on the east side, the Beach by
Design “Old Florida” District requires a 10-foot “rear” setback. The proposed building meets this
required 10-foot setback from the east property line.
The building will have a refuse collection room on the ground floor on the east side of the
parking level. Dumpsters will be rolled out to the staging areas on collection days. The location
of the trash staging area at a zero setback from the east property line adjacent to the alley is
necessary to eliminate the necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many
newer developments. Proposed setbacks are consistent with existing setbacks for other
projects in close proximity within this urban context.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable
height for attached dwellings and retail sales can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed
building has been designed at a height of 58.83 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) above Base
Flood Elevation (BFE). The proposed height is consistent with the Beach by Design “Old
Florida” District requirements of a maximum height of 65 feet (for attached dwellings). This
proposed height is compatible with the height of buildings constructed, under construction or
approved within the surrounding area. The building at 14 Somerset Street was
Community Development 2007-02-20 46
approved/constructed at a height of 56 feet and the building approved/constructed at 15
Somerset Street is at a height of 61.66 feet. The proposed height is also compatible with
buildings approved (but not yet constructed) along Bay Esplanade to the east, such as 651 Bay
Esplanade (59 feet), 657 – 663 Bay Esplanade (59.66 feet) and 665 – 667 Bay Esplanade (65
feet).
The site is within Flood Zone A and the Building Code does not permit the habitable area
of the residential portion of the building to be situated below BFE; however, the retail sales
portion may be below BFE as long as it is floodproofed. Based on these provisions, as well as
having to meet vertical clearance requirements for handicap parking spaces, this usually means
that parking for the project is accommodated on the ground floor and the building height is
increased accordingly. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the
Code and with Beach by Design “Old Florida” District requirements with regard to the maximum
allowable height.
The proposal takes sole access to Royal Way, in compliance with Beach by Design “Old
Florida” District requirements not allowing access to Mandalay Avenue. Existing driveways on
Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way will be removed and sidewalks constructed for the site
frontages.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required
parking for attached dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit and required parking for retail
sales and services can range between four – five spaces per 1,000 square-feet GFA. Based on
eight dwelling units (16 required spaces) and the proposed 1,253 square-feet of proposed retail
sales floor area (5 – 6 required spaces), a minimum of between 21 and 22 total parking spaces
are required for this development. The applicant proposes 18 parking spaces on-site, including
one handicap space, to accommodate the residential units in the building and one space each
for the owner/operator of the retail/commercial units. The proposal includes a reduction to
required parking from 22 spaces to 18 spaces. Section 2-803.K for retail sales and services in
the Tourist District provides the following criteria for a parking reduction: a) The physical
characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require
fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant
portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating
purposes; b) Adjacent land uses are of a nature that there is a high probability that patrons will
use modes of transportation other than the automobile to access the use; and c) Adequate
parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet
of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned
and committed parking facilities or the shared parking formula in Article 3, Division 14.
A Parking Demand Study has been submitted providing the justification for the reduction.
The proposed reduction basically centers on the retail uses, where the proposal eliminates most
required parking for the retail sales uses. Retail sales uses are envisioned as specialty, non-
destination beach related retail shops that will draw their customers from pedestrians walking
along Mandalay Avenue and from hotels/motels and attached dwellings within the area. The
Parking Demand Study indicates adequate parking within municipal parking lots, on-street
parking and from other uses within close proximity to serve the proposed retail sales floor area.
The Beach Trolley also goes along Mandalay Avenue. Adequate parking is available within a
reasonable walking distance of the project to support the requested reduction. This reduction is
consistent with other similar uses along Mandalay Avenue and in the downtown area of
Clearwater. Additionally, due to the removal of the driveways on Mandalay Avenue, the
applicant is proposing to construct 11 new parking spaces within the existing roadway adjacent
Community Development 2007-02-20 47
to other angled parking to the north. To separate turning movements from parked vehicles, a
terminal landscape island is proposed at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way.
This landscaped island will need to be designed with a radius of 30 feet when constructed. The
proposed and existing parking spaces within the Mandalay Avenue right-of-way are time-limited
spaces (posted at a maximum of three hours). While these new parking spaces cannot be
designated for the retail uses in this project, the provision of these additional spaces increases
the overall parking available in close proximity to the subject site. Based upon the submitted
Parking Demand Study and the provision of these 11 new parking spaces within the Mandalay
Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the subject site, the development proposal is consistent with
the Code with regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside
mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or
abutting properties. The applicant proposes air conditioning units for retail sales units on the
roof above the retail units. Air conditioning units for the residential units are proposed on the
balconies on the east side of the building. Railings are planned along the edges of these
balconies. Actual screening will be reviewed at time of building permit. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is, or will be, consistent with the Code with regard to screening of
outdoor mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards
at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. There is only one driveway proposed for this property on Royal
Way. The proposed building is not located within the driveway’s sight triangles, but gating for
the parking garage will be located within the triangles. The proposal is in compliance with the
sight visibility triangle along the property lines at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal
Way.
The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians
traversing a right-of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a
clear and unobstructed view of one another. The proposed encroachment will not result in a
conflict with this intent, as those vehicles exiting the parking garage will still have adequate and
safe clear and unobstructed view of vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing Royal Way.
These encroachments upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in the grant of a
special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere under similar
circumstances. It is noted that the City’s Engineering Department has indicated support for this
request. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to allowing the
small “building” encroachment within the driveway’s sight visibility triangles as set forth in
Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code.
The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum vehicle stacking distance. Section 3-
1406.B.2 requires a minimum distance of 20 feet between the right-of-way and the first parking
space in the parking lot. Since the minimum setback in the Tourist District and in the Beach by
Design “Old Florida” District is 15 feet and the parking is within a garage under the building,
compliance with this Code requirement is a challenge. The applicant has proposed, with
concurrence from the City’s Engineering Department, to designate the southernmost space on
either side of the drive aisle for the owners/operators of the retail units to minimize this issue.
Due to the gated nature of this proposed development and the designation of the southernmost
Community Development 2007-02-20 48
spaces for the owners/operators of the retail units, there is sufficient stacking area to meet the
safety requirements of the Code, similar to the visibility triangle encroachment.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal
indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in
conformance with this Code requirement. There do exist overhead utility lines along the
frontage of Royal Way. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within this
abutting right-of-way will need to be installed along this street frontage prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D of the Community Development Code, there are no
perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. However, Beach by Design “Old
Florida” District requires a 10-foot perimeter buffer along Royal Way. This proposal complies
with this requirement, as the building is set back 15 feet from the Royal Way property line.
Because there is less than 4,000 square-feet of paved vehicular use area outside of the building
footprint, no interior landscape area is required for this site (Section 3-1202.E.1). Pursuant to
Section 3-1202.E.2, a foundation landscape area of a minimum five-foot width is required along
the building frontage of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way. The proposal includes a request to
eliminate the required foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue at least where the
stairwell is located and to reduce the foundation landscaping to three feet in front of the retail
units, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. The
requirement for foundation landscaping is at odds with the goal of having the building adjacent
to the property line, as envisioned by Beach by Design. The elimination of the foundation
landscaping along Mandalay Avenue for the stairwell location and the reduction to three feet
otherwise is consistent with other projects along Mandalay, primarily south of Baymont Street.
Other properties along the area from Bay Esplanade to Somerset also have buildings at a zero
(or close to it) front setback along Mandalay Avenue.
A hedge of dwarf green arboricola and viburnum will be planted between the retail units
and the sidewalk along Mandalay Avenue. Other perimeters of the building will have similar
hedging of combinations of dwarf green arboricola, viburnum and Indian hawthorn, accented by
variegated flax lily and jasmine groundcovers. Palmetto palms, silver buttonwood and oleander
trees will accent the northwest corner as well as the south and east sides of the site. The
existence of overhead utility lines restricts the south side of the site to accent trees.
The applicant is proposing to create new parking spaces within the Mandalay Avenue
right-of-way in front of the subject property. As part of these parking improvements and to
separate turning movements from parked vehicles, a terminal landscape island is proposed at
the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way. This landscape island should be
improved to include shrubbery to fill the island and one cabbage palm, where shrubbery will
need to be maintained at a height not to exceed 30-inches (for sight visibility), as acceptable to
the City Engineer. Irrigation will also be necessary to this landscape island.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Community Development 2007-02-20 49
The elimination of the foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue at least where
the stairwell is located and to reduce the foundation landscaping to three feet in front of the
retail units is included in the Comprehensive Landscape Program request. As expressed
above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with
all applicable criteria, as discussed above.
The development proposal includes a trash room adjacent to the eastern stairwell for the
residential units. A trash chute is provided in the residential units on each floor to deposit their
trash. This trash room is of adequate size for the number of dwelling units proposed for both
trash collection and recycling barrels. A separate dumpster area is provided in the northeast
corner of the parking garage for the retail units. Dumpster and recycling staging areas on the
east side of the site adjacent to the alley have been provided to allow truck pickup of dumpsters
and recycling bins. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
The applicant is proposing only attached signage for the retail sales units facing
Mandalay Avenue with this development proposal and has indicated that all signage will meet
the City’s Sign Code requirements. It is unlikely, due to the location of the proposed retail sales
portion of the building at a front setback of three feet on Mandalay Avenue, any freestanding
signage will be necessary. Any approval of this application, however, should include a condition
requiring any future freestanding signage to be a monument-style sign meeting Code
requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
Pursuant to Section 4-1402 of the Community Development Code, parcels governed by
a special area plan, such as Beach by Design, may only receive residential density transfers
from parcels within the same special area plan and may not exceed the otherwise applicable
maximum density by more than 20%.
Based upon the above, the subject property can receive a TDR (Transfer of
Development Rights) for a maximum of one dwelling unit. With regard to the property at 689
Bay Esplanade, a maximum of nine attached dwelling units are possible on-site and the site has
been approved for redevelopment under FLD2005-08088 (approved by the CDB on November
15, 2005) with eight attached dwellings; therefore one excess dwelling unit is available for
transfer. Accordingly, the TDR has been found to be consistent with the requirements of
Section 4-1402 and Section 4-1403 of the Community Development Code. There are no
outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of November
2 and December 7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move
forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 0.28 acre is located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way; 2) The site is currently vacant; 3) The subject
property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the
“Old Florida” District; 4) The proposal is for the construction of a mixed-use building of eight
attached dwellings and 1,253 square-feet of retail floor area, in compliance with the vision in
Beach by Design for this area; 5) The retail floor area has been designed for two retail units
facing Mandalay Avenue at a three-foot front setback in compliance with the requirements of the
“Old Florida” District of Beach by Design; 6) The proposed setbacks are consistent with existing
setbacks for other projects in close proximity within this urban context; 7) The proposed building
height is 58.83 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and is consistent and compatible with the height
Community Development 2007-02-20 50
of buildings constructed, under construction or approved within the surrounding area; 8) The
applicant proposes 18 parking spaces on-site, including one handicap space, to accommodate
the eight residential units in the building at two parking spaces per unit and one space each for
the owners/operators of the retail units; 9) The proposal includes a reduction to required parking
from 22 spaces (six spaces for retail sales; 16 spaces for attached dwellings) to 18 spaces; 10)
A Parking Demand Study has been submitted providing the justification for the parking
reduction; 11) The proposal includes the construction of 11 new angled parking spaces within
the Mandalay Avenue right-of-way in front of the subject site, increasing the overall number of
parking spaces available to the surrounding businesses and dwellings; 12) The proposed
building meets the setback and stepback requirements of the “Old Florida” District of Beach by
Design; 13) The proposal includes the elimination of the required foundation landscaping along
Mandalay Avenue at least where the stairwell is located and the reduction of the foundation
landscaping to three feet in front of the retail units, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program,
has been found to be consistent with all applicable criteria; and 14) That there are no active
Code Enforcement cases for this property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the
Community Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the
General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the (1)
Flexible Development application to permit a mixed use (eight attached dwellings and 1,253
square-feet of retail floor area) in the Tourist District with a reduction to the front (west along
Mandalay Avenue) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the side (north)
setback from 10 feet to 2.1 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet
to zero feet (to trash staging area), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 58.83 feet (to
midpoint of pitched roof), a reduction to required off-street parking from 22 spaces (16 spaces
for attached dwellings; 6 spaces for retail sales) to 18 spaces and deviations to allow the
building within the sight visibility triangles and to allow a reduction to the minimum vehicle
stacking distance, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C, and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along Mandalay
Avenue from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G.; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2006-09031) of
one dwelling unit from 689 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4-1402, with the
following Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That a Declaration
of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That a
condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 4) That
a special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from
689 Bay Esplanade 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 689 Bay Esplanade due to the transfer of development
rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (689 Bay Esplanade) shall consent to the
transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits; 5) That the new parking
spaces and landscape island within Mandalay Avenue meet the following requirements: a) the
applicant construct the improvements at their expense; b) signage be erected by the City
Community Development 2007-02-20 51
limiting the time for parking within these spaces; c) a 30-foot curb radius be provided on the
landscape island; d) prior to the issuance of any permits, a right-of-way use permit be required,
which will include approval of landscaping within the landscape island acceptable to the City
Engineer; e) the landscape island include shrubbery to fill the island and one cabbage palm,
where shrubbery be maintained at a height not to exceed 30-inches; and f) the landscape island
be provided with irrigation; 6) That all dumpsters be enclosed within trash rooms or screened
trash areas, including those for the commercial units, acceptable to the Planning and Solid
Waste Departments, prior to the issuance of the building permit; 7) 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; 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 Royal Way right-of-way shall be installed
for the site frontage 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 future signage meet the requirements of the Code and any
future freestanding sign be monument-style, designed to match the exterior materials and color
of the building; 10) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a final determination be made
regarding the existing monitoring wells, acceptable to the Environmental Engineering and
Planning Departments; 11) That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, air conditioning
units be screened from view from public streets or adjacent properties; 12) That, prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant provide copies of the condominium
documents designating the southernmost parking space on either side of the drive aisle for the
owners/operators of the retail units; 13) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to
the issuance of any permits; 14) That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid
prior to the issuance of any permits; and 15) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to
the issuance of any permits.
In response to a question, Planning Manager Neil Thompson said zero side setbacks
are acceptable in the Old Florida District.
Renee Ruggiero, representative said this is one of the first projects in this district since
changes were made to Beach by Design. The proposal provides a mixed-use of commercial
and residential uses. She said the development is consistent with the desired trend along
Mandalay Avenue. Access will be along Royal Way. In addition to two parking spaces per
residential and retail unit, more parking is available on the street. She said there are 438 public
parking spaces within 1,000 feet of this property. She said all tenants are not known. She
hoped to attract high-end retail and professional offices without late hours. She said the project
will enhance the Old Florida District.
Mr. Wells reported that two residents, not in attendance, had requested a continuance.
Member Fritsch moved not to continue Case FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031. The
motion carried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Fritsch moved to approve Case FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031, based on
the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Community Development 2007-02-20 52
motion carried
Report with conditions of approval as listed. The was duly seconded and
unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
2. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-11061 – 1765 and 1771 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and 515 Florida Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Poulos Family Corp., Inc. & D. Guy McMullen Properties, Inc./Boos
Development Group, Inc.
Representatives: E.D. Armstrong III Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365; e-mail: linda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 1.66 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
Keene Road.
Atlas Page: 297B.
Zoning Districts: Commercial (C) District and Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit retail sales and service in the Commercial
(C) District with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), a
reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), an increase in
allowable building height from 25 feet to 34 feet and to permit direct access to a major arterial
street as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-
704.C; (2) to permit Non-Residential Off-Street Parking in the Medium Density Residential
(MDR) District with the elimination of the required minimum four feet high wall landscaped on
the external side to screen off-street parking spaces at the southwest corner and with outdoor
lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-304.G; (3) to permit a wall eight feet high including the front setback in the (MDR)
Medium Density Residential District under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1; (4) to permit a
reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width along a portion of the west side of the property
from 12 feet to 10.4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; and (5) the vacation of the northerly
portion of the right of way of Florida Avenue.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Skycrest Neighbors (Joanna Siskin, 121 Crest Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
Daphne Cassidy requested party status.
motion
Member Coates moved to grant Daphne Cassidy party status. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Mike Loy requested party status. It was determined that his property is within the
noticeable area.
motion
Member Fritsch moved to grant Mike Loy party status. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reported that Attorney for the Board Grimes had declared a conflict of
interest. Ms Dougall-Sides represented the board in this case.
Community Development 2007-02-20 53
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Mr. Kurleman reviewed the request. He said this item would have been on the Consent
Agenda were it not for the request for the 8-foot high wall. The 1.66-acre site is located at the
southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South Keene Road. Both Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Keene Road are heavily traveled roadways. The southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Keene Road is developed with retail sales and service (Walgreens), the northeast corner is
developed with a restaurant (HogFish Grill), and the northwest corner is developed with Vehicle
Service and a Restaurant use. The subject site at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and Keene Road currently has Vehicle Service, Retail Sales and Services, a
Restaurant and a Residential use.
The proposal is for a retail sales and service use (CVS). This proposal is related to a
request to vacate the northerly portion of Florida Avenue. Upon the vacation, the site will have (C)
Commercial and (MDR) Medium Density Residential zoning. The (MDR) parcel will contain 13
off-street parking spaces and the (C) Commercial parcel will contain the retail sales and service
use (CVS).
The proposal includes a single story 12,900 square-foot retail store with a height of 34 feet
where 25 feet is the maximum height permitted by minimum development standards. The
building will have two primary façades, facing Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keene Road.
Pursuant to Section 2-704.N.of the Community Development Code parcels proposed for
development as Retail Sales and Services shall front on but will not involve direct access to a
major arterial street. Both Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keene Road are major arterial streets. As a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project the applicant seeks relief from this restriction. There
is no option available to prevent direct access to a major arterial street. In addition Section 2-
703.N. allows an increase in building height, 25 feet – 50 feet, providing it results in an improved
site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required or improved design and
appearance and the increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any
adjacent residential property. The applicant has proposed a very heavily landscaped site
including three specimen mejool date palms at the entry. The proposal also provides a metal roof,
copper sheathing, awnings, and stringcourses to improve the appearance. The increased height
has not reduced the vertical component of the view from the adjacent residential properties.
Further front setback requests must also result in an improved site plan or improved design and
appearance as demonstrated above.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) setback on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot. Additionally, there is a request to reduce the front (east)
setback on Keene Road from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot. The entire width of all the
reduced setbacks will be he heavily landscaped with a tiered effect. Section 2-703 permit the
front setback to be reduced to 15 feet for parking lots provided the land area is not sufficient to
accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved design and
appearance and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. Absent these reduced front
setbacks to the parking lot, the drive aisle widths would not meet code requirements and the
reductions have resulted in an improved design and appearance by the addition of unique
fenestration, changes in the horizontal building planes, and details such cornices, stringcourses
and awnings. Both the proposed interior landscaping and tree requirements are exceeded by
over 50%.
Community Development 2007-02-20 54
Pursuant to Section 2-304.D. of the Community Development Code the parcel proposed
for off-street parking must be contiguous to the parcel for the non-residential use, Retail Sales and
Services, which will be served by the off-street parking spaces. The MDR parcel is contiguous to
Commercial parcel. In addition, the MDR parcel must have a common boundary of at least 25
feet. The MDR parcel has a common boundary of 279 feet on the north. Further, no off-street
parking spaces are located in the required front setback for detached dwellings in the MDR district
or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten feet of a side or rear lot line. he required front
setback for detached dwellings in the MDR District is 25 feet. The proposed parking spaces begin
at 59 feet in the front and 10.4 feet on the side. Additionally, the off-street parking spaces shall be
screened by a wall or fence of at least four feet in height and is landscaped on the external side
with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine. The off-street parking is screened by a proposed
wall of eight feet in height, except for the 43 feet at the southwest corner, which is architecturally
compatible and complementary to the principal structure and is landscaped on the external side.
Lastly all parking spaces are required to be surface parking. All parking spaces are surface
parking.
Pursuant to Section 2-304.D. all outdoor lighting for off-street parking spaces shall be
automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 p.m. However the applicant has applied for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and Residential Infill Project to seek relief from this
requirement. The applicant has requested that the outdoor lighting remain on from dusk to dawn,
as this is a 24-hour, seven-day retail use. This request is necessitated for the safety of customers
frequenting the business after 9:00 p.m. The applicant has submitted a photometric light plan
showing low levels of light output on the residential property. Additionally, “House Side” shields on
the east side of the light fixtures are proposed at a 45-degree angle facing the residential property.
Further, the photometric plan does not compensate for the proposed shields, thus foot-candle
output levels will be even lower than what is depicted on the light plan.
Pursuant to Section 2-703 of the Community Development Code, the minimum off-street
parking spaces required for Retail Sales and Services within the Commercial (C) District is five
per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the proposed 12,900 square-
feet building will require 65 parking spaces and has provided for 65.
Pursuant to Section 3-804 of the Community Development Code, walls and fences in the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District shall be permitted to a maximum height of 36 inches in
the front of the principal structure and fences and walls in the side and rear setback areas shall be
permitted to a maximum height of six feet. Walls in the Medium Density Residential District may
be permitted to a maximum height of six feet in the front setback as a Level Two approval. As the
proposed wall exceeds both of these thresholds, the proposal is treated a Residential Infill
Redevelopment Project. While the eight-foot high wall is architecturally compatible with the
principal structure, staff concurs it is not compatible and characteristic with the surrounding
properties. It is noted that the request for the eight-foot high wall was generated by the
neighboring properties. Property owners feel the increased height will provide for greater privacy.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste
containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall,
mounds of earth, or vegetation. The proposal includes the provision of a dumpster enclosure
located in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The enclosure consists of six-foot high concrete
block side and rear walls and six-foot high swing gates. The mechanical equipment will be
located on the roof completely screened from public streets and abutting properties.
Community Development 2007-02-20 55
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such under-grounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to
be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site.
The applicant has included plans depicting signage with this development proposal.
However, these plans are for informational purposes only and the review/approval of said plans
shall be accommodated through the sign permit and/or Comprehensive Sign approval
processes as necessary.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is
required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along both Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keene Road, a
12-foot wide landscape buffer along the south property line (adjacent to residential), and a five
foot landscape buffer (adjacent to non-residential) and a 12-foot landscape buffer (adjacent to
residential) for approximately 56 feet of the west property line. Buffers are to be planted with
one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes a reduction
to the perimeter landscape buffer along the west property line (adjacent to residential) for
approximately five feet, from 12 feet to 10.4 feet (to pavement). All other buffers meet code
requirements.
Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Code requires the provision of 10% of the vehicular use area
in interior landscaping. The proposal indicates the area of interior landscaping provided to be
14.90%.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2 foundation plantings shall be provided for 100% of a
building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way within a minimum five feet wide
landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees or three palm trees for every 40 linear
feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square-feet of required landscape area.
Additionally a minimum of 50% of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground
cover. The proposal meets the requirement of Section 3-1202.E.2.
The landscape proposal includes generous tiered landscape buffers on all perimeters
including some widths as much as 40 feet. The entryway will be framed with three specimen-
quality 18 foot-tall Mejool Date Palms. Additionally, the tree and shrub quantity requirement has
been exceeded. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the
landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the
application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. There are
no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 4,
2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.66-acre subject property is located at the southwest
corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keene Road; 2) That the 0.39-acre southern portion of the
overall property is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the
Residential/Urban (R/U) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the 1.27-acre northern portion
of the overall property is currently located within the Commercial (C) District and Commercial
General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 4) That the proposal includes the construction of
Community Development 2007-02-20 56
a 12,900 square-feet, one-story retail sales and services building within the Commercial (C)
District, with associated nonresidential off-street parking lot on the southern portion of the site
within the within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District; 5) That reductions to setbacks
to pavement are proposed as part of the development; 6) That the proposed installation of an
eight-feet high wall with landscaping on the external side adjacent to existing detached
dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 7) That the
development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other
redevelopment efforts; 8) That the eight-foot tall proposed wall is not compatible with the
surrounding area; and 9) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 for the Commercial District and Tables 2-301.1 and 2-304 for
the MDR District of the Community Development Code; 2) That the development proposal,
other than the eight foot wall, is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-704.C
and 2-304.G of the Community Development Code; and 3) That the development proposal,
other than the eight foot wall, is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals
as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application (1) to permit retail sales and service in the Commercial (C) District with
a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), a reduction to the
front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), an increase in allowable building
height from 25 feet to 34 feet and to permit direct access to a major arterial street as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; (2) to
permit Non-Residential Off-Street Parking in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with
the elimination of the required minimum four feet high wall landscaped on the external side to
screen off-street parking spaces at the southwest corner and with outdoor lighting remaining on
from dusk to dawn as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G; (3) to
permit a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width along a portion of the west side of the
property from 12 feet to 10.4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; and (4) the vacation of
the northerly portion of the right of way of Florida Avenue, with the conditions listed below.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of that portion of
the Flexible Development application to permit a wall eight feet high including the front setback
in the (MDR) Medium Density Residential District under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That approval of this application is subject to vacation of the
northerly portion of Florida Avenue; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records
prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the final design of the building must be consistent
with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by
Staff; 4) That all colors proposed for the building and wall be approved by Staff prior to issuance
of any permits; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six
feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building; 6) That a minimum four feet high wall be installed adjacent to
the residential properties excluding the southwest corner (per the request); 7) That all site
triangles have no obstructions in them that would create visibility or safety issues; 8) That a
Right-of -Way permit be issued to install landscaping in the right of way; 9) That the landscape
not exceed the allowable 25% palm tree requirement and all other associated landscaping,
including foundation and interior requirements be installed per the plan submitted to (or as
Community Development 2007-02-20 57
modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 10) That all outdoor lighting have shields to
eliminate glare and light intrusion onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way; 11) That all
proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground.
Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of-way
shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits
with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and
number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering
Department prior to the commencement of work; 12) That in order to facilitate improvements to
the neighborhood bounded by Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to the north, Keene Road to the east,
Druid Road to the south and Phoenix Avenue to the west (“Neighborhood”), Boos Development
Group shall, prior to the issuance of any permits: (i) deliver the sum of $250,000 (“Neighborhood
Improvement Fund”) to the City of Clearwater to be used by the City for enhancement of the
Neighborhood, for the purpose of off-setting the impacts of the approved project and the partial
closure of Florida Avenue and (ii) coordinate a meeting between the City and Neighborhood
property owners for the purpose of their collaboration in determining how the Neighborhood
Improvement Fund shall be used for Neighborhood improvement and to set a timeframe for
such improvement projects to be completed by the City. Examples of potential Neighborhood
improvements to be discussed include, without limitation, additional landscaping of the existing
retention pond on Florida Avenue, general landscaping throughout the right-of-way, a
neighborhood monument sign, traffic signal and or turn lane improvements at Druid and Keene,
Neighborhood sidewalk improvements and or Neighborhood roadway improvements. The City
shall administer the disbursement of the Neighborhood Improvement Fund and shall make the
final determination as to expenditures. Any portion of the Neighborhood Improvement Fund that
has not been used for Neighborhood Improvements within two years from the date of this
Development Order shall be returned to Boos Development Group, Inc; 13) That the emergency
access sliding gate located on the south side be opaque; 14) That the proposed wall on the
south side be connected to the neighboring fence at the southeast corner; 15) That prior to
commencement of vertical construction, all utilities in the Florida Avenue right-of-way shall be
relocated at the applicants expense and to the satisfaction of the utility owners and the City
Engineer; 16) That prior to commencement of vertical construction a fire hydrant be located at
the west ingress/egress drive outside of the site triangle but within 40- 100 feet of the Fire
Department Connections; and 17) That prior to commencement of vertical construction a fire
hydrant be located in the interior landscape island in the north parking lot.
In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman said adjacent property owners had requested
the eight-foot wall. He said the applicant’s $250,000 contribution will mitigate vacation effects
on the Florida Avenue right-of-way. Staff met with a neighborhood liaison who presented ideas
for use of the fund, including traffic calming, etc. Code permits a six-foot wall.
Ed Armstrong, representative, acknowledged Chair Gildersleeve’s service to the CDB.
Mr. Armstrong said the request for an 8-foot fence is the result of extensive discussions
with the neighborhood. He said those who will be most impacted be this project are best suited
to judge compatibility issues. He said the applicant agreed to all other items requested by the
neighborhood, except for the 8-foot wall, which he does not have the authority to incorporate
into the project. He said the applicant supports the neighbors’ requests for an 8-foot wall and is
prepared to pay the additional costs related to its size.
Party status holder Daphne Cassidy supported the 8-foot wall to divide her property from
this commercial property. She referenced photographs, noting 8-foot walls surrounding the
Community Development 2007-02-20 58
Walgreens at Nursery and Belcher, with landscaping on the residential side. She said the 8-foot
wall would help alleviate noise issues.
Party status holder Mike Loy favored the 8-foot wall, as it would improve the buffering
between the area residential and commercial properties.
In response to a question from Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Kurleman said staff prefers a 6-foot
wall, and Code has no mechanism to approve an 8-foot wall.
Ms. Dougall-Sides this application seeks a deviation from Code Section 3-804a1 which
requires the maximum height of six feet for walls in certain zoning districts. She opined that the
section has prohibitory requirements and deviations cannot be permitted. It was questioned
why this issue has been presented to the CDB if it cannot be permitted. It was suggested that
the request could be not considered as a front setback.
Mr. Kurleman referenced a drawing of the property, which fronts two streets. The
proposed wall extends into the front setback on Keene Road. It was remarked that the front
setback does not affect neighbors as it abuts neighbors on side yards. Mr. Kurleman said the
wall extends to the property line. The required front setback on Keene Road is 25 feet. Ms.
Dougall-Sides said 8-foot walls are only permitted in the IRT District. She said it is up to the
CDB to decide the matter.
In response to a question regarding the request’s legality, Mr. Armstrong said he was
unfamiliar with the Code section referenced by Ms. Dougall-Sides. He felt the request was
reasonable. He said the CDB had approved a previous request for an 8-foot wall. It was stated
that case involved a different circumstance. It was suggested a motion to approve the 8-foot
wall be conditioned that it is allowable under Code and that staff and the applicant work together
to resolve the mater.
Member Milam moved to approve Case FLD2006-11061, the Flexible Development
application (1) to permit retail sales and service in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction
to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), a reduction to the front (east)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to parking lot), an increase in allowable building height from 25
feet to 34 feet and to permit direct access to a major arterial street as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; (2) to permit Non-Residential
Off-Street Parking in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with the elimination of the
required minimum four feet high wall landscaped on the external side to screen off-street
parking spaces at the southwest corner and with outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to
dawn as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G; (3) to permit a
reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer width along a portion of the west side of the property
from 12 feet to 10.4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; and (4) the vacation of the northerly
portion of the right-of-way of Florida Avenue, based on the evidence and testimony presented in
the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2006-11061, that portion of the Flexible
Development application to permit a wall eight feet high including the front setback in the (MDR)
Medium Density Residential District, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the
application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the following Findings of
Community Development 2007-02-20 59
.
.
.
Fact based on said evidence: That given that the item is consistent with the uses within the
residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses, and the design of the proposed
residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a
whole, and the proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
Other Business
In response to a question, staff said some items are not included on the Consent
Agenda due to letters of objection or out of town resident requests for a continuance, etc.
In response to a question, Mr. Delk said planning training has speaker-related costs. He
suggested training and related costs could be shared with other cities.
Chair Gildersleeve was complimented and thanked for his service, integrity,
professionalism, etc. All wished him well.
G. ADJOURNMENT
~~C
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
~
oard Reporter
Community Development Board
Community Development 2007-02-20
60