The URL can be used to link to this page

04/17/2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 17, 2007 Present: 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 Doreen DiPolito Board Member – arrived 1:11 p.m. Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Neil Thompson Development Review Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by a moment of silence for those affected by the Virginia Tech tragedy, and the Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR motion Member Coates moved to appoint Nicholas Fritsch as Chair. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. motion Acting Member Dennehy moved to appoint Kathy Milam as Vice-Chair. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 20, 2007 Member Milam moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, motion 2007, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote. E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1 – 7): It was requested that Items E1 – E4 be removed from the Consent Agenda. It was stated that the CDB (Community Development Board) previously had granted time extensions after minimal review of project progress and changes to the Code, such as the 2006 requirement for two parking spaces per multi-family unit. It was stated that little public land is available to relieve parking congestion on the beach and these projects will intensify that congestion. It was requested that the CDB consider project progress and Code changes when considering time extensions. Community Development 2007-04-17 1 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-07080 – 862 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Regatta Bay of Clearwater LLC. Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; e- mail: reneee@northsideengineering.com). Location: 0.167 acre is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 800 feet east of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285B. 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. Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The request by Renee Ruggiero of Northside Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Regatta Bay of Clearwater LLC, is or an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 862 Bayway Boulevard. A one-year extension is being requested which would expire on April 18, 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, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the intervening period subsequent to the original approval, the Code has been amended in the following that affect this project: 1) The requirement for parking has been amended to two parking spaces per unit. This project was approved with eight parking spaces for five attached dwelling units, at a parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the project was approved with 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and it would be difficult for the applicant to increase the number of parking spaces without affecting the project’s design. Discussion ensued with comments that the application complied with existing Code when it was approved, that the CDB could be liable if it denies requested extensions, that it would be difficult to redesign the project to meet current Code, and that the applicant will have a specific timeframe to complete the project. Support for the time extension was expressed. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the CDB is authorized to approve one additional time extension for a building permit with good cause, such as a downturn in the economy. The CDB also may consider if significant progress has been made and if pending or approved Code amendments would significantly affect the project. In response to a question, Ms. Grimes said criteria regarding requests for time extensions, etc. exist. Each case is to be considered individually. It was stated that changes to the number of required parking spaces was significant and should be considered. Community Development 2007-04-17 2 Renee Ruggiero, representative, said the City had approved the project’s architectural plans. SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) also has approved the project. She said with increased costs for construction materials require that a third bid be issued. She said this property is unique and has four units. The applicant proposes five. Once setbacks, drive aisles, etc. are constructed on the 60-foot wide lot, little space remains for additional parking. She said the project cannot be redesigned and recommended that the application move forward. In response to a question, she said the project always has had five units. Support was expressed for a time extension, as razing the building proves that progress has occurred. It was stated that all new applications meet current parking requirements. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2005-07080 for a one-year extension which would expire on April 18, 2008, 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 in the Staff motioncarried report. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-07078 – 665-667 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owners: Melodie A. Ferguson Revocable Living Trust Agreement DTD, Robert M. Pennock II Revocable Living Trust Agreement DTD, and Paul and Tracey Kelley. Representative: Robert Pennock (665 Bay Esplanade, #3, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-441-1475). Location: 0.52 acre on the south side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 600 feet east of the northern intersection with Poinsettia 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. Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. The request by Robert Pennock, on behalf of Melodie A. Ferguson Revocable Living Trust Agreement DTD, Robert M. Pennock Revocable Living Trust Agreement DTD, and Paul and Tracy Kelley, is for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 665 - 667 Bay Esplanade. A one-year extension is being requested which would expire on April 18, 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, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the period Community Development 2007-04-17 3 subsequent to the original approval, the Code has been amended such that the following that affect this project: 1) 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 five feet-ten inches, and 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, which as per the revisions to the “Old Florida” District of the Beach by Design special area plan is now 65 feet. As approved, the project included appurtenances (stair towers and architectural embellishments) not consistent with the above definition that projected approximately 10 feet and 16 feet above the roof deck, which has a height of 65 feet. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reported that time extensions are not quasi- judicial hearings and the CDB does not have to accept planners as expert witnesses. Mr. Tefft said this application meets the current parking requirements in the Code. Melodie Ferguson, representative, said the project, which combines two properties, was updated to meet current Code. She said the time extension request is based on economic hardships and the need to locate another architect, after the previous one passed away. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2005-07078 for a one-year extension, which would expire on April 18, 2008, based on the evidence in the record, including the application, and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. 3. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-08088 – 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owners: Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC. Representative: Kathy Ziola, Somerset Inc. (610 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-997-2402; e-mail: tbziola@msn.com). Location: 0.312 acre located at the southeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. 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. Mr. Wells reported that time extensions requested for items E1 through E4 are based on the date of the original time extension granted by the Planning Director. Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The request by Kathy Ziola of Somerset Inc., on behalf of Epic Holdings South, LLC and Peter Pan Developments LLC, is for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 685 - 689 Bay Esplanade. A one-year extension is being requested which 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 Community Development 2007-04-17 4 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, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted by the Board that in the intervening period subsequent to the original approval, the Code has been amended in the following that affect this project: 1) The requirement for parking has been amended to two parking spaces per unit. This project was approved with 13 parking spaces for eight attached dwelling units, at a parking ratio of 1.625 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and 2) Beach by Design has been revised for the “Old Florida District” to require a minimum front setback of 15 feet (West: 13 feet [to water feature]; North: 12.67 feet [to building], 9.83 feet [to pavement] approved under FLD2005-08088) and building stepbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height (none provided under FLD2005-08088). AND 4. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2005-08090 – 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owner: Peter Pan Developments LLC. Representative: Kathy Ziola, Somerset Inc. (610 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-997-2402; e-mail: tbziola@msn.com). Location: 0.30 acre located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. 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. The request by Kathy Ziola of Somerset Inc., on behalf of Peter Pan Developments LLC, is for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 693 - 699 Bay Esplanade. A one-year extension is being requested which would expire on May 17, 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 four-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, the Code has been amended in the following that affect this project: 1) The requirement for parking has been amended to two parking spaces per unit. This project was approved with 13 parking spaces for eight attached dwelling units, at a parking ratio of 1.625 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 2) Beach by Design has been revised for the “Old Florida District” to require a minimum front setback of 15 Community Development 2007-04-17 5 feet (South: 11 feet [to building and pavement] and zero feet [to trash staging area]) and a minimum side setback of 10 feet (North: 3.1 feet [to pavement]; East: zero feet [to pool deck]) and building stepbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height (none provided under FLD2005-08090). Ed Armstrong, representative, commenting on Cases FLD2005-08088 and FLD 2005- 08090, said the applicant has completed architectural drawings and is applying for dock permits. In response to questions, Mr. Armstrong said an operational building remains on site and the architectural construction drawings made no adjustments to parking. Discussion ensued with comments that the applicant is making progress, that the project is only three spaces shy of current parking requirements, that the City wants applicants to be cognizant of Code changes when moving forward, and that the CDB should judge cases individually. Member Behar moved to approve Cases FLD2005-08088 and FLD 2005-08090 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the applications, the Staff Reports and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff motion Reports with conditions of approval as listed in the Staff reports. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. 5. Case: FLD2007-02002 – 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. Representative: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 CR 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org). Location: 5.18 acres generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west. Atlas Page: 277B. Zoning District: Downtown (D) District; and Preservation (P) District. Request: Flexible Development approval of a 938 square-foot multi-use dock (observation pier) as an amenity to a previously approved mixed-use development on the upland portion of the subject property, under the provisions of Section 3-601 of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Mixed-Use. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Member Coates declared a conflict of interest and recused himself. Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. The 5.18-acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west. The subject property is vacant and bifurcated by North Osceola Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east) and Island View (west). At its meeting of November 21, 2006, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application for a mixed-use development consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area (FLD2006-05030); and recommended approval of a Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) between Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC Community Development 2007-04-17 6 (applicant) and the City of Clearwater which set forth certain public/private obligations regarding the development proposal. The Development Agreement subsequently was adopted by the City Council at its meeting of February 15, 2007. The development proposal consists of the construction of a 938 square-foot multi-use dock (observation pier) as an amenity to a previously approved mixed-use development on the upland portion of the subject property. Pursuant to Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code, a dock is defined as any accessory structure, not offered for sale or rental, including a pier, wharf, loading platform, tie poles, dolphins, accessory structure or boat lift which is constructed on pilings over open water, or which is supported by floatation. Based upon the above, the proposed observation pier is reviewed in the same manner and subject to the same Code requirements, as would be a typical dock. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is defined as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development, condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development. However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square-feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. As the proposed dock exceeds this threshold (938 square-feet), the dock is treated as commercial and is subject to relevant review criteria. With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3- 601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to 10% of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line is 498 feet; therefore the proposed observation pier must be set back from the north and south property lines a minimum of 49.8 feet. As proposed, the observation pier will be set back from the north and south property lines in excess of this requirement with distances of 285.5 feet and 106.3 feet, respectively. With regards to length, docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the observation pier cannot exceed 373.5 feet. As proposed, the observation pier has a length of 143.7 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed observation pier cannot exceed 373.5 feet. The observation pier has a proposed width of four feet at the walkout and 12 feet at the terminal platform; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. The subject property is located within the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan identifies the Old Bay character district as a transitional area between the Downtown Core and low-density residential areas to the north. Further, the Plan envisions the district to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the Plan contains no guidelines with regard Community Development 2007-04-17 7 to docks, observation piers and the like. A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and no applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified. A review of the Old Bay character district was conducted and no applicable policies were identified. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 8, 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 5.18 acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west; 2) That the property is located within the Downtown (D) and Preservation (P) zoning districts; 3) That the property is located within the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan categories; 4) That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Old Bay character district; and 5) That there are no pending Code Enforcement issues with subject property. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay character district; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code; and 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. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application for a 938 square-foot multi-use dock (observation pier) for a previously approved mixed-use development on the upland portion of the subject property, under the provisions of Section 3-601 of the Community Development Code with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the City’s sign-off on any applicable permit, the Final Subdivision Plat must be recorded; 2) That prior to the City’s sign-off on any applicable permit, a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) permit, USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, is submitted to the Planning Department; 3) That prior to the City’s sign-off on any applicable permit, construction must have begun on the vertical improvements of the associated upland development (Island View/Harrison Village); 4) That no boat shall be moored at the observation pier at any time for any purpose; 5) That all necessary building permits be acquired from Pinellas County within two years (by April 17, 2009) of the CDB approval; and 6) That the Certificate of Completeness for the observation pier be obtained from Pinellas County within six months of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for those improvements associated with the first phase of the Harrison Village/Island View (upland) development. Member Dame moved to approve Item E5, Case FLD2007-02002, on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with motion conditions of approval as listed. The was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, Dame, Behair, and Chair Fritsch and Acting Member carried. Dennehy voted “Aye.” Member Coates abstained. Motion 6. Level Two Application Community Development 2007-04-17 8 Case: FLD2006-10058A - 205 & 213 N Belcher Road, 2212 - 2216 Drew Street, & 2205 Norman Drive Owner/Applicant: Alice H. Nisk & Ronald P. Nisk, As Trustees of the Alice H. Nisk Revocable Trust, dated 11/26/91. Representative: E.D. Armstrong III Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; e-mail: linda@jpfirm.com). Location: 1.09 acres located at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street. Atlas Page: 281A. Zoning Districts: Commercial (C) District, Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and Office (O) District. Request: Delete a condition of approval (#8 on Development Order of January 29, 2007) requiring an existing billboard to be removed prior to issuance of any permits and amend the conditions of approval. Proposed Use: Automobile Service Station. 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. The 1.09-acre site is at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street. Both Belcher Road and Drew Street are heavily traveled roadways. The southeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street is developed with school/office facilities (Skycrest Christian School), the southwest corner is developed with an Automobile Service Station (Hess), and the northwest corner is developed with a Medical Office (Florida Dental Centers). The subject site at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street currently has a used car sales lot, a vacant office building, and a duplex present. The parcels zoned C 2 and R 4 currently are located in unincorporated Clearwater. Additionally, there is a billboard on the site. The proposal is for an Automobile Service Station (7 Eleven). This proposal is related to ANX2006-10039. Upon the annexation, the site will have (C) Commercial, (LMDR) Low Medium Density Residential and the existing (O) Office zoning. The (LMDR) parcel will contain three off- street parking spaces and stormwater facilities, the (O) Office parcel will also contain three off- street parking spaces and stormwater facilities and the (C) Commercial parcel will contain the Automobile Service Station. The proposal includes a single story 3,030 square-foot convenience store with a height of 20 feet, 10 inches, where 25 feet is the maximum height allowed. The building will be located on the eastern portion of the parcel, with two primary façades, one facing Belcher Road and the other facing Drew Street. Pursuant to Section 2-703.D.1.of the Community Development Code parcels proposed for development as an Automobile Service Station may not be contiguous to a parcel of land designated as residential in the zoning atlas. However, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, one may seek relief from this requirement. While the site will be contiguous to a residentially zoned parcel at the extreme northeast corner, it will be buffered with a six-foot high masonry wall and very heavily landscaped. Currently, there is no wall or landscape buffering the existing used car lot from the residential properties. In addition, Section 2-703.D.1 precludes overnight, outdoor storage of automobiles. The proposed use will involve fuel sales and retail sales of convenience items only. Further, only two service bays may front on a public street. No service bays are proposed with this development. Per Section 8-102 of the Community Community Development 2007-04-17 9 Development Code, an automobile service station also may include facilities for lubricating, minor vehicle repairs and vehicle service. These uses perhaps were the drive for the condition that automobile service stations not be contiguous to residential property; therefore, as a condition of approval this facility may not provide lubricating, minor vehicle repairs or vehicle service. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south) setback on Drew Street from 25 feet to 15 feet to the air and vacuum pad. The parking lot itself (south side) will be located from 16.3 feet to 20 feet from the property line. Additionally, there is a request to reduce the front (west) setback on Belcher Road from 25 feet to 15 feet to the parking lot. Further, there is a request to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet to a sidewalk. The last setback request is to reduce the front (west) setback for the off-street parking lot in the Office (O) District from 25 feet to 18 feet. The entire width of all the reduced setbacks will be he heavily landscaped with a tiered effect. Both Section 2-703 and 2-1003 permit the front setback to be reduced to 15 feet for parking lots provided the land area is not sufficient to accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved design and appearance and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. Absent these reduced front setbacks to the parking lot, the drive aisle widths would not meet code requirements and the reductions have resulted in an improved design and appearance by the addition of unique fenestration, changes in the horizontal building planes, and details such as cornices, stringcourses and awnings. The proposed interior landscaping exceeds the requirements by 50% and the tree requirement is exceeded by 100%. The request to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet is for a sidewalk to be used by employees to access the rear service door. The structure itself will meet the required 10-foot setback. Pursuant to Section 2-204.C. of the Community Development Code, the parcel proposed for off-street parking must be contiguous to the parcel for the non-residential use, Automobile Service Station, which will be served by the off-street parking spaces. The LMDR parcel is contiguous to Commercial parcel. In addition, the LMDR parcel must have a common boundary of at least 25 feet. The LMDR parcel has a common boundary of 56 feet on the south and 102 feet on the west. Further, no off-street parking spaces are located in the required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR district or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten feet of a side or rear lot line. The required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR District is 25 feet. The proposed parking spaces begin at 53 feet in the front and 16 feet on the side. Additionally, off-street parking spaces shall be screened by a wall or fence of at least three feet in height and be landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine. The off-street parking is screened by a wall six-feet in height that is architecturally compatible and complementary to the principal structure and is landscaped on the external side with a continuous viburnum hedge. Lastly, all parking spaces are required to be surface parking. All parking spaces are surface parking. Pursuant to Section 2-1003.G. of the Community Development Code, all off-street parking spaces on the Office parcel shall be screened from residentially zoned or used properties by a wall or fence of at least four feet in height and landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine. As proposed, the off-street parking spaces are screened from the residentially zoned and used properties by a wall of six feet in height that is architecturally compatible and complimentary to the principal structure and is landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge in a landscape buffer over 14 feet in width. Additionally, all access and necessary stacking space shall be based on the size and design of the parking lot as determined by the Community Development Coordinator. All access and stacking requirements have been met. Further, all parking spaces are required to be surface parking. All parking spaces are surface parking. Community Development 2007-04-17 10 Pursuant to both Section 2-204.C. and 2-1003.G. all outdoor lighting for off-street parking spaces shall be automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 p.m. However, the applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and Residential Infill Project to seek relief from this requirement. The applicant has requested that the outdoor lighting remain on from dusk to dawn, as this is a 24-hour, seven-day retail use. This request is necessitated for the safety of customers frequenting the business after 9:00 p.m. The applicant has submitted a photometric light plan showing low levels of light output on the residential property. Additionally, “House Side” shields on the east side of the light fixtures are proposed at a 45-degree angle facing the residential property. Further, the photometric plan does not compensate for the proposed shields, thus foot-candle output levels will be even lower than what is depicted on the light plan. Pursuant to Section 2-703 of the Community Development Code, the minimum off-street parking spaces required for Automobile Service Stations within the Commercial (C) District is five per 1000 square-feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the proposed 3,030 square-foot building will require 16 parking spaces and has provided for 18. Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The proposal includes the provision of a dumpster enclosure located in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The enclosure consists of six-foot high concrete block side and rear walls and six-foot high swing gates. The mechanical equipment will be located on the roof completely screened from public streets and abutting properties. Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground unless such under-grounding is not practicable. It is therefore attached as a 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. Subsequent to the issuance of the Development Order requiring the removal of the billboard, City Legal staff concluded that there would be risk in implementing this condition as written. It was concluded that the City’s condition not allowing building permits to be issued unless billboard removal occurs could trigger a claim by Clear Channel under Section 70.20, which requires paying just compensation for such removal. The proposed landscape has exceeded all requirements of Section 3-1202 of the Community Development Code. There are over 700 shrubs, 1000 groundcover plants, 80 trees and 14 palms on the proposed plan. The plan proposes generous tiered landscape buffers, including the corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street where the buffer is up to 40-feet wide. The buffer and retention pond on the north along Norman Drive provide many areas of over 50 feet in depth of green space before the pavement begins. Generous amounts of space have been devoted to foundation landscaping and interior landscape requirements. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December 7, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) That the Community Development 2007-04-17 11 1.09-acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of Belcher Road and Drew Street; 2) That the 0.206-acre northwest portion of the overall property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the 0.172-acre northwest portion of the overall property is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-10039, item F1 on the January 16, 2007, CDB agenda); 4) That the 0.713-acre southern portion of overall property is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-10039, item F1 on the January 16, 2007, CDB agenda); 5) That the proposal includes the construction of a 3,030 square-foot, one-story convenience store and fuel pumps within the Commercial (C) District, with associated nonresidential off-street parking lots and retention areas on the northeast and northwest portions of the site within the within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and Office (O) District respectively; 6) That reductions to setbacks to pavement are proposed as part of the automobile service station development; 7) That the proposed installation of a six-foot high wall with landscaping on the external side adjacent to existing detached dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 8) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 9) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 for the Commercial District, Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community Development Code; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-1004.B and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; and 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application (1) to permit an automobile service station in the Commercial (C) District contiguous to a parcel of land zoned residential with a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to air/vacuum pad), reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to sidewalk), and to permit off-street parking in the Office (O) District with outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn with a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2- 704.C; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with outdoor lighting remaining on from dusk to dawn as Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; (3) to permit a wall six feet high in the front setback in the Office (O) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (4) to permit a wall six feet high in the front setback in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (5) To delete a condition of approval (#8 on Development Order of January 29, 2007). Condition 8 reads “That the existing billboard be removed prior to the issuance of any permits.” for the property located at 205 and 213 North Belcher Road, 2212- 2216 Drew Street and 2205 Norman Drive, with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That approval of this application is subject to the annexation of the site under Case ANX2006-10039; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the final design of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 4) That all colors proposed for the Community Development 2007-04-17 12 building and wall be approved by Staff prior to issuance of any permits; 5) That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 6) That a six-foot high wall with a lintel footer system be installed along the east and north property lines; 7) That this use not engage in lubricating service, minor repairs or vehicle service; 8) That a right-of-way permit be issued by Pinellas County to install landscaping in their right-of-way; 9) That all landscaping, including foundation and interior requirements be installed per the plan submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 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; and 12) That the site function as previously approved and no substantial changes occur with the site plan with respect to the billboard remaining. See motion of approval on page 14. 7. Case: LUZ2007-01001 – 2667 SR 590 Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: SR 590 Trust. Representative: Robert Pergolizzi, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc., 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760; Telephone number 727-524-1818. Location: 0.76 acre located on the south side of SR 590, approximately 150 feet west of the intersection of SR 590 and Owen Drive Atlas Page: 273A Request: a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Category to the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Category; and b) Rezoning from the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to Office (O) District. Proposed Use: Offices. Type of Amendment: Small Scale. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves property comprising approximately 0.76 acre in area located on the south side of SR 590, approximately 150 feet west of the intersection of SR 590 and Owen Drive. This property has a FLUP classification of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) classification and to rezone the property to the Office (O) District in order to construct offices. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required. Community Development 2007-04-17 13 An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) category and a rezoning from the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to the Office (O) District for the subject site is requested. The site proposed to be developed is 0.76 acre (33,105 square-feet) and exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for office use within the Office Zoning District. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of single-family residential detached dwellings, multi-family residential units, offices, a restaurant, convenience store, dance and gymnastic studios. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Future Land Use Plan classification and Office (O) zoning district is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Classification to the Residential/Office Limited Classification (R/OL) and 2) Approval of the rezoning property from the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to the Office (O) District. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2006-10058A and recommend approval of Case LUZ 2007-01001 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 motion Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 – 2): 1. Case: FLD2007-02001 – 1040 N. Myrtle Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Penethia Mack Representative: Thomas M. Sehlhorst (1050 N. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-444-4411; e-mail: trailways@peoplepc.com). Location: 0.048 acre located along the west side of North Myrtle Avenue between Metto and Jurgens streets. Atlas Page: 268B. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval for an existing detached dwelling within the Commercial (C) District with a building height of 12 feet, an existing front (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to building), an existing front (west) setback of 30 feet (to building) and a proposed front (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement), an existing side (north) setback of 0.1 foot (to building) and a proposed side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement), and an existing side (south) setback of 6.5 feet (to building) and a proposed side (south) setback of zero feet (to pavement) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: North Greenwood Association (Jonathan Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-560-4382; e-mail: wadenwade@aol.com); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-461-0564; e-mail: southern@tampabay.rr.com); and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Community Development 2007-04-17 14 Acting Member Dennehy moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas motion of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Senior Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. The 0.048-acre subject property is located along the west side of North Myrtle Avenue between Metto and Jurgens streets, with a zoning designation of Commercial (C) with an underlying and compatible future land use designation of Commercial General (CG). The subject property consists of a nonconforming, 722 square-foot, single-family detached dwelling, which according to the records of the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, was constructed in 1954. The exact zoning designation applied to the subject property at that time is unknown; however, in 1939, the property was zoned Business District (B), which did permit the establishment of single-family dwellings and it is believed that this designation was still in place at the time the existing structure was built. In addition to the property’s 1939 zoning designation, subsequent zoning designations also are known. However, these designations, General Business District (CG) in 1972, Neighborhood Commercial (CN) in 1985, Commercial Infill (CI) in 1994, and the current designation of Commercial (C) do not permit the use of single- family detached dwellings or would not permit a single-family detached dwelling on a parcel the size of the subject property or with setbacks consistent with those of the existing structure. Therefore, it is established that the subject property, structure and use have been nonconforming since 1972; thus provisions of Article 6 of the Community Development Code would apply. In addition to the above, it is noted that on June 27, 2006, the nonconforming structure was cited as being unsafe with numerous code violations for the interior and exterior of the structure (UNS2006-00050). The application proposes the renovation of the existing single-family detached dwelling along with installation of a driveway to accommodate two off-street parking spaces at the west side of the property. As discussed in greater detail below, the development proposal also includes the establishment of minimum building and pavement setbacks, a maximum building height, and a parking requirement for the proposed Detached Dwelling use. Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio) within the CG Future Land Use category is 0.95. As proposed, the development will have an ISR of approximately 0.58 and therefore meets the above requirement. Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the C District a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use. While the proposed use is not permitted within the district, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 5 states that, in part “the proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category”. The Countywide Plan Rules list “Residential” as a Secondary Use within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use category. Therefore, as a result of the above referenced provision, the request has been made to permit the establishment of what would otherwise be a nonconforming Detached Dwelling on the subject property. Community Development 2007-04-17 15 The following are the applicable criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, the applicants response as to how each criteria is met/achieved through the development proposal, and staff’s analysis of the criteria and response: 1) The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. “Building cannot be upgraded to new code without zoning setback for two parking spaces.” Staff agrees with the applicant in that redevelopment of the subject property is impractical (and likely impossible) without deviations from the development standards of the Commercial (C) District, based upon the size of the property and the location of the existing structure upon it. Therefore, a positive finding can be made with regard to this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion. 2) The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. “The establishment of a detached dwelling in this C District is consistent with 80% of detached dwellings already here in C District. The home office is an already approved use for this unit, the only negative impact is a denied request would require a boarded up building, the City requires approval for improvement. This area has had five different zoning classifications, it started as General Commercial with homes and groceries, then it was changed to residential for more homes, all businesses were removed, then it was Commercial Infill, with restrictions and no businesses gained, then it was changed to Commercial Neighborhood, mostly older homes led to drug dealers and rentals. Then came Commercial, which eliminated all 15 auto repair facilities in area, no auto related business was allowed. No new buildings in the area in last 10 years, except by applicant.” The response provided by the applicant does not address any aspect of the subject criterion. The consistency of the proposed nonconforming use with other nonconforming uses in the district as well as the various zoning designations that the area has had over the years are immaterial. Further, the response addresses neither how the development will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, nor the intent and purpose of the zoning district. Pursuant to Future Land Use Policy 3.2.2 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, residential land uses shall be appropriately located on local and minor collector streets; if appropriately buffered; they may be located on major collector and arterial streets. Based upon this adopted Policy, only if appropriately buffered may residential land uses be located along arterial streets such as Myrtle Avenue. The existing structure on the subject property is set back only two feet from the right-of-way and cannot be adequately buffered so as to support the establishment/ location of a residential use; thus the development proposal is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Section 2-701 of the Community Development Code, the intent and purpose of the Commercial (C) District is to provide the citizens of the City with convenient access to goods and services throughout the City without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the City or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City. Based upon the above and given the location of the subject property adjacent to existing non-residential development, the establishment of a residential use at this location within the district would be inconsistent with the districts intent and purpose. Based upon all of the above, a positive finding with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 2 cannot be made. Community Development 2007-04-17 16 3) The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. “Adjacent property to the north is same use and classification as applicant was approved by the City review board, also is approving this applicant. South lot is a dirt pile and heavy equipment, sewer pipe storage, and heavy equipment repair area has been there for two years, and will be there for three more years, any development is far down the road, as per the south property.” While the applicants’ description of the adjacent property to the south is generally accurate, timeframes not withstanding, the accompanying statement that the adjacent property to the north (1050 N. Myrtle Avenue) is of the same use as that being proposed is an incorrect one. This adjacent property was granted variances by the Development Code Adjustment Board on July 11, 1996, for development as an office, whereas the proposed use of the subject property is as a Detached Dwelling. Further, the applicants’ response does not discuss how the development proposal will not impede development and improvement of surrounding property. If the proposed Detached Dwelling were to be established on the subject property, then several impedances to the development or improvement of adjacent properties would result. These impedances are as follows: 1) The height of potential Office, Overnight Accommodation, Restaurant, and/or Retail Sales and Service uses on adjacent parcels would be limited as the increased heights of these uses would not be permitted to reduce the vertical component of the view from any adjacent residential property [ref.: Sections 2-704.H, K, M and N]; 2) Any potential Off-Street Parking use would be required to provide a wall or fence of at least four feet in height that is landscaped on the exterior side with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine where adjacent to residentially used or zoned property [ref.: Section 2-704.I]; a) Any potential Self Storage use would not be permissible on any adjacent parcel [ref.: Section 2-704.P] and b) The perimeter landscape buffer on the adjacent properties would be required to be increased from five feet to 12 feet, and necessitate a hedge reaching a height of six feet within three years of planting [ref.: Section 3-1202.D.1]. It is noted that the establishment of the Detached Dwelling on the subject property will create a nonconformity on the adjacent property to the north (1050 N. Myrtle Avenue) with regard to this Code requirement. Based upon the above, a positive finding with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 3 cannot be made. 4) Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. “Adjoining north property already developed and south lot vacant for years.” The response provided by the applicant does not address the actual criterion. Further, as stated in staffs’ response to the previous criterion that the establishment of the proposed Detached Dwelling would impede the development and improvement of the adjoining properties, these same properties may very well also suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed Detached Dwelling. The loss of a potential development option, the loss of potential building height for other development options, and the addition of further fencing and landscaping development requirements above that which would otherwise be required of other development certainly result in a substantial detriment to those adjoining properties. Moreover, the adjacent property to the north would suffer an immediate substantial detriment, as the establishment of the proposed Detached Dwelling would create a nonconformity on said adjacent property. Based upon the above, a positive finding with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 4 cannot be made. Community Development 2007-04-17 17 5) The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a) The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development use; b) The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c) The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d) The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e) The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f) The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. “This application will contribute to supply the area with an affordable house with employment, no driving time, available access at all times, more productivity, subject property has increased in value from $30,000 to $200,000 with improvements by architect, who will occupy the home office, other similar development is non existent, area has no new buildings in the last 10 years, an architects home office is an excellent use and contributor for this property.” As discussed previously, the Countywide Plan Rules list “Residential” as a Secondary Use within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use category. Further, the proposed Detached Dwelling is not necessarily incompatible with adjacent land uses, and would not necessarily substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood. However, the proposed use does not demonstrate compliance with any of the objectives listed within the criterion. The specific failures of compliance are demonstrated below: a) The proposed use is not permitted in the Commercial (C) District as either a Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development use; b) The proposed use will not be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base, as a single-family detached dwelling creates no jobs. The applicants’ statement that this will somehow create employment is uncertain, as there is no guarantee that the dwelling would ever contain a home occupation. Even if the Detached Dwelling was to contain a home occupation, only those family members residing within the dwelling unit are permitted to engage in the occupation [ref.: Section 3-1102.A.2]; c) The proposed use will not accommodate the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor, as it is a single-family detached dwelling; d) The provision of a solitary Detached Dwelling that, per the applicants’ own statement, has increased in value more than 660% (occurring between July and October 2006 – Pinellas County Property Appraiser) would hardly appear to constitute affordable housing. Further, pursuant to the Economic Development Department for the City of Clearwater, the maximum sales price possible to be considered an affordable housing unit is $180,000; e) The proposed use is located in an area where other similar development exists, despite the applicants’ apparent contradiction to this in his response. However, these similar developments are all nonconforming uses and per Code are not intended to remain. Therefore, making a finding of compliance for this criterion based upon a nonconforming use being in an area comprised of other similar nonconforming uses would be poor planning practice; and f) The proposed use does not have any frontage on a body of water; therefore the development/ preservation of a new or existing waterfront use is not possible and this criterion is not applicable. Based upon the above, a positive finding with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 5 cannot be made. 6) Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a) The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and Community Development 2007-04-17 18 improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b) The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c) The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d) In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: 1) Changes in horizontal building planes; 2) Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; 3) Variety in materials, colors and textures; 4) Distinctive fenestration patterns; 5) Building stepbacks; and 6) Distinctive roofs forms; and e) The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. “This does not impede future or surrounding properties in any way. Design Guidelines are accentuated by design work done as pictured for interior, exterior will have a decorative walkway, all stucco work will be under direction of leading stucco design team with distinctive railings and window designs on exterior, the distinctive roof for will be complimented with landscaping changes to complete.” The flexibility being requested as part of this development proposal with regard to use, lot width, setbacks, height and off-street parking are not justifiable, as the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with all of the required design objectives. The specific failures of compliance are demonstrated below: a) A finding that the development proposal will impede the development and improvement of surrounding properties has already been made with criterion 3 above; b) There are no design guidelines that are applicable to the subject property; c) The response provided by the applicant does not address this point of the criterion. While many of the structures in the area are of similar design, scale and intensity, that character is also coupled with being nonconforming single-family detached dwellings, which per Code are not intended to remain. The ultimate character of the area is intended to be of a commercial nature; and therefore making a finding of compliance for this criterion based upon a nonconforming use being in an area comprised of other similar nonconforming uses would be poor planning practice; d) The applicant states that the exterior will include a decorative walkway; stucco to be done by a leading design team; and distinctive roof, railings and window designs. However, the architectural elevations submitted with the application propose to remove and replace the existing siding and not to install stucco. The elevations do propose a railing; however the railing proposed is more ordinary than it is distinctive. The elevations also do not propose distinctive windows. In fact, the windows depicted appear to be the very same single-hung windows with simple box surrounds that exist on the present building. As for the roof, the elevations depict the very same roof that exists today, and not a distinctive roof as proposed in the applicants’ statement. There does appear to be a walkway proposed from the parking area to the west side of the building; however no detail is provided as to the walkways decorative nature and the site plan does not indicate this as being a decorative walkway. In summary, none of the elements stated by the applicant appear to be proposed, and the architectural elevations incorporate none of those design elements listed in the subject criterion; and e) The applicant states that the building architecture will be complimented with landscaping; however the development proposal includes no landscape plan and nowhere else in the application is any form of landscape material proposed to support this statement. The existing building has virtually no setback along the north property line and a very minimal setback along the east property line, and it is not expected that any more substantial buffer be provided between said building and property lines. However, where adequate space does exist, such as along the south property line and that portion of the north property line not abutting the existing building, an appropriate buffer and/or landscape could be provided. Based upon the above, a positive finding with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion 6 cannot be made. Community Development 2007-04-17 19 Based upon the above, the application has been determined to meet only one of six required Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria; therefore the proposed use cannot be approved. Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the Commercial (C) District there are no applicable minimum lot area or lot width requirements for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. Further, as a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use within the C District, there are no minimum lot area or lot width requirements that can be transferred from the development standards of the Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application types for this development proposal. Therefore, without any applicable requirements, the application proposes the approval of the existing lot area (2,069.1 square-feet, 0.048 acre) and lot width (31 feet). According to the records of the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office, the subject property was platted in 1895 as part of J. J. Eldridge Subdivision, Lot 45, Block E. Subsequent to its platting, Lot 45, Block E was subdivided by meets and bounds descriptions into multiple lots; the eastern 30 feet of these lots was dedicated as right-of-way for Myrtle Avenue; and several of the lots were recombined into the three-parcel configuration that exists today. City records indicate that the subject property has existed with its present lot area and lot width since Lot 45, Block E was initially subdivided (a period likely spanning the past 50 years) and with the assimilation of the property with the adjacent parcels to the north and/or south the only available option to increase its size and width, the opportunity for the subject property to become more substantial in size is not possible. Based upon the above, a positive finding can be made with regard to the existing/proposed lot area and lot width. Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the C District there are no applicable setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. Further, as a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use within the C 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 application proposes the approval of the existing setbacks (to building) as follows: a front (east) setback of 2.1 feet; a front (west) setback of 30 feet; a side (north) setback of 0.1 feet; and a side (south) setback of 6.5 feet. In addition, the application includes a request for the approval of setbacks to the proposed off-street parking spaces and (to pavement) as follows: a front (west) setback of zero feet; a side (north) setback of zero feet; and a side (south) setback of zero feet. As with the above discussion pertaining to lot width and lot area, the existing building setbacks have been nonconforming for at least the past 50 years. The building’s nonconforming setbacks do not prevent the redevelopment or reuse of the subject property. In fact, given the size of the property, any building, whether it is newly constructed or the existing building, would require substantial setback deviations. Given the above, the application’s proposal to retain the existing building with those setbacks already in existence is supportable. In contrast to the setbacks for the existing building, those setbacks proposed for the parking area and front steps leading to Myrtle Avenue do not exist and do not have to exist as proposed. The application proposes a parking area 18 feet deep and 27 feet wide with a setback of 5.45 feet along the south property line and absolutely no setback along the north property line. The proposed Detached Dwelling requires two off-street parking spaces, which as per Section 3-1402.A of the Community Development Code would require a total pavement width of 18 feet. What has been proposed is a pavement width sufficient to accommodate three Community Development 2007-04-17 20 off-street parking spaces – a pavement width nine feet greater than is necessary. If the proposed pavement width were reduced by this excessive nine feet, then the application would require less severe setback deviations along the north and south property lines, and the proposal still would be able to meet its off-street parking requirement. However, as proposed, setbacks for the proposed parking area are excessive and cannot be supported. With regard to the front steps leading to Myrtle Avenue, the site plan gives no clear indication as to how well these steps will function. The depth at which the steps will need to extend into the subject property is unclear, as is the proximity of these steps to the existing landing along the building’s south elevation. It appears that the site plan has not taken into consideration how these existing and new elements will interact. The landing empties to its west side (toward the interior of the property), where it would seem more sensible for the landing to be redesigned so that it empties to its south or east side; thus enabling a more simple connection to the proposed steps leading to Myrtle Avenue – one that does not require the provision of a redundant, parallel walkway along the south side of the landing; that increases the amount of impervious area on the subject property; that reduces the area where landscaping could be provided; and that exacerbates the amount of pavement for which a reduced setback will be required. Further, the applicant states that the steps will not encroach onto the sidewalk within the Myrtle Avenue right-of-way, but the concrete retaining wall that is in the right-of-way will need to be modified and will require the approval of FDOT. If approval from FDOT cannot be obtained, then it is the position of the City’s Fire Department that adequate life safety service cannot be provided given the existing level of access to the property. The alternative to the provision of the point of access along Myrtle would be, as per the Fire Department, the extension of a roadway along the west side of the property that is able to withstand the weight of an 80,000- pound fire apparatus, has a width of 24 feet, and at its northern terminus consists of T-turn in compliance with NFPA-1 standards as to minimum length equal to length of the longest fire apparatus. Based upon the above, positive findings cannot be made for all of the proposed setbacks, but specifically for those requests being made to pavement along the north and south property lines. Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the C District there is no applicable maximum building height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. Further, as a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use within the C 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 an applicable building height standard, the application proposes the approval of the existing building height of 12 feet as measured from existing grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof. As a building height of 12 feet would not be objectionable given any use permitted within the City regardless of zoning district, and the height will not be inconsistent with other development in the area, a positive finding can be made with regard to building height. Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the C 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 a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use within the C District; therefore no minimum off-street Community Development 2007-04-17 21 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, where Detached Dwellings are permitted by the Code, two off-street parking spaces are required. The development proposal includes the provision of a paved area at the west side of the property that can accommodate three off-street parking spaces. Based upon the above, it has been determined that the off-street parking requirement for the proposed Detached Dwelling use would be met. 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 proposed site plan depicts a new air-conditioning unit at the southwest corner of the building, however this mechanical equipment does not comply with the above provision, as it does not depict the means by which the equipment will be screened from view of the adjacent properties and right-of-way. 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. With the redevelopment of the subject property, whether by this application or another, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, shall be placed underground as part of its redevelopment. As previously discussed, both the structure and the use of the property as a single-family detached dwelling are nonconforming and the provisions of Article 6 of the Community Development Code (Nonconforming Provisions) are applicable. It is the stated purpose/intent of these provisions that nonconforming properties are brought “into compliance with the provisions of this Code in conjunction with a change of use, redevelopment, or any other change of condition of the property in order to eliminate the nonconformity or to bring the nonconformity as practical as possible to a conforming status.” Further, Sections 6-102.E and 6-103.D of the Community Development Code state that in the event the use of a nonconforming structure and/or a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months, the use shall not thereafter be re-established or resumed and any subsequent use of the land or structure shall conform to all of the requirements of the Code. As of June 27, 2006, and quite possibly even earlier, the nonconforming use of the subject property had been abandoned; thus the use of the property/structure as a single-family detached dwelling is no longer permissible under the regulations of the Community Development Code. Based upon the discontinued/abandoned standing of the nonconforming use and by virtue of the fact that a Detached Dwelling is not a permitted use within the C District and therefore cannot conform to all of the requirements of the Code, the application for the establishment of a Detached Dwelling on the Commercially designated subject property cannot be approved. The proposed floor plan is inconsistent with the proposed site plan. The site plan depicts a concrete landing with steps emptying toward the west along the building’s south elevation, whereas the floor plan depicts steps without a landing extending southward from the building’s south elevation. The floor plan also depicts a concrete pad for mechanical equipment on the south elevation that is not depicted on the site plan, and the air-conditioning unit that is proposed along the west elevation on the site is not depicted on the floor plan. Community Development 2007-04-17 22 No continuous paved access exists to the proposed off-street parking spaces. The existing pavement within the Pinellas Trail right-of-way does not extend northward a sufficient distance to be utilized by the subject property such that continuous paved access exists. In order to establish the proposed back-out parking spaces along the west side of the property, the property owner must extend the pavement northward a sufficient distance that continuous paved access is provided to the northern property line of the subject property. It is noted that the extension of this paved access may be required to be 24-feet in width and constructed of an all-weather surface. Included with the application was a letter originally dated December 21, 1999, from N.E. “Ray” Rayburn, Public Works Engineering Supervisor, Pinellas County, and subsequently re- dated on July 10, 2000, and June 28, 2006. This same letter was also re-dated March 14, 2007, and signed by Sandy Kelley, Director, Construction Management, Pinellas County. The letter states that Pinellas County has “no objection to the continued vehicular access and use of the Pinellas Trail right-of-way along the east side of the Trail from Cedar Street north to the existing guardrail,” and that “no additional improvements in the Pinellas Trail right-of-way are required by Pinellas County.” However, the letter is silent on two key issues. First, the letter does not indicate that the County would approve an extension of the existing paved access within the Pinellas Trail right-of-way, and second, that the County has seen and/or approves of improvements proposed by the applicant for the subject property, which even if the County has seen the proposal, it should be noted that the site plan fails to indicate anything with regard to an extension of the pavement within the Trail right-of-way; so it is quite likely that the County is unaware of this required extension. The lack of such information, and the possibility that the County may not approve installation of improvements within the Trail right-of-way that would be required by the City for the approval of the development proposal, is damaging to the potential viability of the proposal. The application also contained another letter from Pinellas County; this one re-dated January 30, 2007, and signed by Paul Cozzie, Bureau Director. This letter states that the County has no objection to a site plan dated November 22, 2006, and the associated two parking spaces. However, as with the prior letter, this one also has issues, principally that this site plan was never provided to the City and the plans the City now has depict three parking spaces, not two. If such information is to be considered, the actual site plan should be submitted, complete with all improvements that are to be required, and the statement of no objection provided on said site plan, not as a separate document. As noted previously, a citation for an unsafe structure was issued on the subject property on June 27, 2006 (UNS2006-00050). The citation, which remains active, lists several infractions regarding both the interior and the exterior of the structure. The infractions are as follows: The building, structure or portion thereof as a result of decay, deterioration or dilapidation is likely to fully or partially collapse: 1) Electrical system is not to Code; 2) Plumbing is not to Code; 3) Floor system is deteriorated; 4) Walls are deteriorated; 5) Bathroom doors, walls and floor are deteriorated; and 6) Numerous holes in the walls. The building, structure or portion thereof has been damaged by fire, flood, earthquake, wind or other cause to the extent that the structural integrity of the building or structure is less than it was prior to the damage and is less than the minimum requirement established by the Standard Building Code for new buildings: 1) Plumbing running from structure to underground is not to Code; 2) The stairs are not to Code; 3) Perimeter beam appears to be damaged and it appears to have no tie downs for structure; 4) Siding is falling off; 5) There are broken windows; and 6) The entry doors are deteriorated and open. Community Development 2007-04-17 23 The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 8, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.048-acre subject property is located along the west side of North Myrtle Avenue between Metto and Jurgens streets; 2) That the subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category: 3) That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District; 4) That Detached Dwellings are not a permitted use within the Commercial (C) District; 5) That the most recent use of the subject property as a Detached Dwelling is a nonconforming use; and 6) That the existing single-family detached dwelling on the subject property has been cited as being an unsafe structure (UNS2006-00050). AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code with regard to the proposed minimum setbacks to pavement; 2) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C.2 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project); 3) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C.3 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project); 4) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C.4 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project); 5) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C.5 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project); 6) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C.6 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project); 7) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A.1 of the Community Development Code; 8) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A.2 of the Community Development Code; and 9) That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A.5 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development approval for an existing detached dwelling within the Commercial (C) District on a parcel of land with a lot area of 2,069.1 square-feet (0.048 acres) and a lot width of 31 feet, with an existing building height of 12 feet, an existing front (east) setback of 2.1 feet (to building), an existing front (west) setback of 30 feet (to building) and a proposed front (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement), an existing side (north) setback of 0.1 feet (to building) and a proposed side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement), and an existing side (south) setback of 6.5 feet (to building) and a proposed side (south) setback of zero feet (to pavement) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code. Thomas Sehlhorst, representative, reviewed homeowner Penethia Mack’s history in the community. He said the proposed use is a home office, not a detached dwelling. He said the property was not abandoned, as the previous owners remained on site after the property was sold and then Code Enforcement personnel cited the property approximately ten days after they moved out. He said permit applications, which required extensive paperwork, were submitted to pave two existing parking spaces. He said 96% of area buildings are detached, not 80% as indicated by the Staff Report. He said no new buildings have been built in the area for many years, except for an adjacent building and the Morton Plant medical center. He said the building could have a commercial use. He said the City has decided to make this area a resort area and eliminate all existing businesses. He said the change has caused a loss of area jobs. He said the City has tried to degrade this area for 35 years to allow developers to buy property at lower Community Development 2007-04-17 24 prices. He said only one district property conforms to current Code. He said the pipe storage yard diminishes the area more than this property. In response to Mr. Sehlhorst’s questions, Mr. Tefft said a paved access to the parking spaces would affect the right-of-way. Staff and the Fire Department collaborate to ensure adequate fire access. A FDOT permit is required for the Fire Department’s recommended access off Myrtle. Traffic Engineering and the County have not been contacted regarding vehicular access. No detached dwellings or renovations without parking spaces in the commercial district have been approved in the last six months. In response to a claim by Mr. Sehlhorst, Ms. Dougall-Sides objected to entering new evidence into the record during cross-examination. Mr. Tefft said detached dwellings with separate home offices are not classified as home office uses. New uses must conform to current Code. Mr. Sehlhorst said the applicant intends to make the property productive with small improvements to the building and paving existing parking spaces. Discussion ensued with empathy expressed for the applicant’s desire to improve the property. It was stated that the applicant must comply with the current Code and testimony has been insufficient to overturn staff’s recommendation. Member Coates moved to deny Case FLD2007-02001 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby motion adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. 2. Case: FLD2006-11060 – 1651 Sand Key Estates Court Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Harborage Condominium Association, Inc. Representative: Leon Hibbs (1651 Sand Key Estates Court, #16, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-593-1846; fax: 595-5396; e-mail: leonhibbs@aol.com). Location: 2.42 acres located at the western terminus of Sand Key Estates Court. Atlas Page: 319A. Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of an existing 1,832 square- foot multi-use dock by the addition of a 147 square-foot dock for one slip on the north side with an increase to the permitted dock width from 75% of the 290-foot waterfront lot width (217.5 feet) to 87% (252.5 feet) and a reduction to the required side (east) setback from 96.67 feet to 21.5 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Addition to an existing multi-use dock for one additional wet slip, in conjunction with existing attached dwellings (condominiums). Neighborhood Associations: Sand Key Civic Association (Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630; phone: 727-593-1462); and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. David Richardson and Nancy Richardson requested party status. Member Coates moved to grant David Richardson and Nancy Richardson party status. motioncarried The was duly seconded and unanimously. Christy Hickok requested party status. Community Development 2007-04-17 25 motion Member Coates moved to grant Christy Hickok party status. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Member Coates move 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. Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The .42-acre site is at the western terminus of Sand Key Estates Court. The site is developed with 64 attached dwellings (condominiums) and is horseshoe-shaped with approximately 290 feet of waterfront property on the north side. The subject property is adjacent to, and one must travel through, a zero-lot-line single-family detached dwelling subdivision. There is additional waterfront property on the west side that has not been counted due to the navigation channel to obtain access to this basin on the north side. The south side of the property also has waterfront property, but is located in the City of Belleair Beach. A 1,832 square-foot dock on the north side provide 16 wet slips for the mooring of boats as an amenity to the attached dwellings (condominiums). On March 1, 2006, the Planning Department erroneously signed off on the Pinellas County permit to construct a 42- inch wide by 42 feet long new dock on the east side of the northern waterfront property (MIS2006-03001). Once the detached dwelling owner to the east brought this error to the Planning Department’s attention, a Stop Work Order was issued on October 19, 2006, to halt its construction (SWO2006-10012). The applicant has filed this Flexible Development application in response to this Stop Work Order to request approval of this dock addition through the appropriate procedure. At this time, only three tie poles have been partially jetted in to the submerged land adjacent to the east property line. It is noted a similar request on the east side of the south side of the subject property, also located adjacent to a waterfront single-family detached dwelling in the same subdivision, was denied by the City of Belleair Beach Board of Adjustment on March 15, 2005. There are also 16 existing slips on the south side of the subject property. The development proposal consists of the construction of a 147 square-foot dock addition for one slip to the existing multi-use docks located on the north side of the property. The proposed dock will be accessed via a sidewalk along the seawall from the existing dock access. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is defined as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development, condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development. However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square-feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. Since the existing dock is 1,832 square-feet and the proposed addition is 147 square-feet (total of 1,979 square-feet), which exceeds this threshold, the dock is treated as commercial and is subject to the relevant review criteria. There is the existing Stop Work Order mentioned above for the dock addition as an active Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. There is another Stop Work Order (SWO2005-05025) still active for major remodeling of one of the condominium units without a building permit, which has no bearing on this dock application. With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in Section 3- 601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code state that docks shall be located no closer to Community Development 2007-04-17 26 any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to one-third of the width of the property measured along the waterfront property line when adjacent to waterfront single-family or two-family property. The property to the east of the subject property is developed with single-family detached dwellings on individual lots. The width of the waterfront property on this north side is 290 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the east property line a minimum of 96.67 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from the east property line only 21.5 feet. The existing dock is set back 42.5 feet from the east property line. The majority of the existing docks on the north side of the subject property were constructed in the 1980s, prior to current regulations. If the subject property were adjacent to property other than waterfront single-family or two-family property, the required setback would only be 10% of the waterfront property width, which would be 29 feet. The increased dock setback when adjacent to waterfront single-family or two-family property is for the protection of the lesser intense use, similar to increased landscape buffers between lesser and more intense land uses, from a compatibility standpoint. While the existing docks are nonconforming to current setback standards, staff cannot support a further reduction to the required setback adjacent to waterfront single-family detached dwellings. There are no environmental reasons, such as the location of sea grasses, forcing the docks to be located closer to the property line than what the dimensional setback standards require. With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the subject property more than 75% of the width of the subject property as measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 217.5 feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 42 feet. With regards to width, the same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 217.5 feet. The existing overall dock width is 231.5 feet (79.8% of the waterfront property width). With the proposed dock addition, the overall proposed dock width is 252.5 feet (87%), which is not in compliance with this standard. While the existing docks are nonconforming to current width standards, staff cannot support an increase to the maximum width of the docks, coupled with the setback reduction, when situated adjacent to waterfront single-family detached dwellings. Again, there are no environmental reasons, such as the location of sea grasses, forcing the docks to be wider than what the dimensional width standards require. The basin the proposed dock is located is ringed with boat slips for attached dwelling condominium projects and detached dwellings. The proposed dock is compatible with the dock pattern in this basin. However, even though the existing docks on the north side of the subject property are nonconforming to the required setbacks, the proposed dock is not in harmony with the scale and character of the adjacent single-family detached dwellings. There are no sea grasses or natural marine habitats requiring the design of the docks to move closer to the east property line that would justify the reduction to the required setback. The increased setback requirement when adjacent to waterfront single-family detached dwellings is there for the protection of the lesser intense use, similar to increased landscape buffers between lesser and more intense land uses, and is thereby not in harmony with the scale and character of the adjacent property. The reduced setback will also increase the waterfront visual obstruction of the adjacent detached dwelling. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 4, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following Findings of Fact: 1) That the 2.42 acres is located at the western terminus of Sand Key Community Development 2007-04-17 27 Estates Court; 2) That the upland portion of the subject property is developed with 64 attached dwellings (condominiums); 3) That existing docks of 1,832 square-feet on the north side of the subject property are constructed with 16 slips at an overall width of 231.5 feet (79.8% of the waterfront property width); 4) That on March 1, 2006, the Planning Department erroneously signed off on the Pinellas County permit to construct a 42-inch wide by 42 feet long new dock on the east side of the northern waterfront property (MIS2006-03001) at a setback of 21.5 feet to the east property line; 5) That once the error was brought to the Planning Department’s attention, a Stop Work Order was issued (SWO2006-10012) on October 19, 2006, to halt the dock construction; 6) That at this time only three tie poles have been partially jetted in to the submerged land adjacent to the east property line; 7) That this application has been filed to properly request approval for the construction of a 147 square-foot dock addition for one slip to the existing multi-use docks located on the north side of the property; 8) That the subject property is adjacent to existing single-family detached dwellings to the east; 9) That the width of the waterfront property line along this north side is 290 feet; 10) That, since the subject property is adjacent to single-family detached dwellings, the required setback from the east property line is a minimum of 96.67 feet (one-third of the waterfront property width); 11) That the existing docks are located at a setback to the east property line of 42.5 feet, which is nonconforming to current setback requirements; 12) That the proposed dock addition length of 42 feet complies with the maximum length standard of Section 3-601.C.3.h (maximum of 217.5 feet); 13) That the existing overall dock width is 231.5 feet (79.8% of the waterfront property width); 14) That the overall width of the docks, including the proposed dock addition, will be 252.5 feet (87% of the waterfront property width), where the maximum dock width is 217.5 feet; 15) That the proposed dock addition does not comply with the setback and width standards of Section 3-601.C.3.h of the Community Development Code; 16) That, even though the existing docks on the north side of the subject property are nonconforming to the required setbacks, the proposed dock is not in harmony with the scale and character of the adjacent single-family detached dwellings; 17) That the proposed dock is compatible with the dock pattern in this basin; and 18) That there are no sea grasses or natural marine habitats requiring the design of the docks to move closer to the east property line that would justify the reduction to the required setback or require the docks to be wider than the dimensional standards provide. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is not consistent with the commercial dock review criteria and standards as per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code and 2) That the development proposal is not consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of an existing 1,832 square-foot multi-use dock by the addition of an 147 square-foot dock for one slip on the north side with an increase to the permitted dock width from 75% of the 290-foot waterfront lot width (217.5 feet) to 87% (252.5 feet) and a reduction to the required side (east) setback from 96.67 feet to 21.5 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Ken Dolsak, representative, said the applicant has been diligent in answering all questions honestly. He said the applicant wishes to construct one wet slip. He said the request to install it on the Belleair Beach side of the property was denied. He said the development’s 64 homeowners have only 32 boat slips. He said a hypothetical boat size was used to determine the location of tie poles, etc. He said this high-density harbor features a dense population and large boats. He said the proposal would not alter the area’s character, harmony, or density. He said area boatlifts are higher and affect views more than what is requested. He said approximately 231 boat slips are in the Isle of Sand Key, Dan’s Island, The Moorings, and Harborage I. He said Marine & Aviation Director Bill Morris had been apprehensive about this Community Development 2007-04-17 28 request before he physically reviewed the location. He said the Harborage has spent more than $3,000, obtaining permits and hiring a contractor and surveyor. In response to questions, Mr. Dolsak said 10 of 16 slips on the north side are occupied, and 11 of 16 on the south side are occupied. He said permits were not required when the other four boat slips were constructed. He said in 2000, the former owner of Mr. Richardson's property was granted a variance for a dock that encroaches on the side setback and has a boatlift. He said if approved, the condominium board will hold a lottery for homeowners without docks. He confirmed that this request is for a wet slip, not for a boat slip. David Richardson, party status holder, opposed the project, as it does not meet Code. He expressed dismay that the applicant continues to reapply for this project and tried to sidestep variance requirements. He said six neighbors had objected to the applicant's previous request. Nancy Richardson, party status holder, said the COB should consider facts and abide by Code and deny the application. She opposed the variance as it reduces the required side from single-family homes. Christy Hickok, party status holder, opposed the request. Mr. Dolsak said he and his son are licensed to design boat docks on inland lakes. He said they can provide only engineering and marketing support for the subject project. He said the applicant had made no effort to defraud or misrepresent anything. He said the contractor inadvertently had checked the wrong box on the application regarding the residential property next door. He said he is helping the condominium association with the permitting process. He knew that obtaining project approval by Belleair Beach would be difficult. Mr. Wells stated this request would expand a multi-use dock. Mr. Dolsak said the wetslip would provide safe access to and from the dock. He said the applicant can construct a boat slip, as it owns the submerged lands. Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that the variance is extreme, the area already is dense, and approval would establish a precedent and hurt neighboring properties. It was stated even with neighborhood support, the project should comply with Code. It was commented that the size of boats using the proposed slip cannot be controlled. Member Dame moved to deny Case FLD2006-11 060 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote. The meeting adjourned at 2:56 p.m. ~ G. ADJOURNMENT <i~1t. ) / If/fa }~ Board Reporter Community Development 2007-04-17 29 ':~ f) 6 4/17 / (~7 - c l~~/~ r L I) :Jtc 1- ())C(' 2. , !tT NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE omas Coates Clearwater Community Development Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 335 N. Hillcrest Dr. 181 CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION Clearwater City of Clearwater DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: April 17, 2007 0 ELECTIVE ~ APPOINTIVE FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO MUST FILE FORM 86 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES .person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in- law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, co-owner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. . YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE ~KEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . .py of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Thomas Coates hereby disclose that on April 17.2007 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or , by inured to the special gain or loss of Trianqle Old Bay Holdinqs. LLC is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me , which (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: eo 2007-02002 - 410 N. Ft. Harrison Ave., Clearwater, FL - A request for flexible velopment approval of a 938 sq. ft. multi-use dock, came before the COB for approval. I have an agreement with the above developer/entity for planning consultant services regarding this project. April 17. 2007 Date Filed r--\ /.I..\ "/ \, f /' . ,. i f ' /' .' I / "'- ! \~ AKE A EQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES EACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION AND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED NOTICE:UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 311231-7, A FAILURE TO GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OFTHE FOLLOW I FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALA"RY', $10,000, CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000 PAGE 2 G:\GKG\City ofClearwater\Community Development Board - Outside Counscl\Memo of voting contlict FORM.doc . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17, 2007 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2007-02001 -1040 N. Myrtle Avenue ~es no 2. Case: FLD2007-02002 - 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue -LYes no 3. Case: FLD2006-11 060 - 1651 Sand Key Estates Court Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-10058A - 205 & 213 N Belcher Road, 2212-2216 Drew Street & 2205 Norman Drive ~es no Level Three Apl'lications 1. Case: LUZ2007-01001 - 2667 SR 590 ~es no DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1 - 4): 1. Time Extension - FLD2005-07078 - 665-667 Bay Esplanade. ____.L~es no 2. Time Extension -- FLD2005-07080 -- 862 Bayway Boulevard. ../v es no 3. Time Extension -- FLD2005-08088 -- 685-689 Bay Esplanade. / Yes no Signature: S:\Planning Extension -- FLD2005-08090 -- 693-699 Bay Esplanade. / Yes no ent\C D B\CD; proP~ investigatio~~t:~~fJ " / 0 1- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17, 2007 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2o.o.7-o.2o.o.l - 1040. N. Myrtle Avenue /Yes no 2. Case: FLD2o.o.7-o.2o.o.2 - 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue LYes no 3. C~ FLD2o.o.6-11 0.60. - 1651 Sand Key Estates Court Yes no 4. Case: FLD2o.o.6-lOo.58A - 20.5 & 213 N Belcher Road, 2212-2216 Drew Street & 220.5 Norman Drive .~ Yes no Level Three Applications 1. Case: LUZ2o.o.7-o.lo.o.l - 2667 SR 590. Yes no DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1 - 4): 1. Time Extension - FLD2o.o.5-o.7o.78 - 665-667 Bay Esplanade. / no Yes 2. Time Extension - FLD2o.o.5-o.7o.8o. - 862 Bayway Boulevard. Lno Yes 3. Time Extension - FLD2o.o.5-0,88 - 685-689 Bay Esplanade. Yes ./ no 4. Time Extension - FLD2o.o.5-o.8o.9o. - 693-699 Bay Esplanade. ,/ no Signature: S:\Planning Dep Date: #-1'1--2)7 ent\C D B\CDB, property investigatlO heck list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17, 2007 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. C/:2007-02001 - 1040 N. Myrtle Avenue Yes no 2. Case: FLD2007-02002 - 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue /Yes no 3. Caset~iD2006-11 060 - 1651 Sand Key Estates Court --L-Yes no 4. Case: FLD2006-10058A - 205 & 213 N Belcher Road, 2212-2216 Drew Street & 2205 Norman Drive /' Yes no Level Three Applications 1. ca/,UZ2007-01001 - 2667 SR 590 __Yes no DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1 - 4): 1. Time Extension - FLD2005-07078 - 665-667 Bay Esplanade. '/~es no 2. Time Extension - FLD2005-07080 - 862 Bayway Boulevard. ~es no 3. Time Extension - FLD2005-08088 - 685-689 Bay Esplanade. ~es no 4. Time Ex~errn - FLD2005-08090 - 693-699 Bay Esplanade. 11 Yes no Signature: .-;:f:~ ~ ---- Date: 1 /;.~ /p 7 S:\Planning Department\C D \CDB, property mvestigation check IIst.doc ~~J 'Y\..c) ti?u.J ~ ~,~C>.-/ ,yf etR.~ ~ -1~-.::J ~ V'/ e~~cr!' f/J...2> t/l~ ~