09/18/2007
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 18, 2007
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Acting Board Member
Absent: Kathy Milam Vice-Chair
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Neil Thompson Planning Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: August 21, 2007
Member Dane moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of August 21, 2007, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2007-09-18 1
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2007-03007 – 685, 689, 693 and 699 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to September 18, 2007)
Owner/Applicant: Peter Pan Developments, LLC, Petrit Meroli, Panayiotis Vasiloudes,
Epic Holdings South, LLC, and Somerset Place, Inc.
Representative: Sherry Bagley and/or Bill Woods, Woods Consulting (1714 County
Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax 727-786-7479; e-mail:
sbagley@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 0.618 acres located at the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection of
Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T) District – Old Florida.
Request: Flexible Development approval to construct a 4,062 square-foot multi-use dock facility
to provide 16 slips as an amenity to a proposed 16 unit attached dwelling (two buildings with
eight dwelling units in each) in the Tourist (T) District with an increase to the length of the
southern dock from 75% of the lot width (93.75 feet) to 111% of the lot width (139 feet) under
the provisions of Section 3-601.C.3.
Proposed Use: Multi-use dock of 4,062 square-feet for 16 slips, in conjunction with a 16-unit
attached dwelling (condominium).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
The applicant has requested that the development proposal be continued to October 16,
2007. Staff has no objection to this request, as it will enable further discussion between the
applicant and Planning Department.
Representative Ed Armstrong said the applicant is communicating with neighbors and is
close to an agreement. He said reconfiguration of the dock facility due to the discovery of sea
grasses is part of that discussion.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to continue Case: FLD2007-03007 to October 16, 2007.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-5)
Community Development 2007-09-18 2
1. Case: FLD2007-03009 – 2094 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner: Carlisle Motors, LLC.
Applicant/Representative: Franchise Capital Group, Inc. (630 Chestnut Street,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-723-3771).
Location: 1.768-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Gunn
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 289B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to construct 10,658 square-feet of Retail, Sales and
Service and 3,313 square-feet of Restaurant within the Commercial (C) District with reductions
to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), the front (south) setback from
25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement),
and the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 4 feet (to pavement); and an increase to the
permitted height from 25 feet to 30.5 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
pursuant to Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code along with a Comprehensive
Landscape Program to reduce the western perimeter buffer width from 5 feet to 4 feet and to
eliminate the required foundation plantings along the buildings east elevation, pursuant to
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Lakesiders Association of Clearwater (Gene Wood,
President, 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, #725, Clearwater, FL 33765); and Skycrest Neighbors
(Joanna Siskin, President, 121 N. Crest Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 1.768-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and Gunn Avenue. The property is zoned Commercial (C) and consists of an
abandoned vehicle sales/display use (formerly part of AutoWay Lincoln-Mercury).
The applicant has submitted a Flexible Development (FLD) application for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project for the construction of a 13,971 square-foot
commercial strip shopping center with 74 off-street parking spaces. The shopping center will
consist of 10,659 square-feet of retail sales and service floor area and 3,313 square-feet of
restaurant floor area. The exact tenants of each of the various units are not known; however
the applicant has identified a drive-thru Krispy Kreme as the proposed tenant for the western
restaurant unit, and Subway as proposed tenant for the eastern restaurant unit. The
development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community
Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Pursuant to Section 2-401.1 of the CDC, the maximum ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio)
permitted within the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use category is 0.95. As proposed,
the development will have an ISR of 0.74 and therefore meets the above requirement.
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the CDC, the maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) permitted
within the CG Future Land Use category is 0.55. As proposed, the development will have a
FAR of 0.33 and therefore meets the above requirement.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the CDC, there are no established setbacks for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects within the C zoning district; however there are
Community Development 2007-09-18 3
established setbacks for both retail sales and service, and restaurant uses. Those uses would
require a front setback of 15-25 feet, a side setback of 0-10 feet, and a rear setback of 10-20
feet. It is noted that the subject property is surrounded on three sides by rights-of-way: Cornell
Street on the north; Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard on the south; and Gunn Avenue on the east. As
such, the subject property has three fronts and one side for the purpose of determining
setbacks.
The proposed building will meet all of the standard setbacks that are associated with the
use; however the project does require that deviations be granted to allow for the off-street
parking that surrounds the building. As proposed, the setback from Cornell Street (north) to
pavement is 10 feet, the setbacks from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (south) and Gunn Avenue (east)
to pavement are 15 feet, and the setback from the west property line to pavement is 4 feet.
Of the four requested setback reductions, only the deviation along the west property line
will impact a required landscape buffer, and in that instance the reduction from five feet to four
feet occurs along only a minimal amount of the buffer. In fact, more of the buffer is provided at
a width greater than the required five feet than at the reduced dimension of four feet. The
required landscape buffers along the north, south and east property lines will not be diminished
by the requested setback deviations.
The reduction along the north property line will accommodate portions of five off-street
parking spaces, the loading area, and the solid waste compactor for the development; whereas
the reductions along the south and east property lines will accommodate portions of 21 and 16
off-street parking spaces, respectively. Given the setback constraints posed on the subject
property by its adjacency to three rights-of-way, the development of an economically viable
project without the requested deviations would be impractical. Further, given the limited impact
of these deviations on the subject property and the surrounding properties, as well as the
improvement that the development proposal represents over the existing site, positive findings
can be made with regard to the requested deviations.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the CDC, there is no established maximum height for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects within the C zoning district; however there is an
established maximum height for both retail sales and service, and restaurant uses of between
25 feet and 50 feet.
The proposed shopping center will have a height of 30.5 feet as measured to the top of
the arched roof canopy. While the increased height will not accommodate any use area, it does
facilitate compliance in meeting the design standards for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
projects. Those specific standards are: changes in horizontal building planes, distinctive
fenestration patterns, and distinctive roof forms. Based upon the above, positive findings can
be made with regard to the requested increased height.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the CDC, the minimum off-street parking requirement for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects within the C zoning district shall be as determined
by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director) based upon the specific use
and/or ITE Manual standards.
The entire 13,971 square-foot commercial strip shopping center is being treated as a
retail sales and service use as opposed to being treated as separate restaurant and retail sales
Community Development 2007-09-18 4
and service uses based upon a determination made by the Planning Director allowing for up to
25% of a proposed commercial strip shopping center to have a restaurant use and be
considered retail sales and service with regards to use and off-street parking requirements. The
3,313 square-feet of restaurant use area proposed constitutes approximately 23.7% of the total
square footage of the commercial strip shopping center.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the CDC, retail sales and service uses shall provide off-
street parking at a rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. Therefore, the
proposed 13,971 square-foot commercial strip shopping center requires 70 off-street parking
spaces, and as proposed, the development exceeds this requirement with 74 off-street parking
spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, all outside mechanical equipment shall be
completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties. The plans do not
depict the location of the air conditioning equipment for the individual tenant spaces, and while
this equipment will no doubt be mounted on the roof of the building, its exact location is
unknown. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any
building permits, the architectural plans shall be revised or an additional sheet provided that
clearly depicts the location of all roof-mounted mechanical equipment and the means by which it
will be adequately screened from view from public streets and abutting properties.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the CDC, landscaping is to be installed in a perimeter
buffer measuring five feet in width along the entirety of the west property line. As proposed, the
perimeter buffer along the west property line will measure four feet in width at its smallest point.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2 of the CDC, foundation plantings within a five-foot wide
landscape area shall be provided for along 100% of a building façade with frontage along a
street right-of-way, excluding that space necessary for building ingress/egress. The foundation
plantings are to consist of two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building
façade and one shrub for every 20 square-feet of landscape area with a minimum of 50% of the
area containing shrubs and the balance containing groundcovers. As proposed, no foundation
plantings have been provided along the east façade of the building facing Gunn Avenue.
Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the approval of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program with the above referenced reduction to the western perimeter landscape
buffer, and the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the east façade of the
building facing Gunn Avenue.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the CDC, the landscaping requirements contained
within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive
Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The applicant has indicated that the proposed
landscape plan is demonstrably more attractive than what otherwise could be approved as it
provides the following: 1) A balanced design that mixes flowering and non-flowering shade
trees, accent trees and palms, flowering and non-flowering shrubs of different sizes, and green
and variegated small plantings and ground cover; 2) Up to five tiers of plantings along all
property lines; 3) A total of 83 new shade trees, accent trees and palms at eight feet or more in
height that will provide substantial visual enhancement to the site and streetscape; 4) Shade
trees and palms that exceed the minimum plant material standards (i.e. height and caliper)
required by Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Code; 5) Florida Fancy Grade quality trees, which
Community Development 2007-09-18 5
exceeds Florida Grade #1 quality trees; and 6) Five different groundcovers and small plantings
over approximately 86% of all available open spaces (Royal Purple Liriope, Evergreen Giant
Liriope, Fashion Azalea, Taiwan Dwarf Ixora and Dwarf Variegated Ginger).
With regard to the remaining criteria, the applicant had indicated that the lighting has
been designed to meet Code; however it is not indicated that the lighting will be automatically
controlled so that it is turned off when the businesses are closed, as required by the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria. This item has been attached as a condition of
approval. The proposed landscaping will enhance the community character and have a
beneficial impact on property values in the immediate vicinity through the number, size, quantity,
and variation of landscape materials incorporated into the design. Based upon the above and
subject to the attached conditions of approval, a positive finding can be made with regard to
compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria.
There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of July 5, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient
to move forward to the CDB (Community Development Board), based upon the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.768-acre subject property is located at the northwest
corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Gunn Avenue; 2) That the subject property is located within
the Commercial (C) District; 3) That the subject property is located within the Commercial
General (CG) Future Land Use category; 4) That the development proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area; and 5) That there are no active Code Enforcement issues associated with
the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as per Section 2-701.1 of the CDC; 2) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-704 of the CDC; 3) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Flexibility Criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the CDC; 4) That the
development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per
Section 3-913.A of the CDC; and 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the CDC.
Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department
recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to construct 10,658 square-feet of
retail sales and service and 3,313 square-feet of restaurant within the Commercial (C) District
with reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), the front
(south) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15
feet (to pavement), and the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 4 feet (to pavement); and an
increase to the permitted height from 25 feet to 30.5 feet as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment project, pursuant to Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code
along with a Comprehensive Landscape Program to reduce the western perimeter buffer width
from 5 feet to 4 feet and to eliminate the required foundation plantings along the buildings east
elevation, pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Community Development 2007-09-18 6
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any
outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 2) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be
addressed; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the architectural plans shall be
revised or an additional sheet provided that clearly depicts the location of all roof-mounted
mechanical equipment and the means by which it will be adequately screened from view from
public streets and abutting properties; 4) That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy, a copy of the recorded Cross Access Easement will be provided to the Planning
Department; 5) That all lighting will be automatically controlled so that it is turned off when the
businesses are closed; 6) That all future signage associated with the development and/or tenant
spaces be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the building and be consistent with
the materials and colors of the building; and 7) That the final design and color of the building
shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB,
and be approved by staff.
See page 28 for motion of approval.
2. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2007-07025 – 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC.
Representative: Thomas Coates, Triangle Development (305 North Fort Harrison
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-446-0020; fax: 727-446-0002; email:
thomas@triangledevelopment.com).
Location: 5.18 acres located west of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and
Georgia Streets.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D)
District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area
with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet non-residential floor
area).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828
Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767); North Greenwood Association, Inc. (Jonathan
Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates declared a conflict of interest.
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 currently vacant and bifurcated by
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 Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project application (FLD2006-05030) for 358 attached dwellings and 13,235
Community Development 2007-09-18 7
square-feet of non-residential floor area with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180
feet (west side). At the same meeting, the Board also recommended approval of an associated
Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001), which was approved by the City Council on
February 15, 2007.
On July 2, 2007, a new Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was
submitted for the subject property. This development proposal is very similar to that previously
approved. The current proposal consists of the same number of attached dwellings (358) and
non-residential floor area (13,235 square-feet), and the building heights are also the same. The
primary difference between the current proposal and the previously approved proposal is the
location of off-street parking. The prior proposal located all of its parking below grade in
subterranean garages; however the construction of these garages was determined to be too
expensive to construct, and the project was redesigned to locate all of the required parking
above grade and behind the townhomes that would front on the west side of Osceola Avenue.
The current development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards
of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for attached dwellings for those properties greater than two acres in size and located
west of North Garden Avenue within the Old Bay character district is 50 dwelling units per acre.
The maximum allowable FAR within the same area is 0.5. It is noted that a 0.2-acre portion of
the site is located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use category and does not yield any
density; thus this portion of the site has not been included as part of any density calculations.
Based upon the above, the remaining 4.98 acre subject property is permitted a
maximum of 249 dwelling units. However, the development proposal consists of 358 dwelling
units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area, which is 109 dwelling units and
13,235 square-feet more than is allowable. Therefore, the applicant has requested the use of
109 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan. The development proposal’s
compliance with the requirements for the use of these attached dwellings and floor area from
the Pool is discussed later in the staff report.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, those parcels of land within
the Old Bay character district located east of Osceola Avenue are permitted a maximum
building height of 40 feet, and those parcels of land within the Old Bay character district located
west of Osceola Avenue between Drew and Georgia streets are permitted a maximum building
height of 150 feet.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the CDB may consider
granting an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the
developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity, and the increase in height
does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height or a minimum of ten feet. Based upon
the aforementioned maximum building heights permitted within the Old Bay character district of
40 feet and 150 feet, increases in building height may be granted up to 48 feet and 180 feet.
The development proposal has requested an increase in building height to 48 feet for the
Harrison Village component of the development, which is located between Osceola Avenue and
Community Development 2007-09-18 8
North Fort Harrison Avenue. In addition, the development proposal includes a request to
increase building height to 180 feet for the Island View component of the development, which is
located between Osceola Avenue and Clearwater Harbor. In order to obtain this additional
height permitted by the Plan, the development proposal will provide major public amenities
including: residential dwellings within the Plan area; a mixed-use project furthering the Plan’s
major redevelopment goals and character district vision; and substantial contributions to the
Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of the above amenities, the
requested increases in height to 48 feet (Harrison Village) and 180 feet (Island View) are
supportable.
As discussed below with regard to the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, the development
proposal will utilize 13 dwelling units from the Pool during the first phase of the development
and one additional dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with
the balance to be drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units
from the Pool in the first and second phases is specifically to make available the additional
building height discussed above for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional
height and dwelling units being drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the
development proposal will provide certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases.
The specific improvements are outlined in a subsequent discussion regarding Project Phasing
and their implementation will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2007-00003)
associated with this proposal.
Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code (CDC), within the
Downtown (D) District off-street parking shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per
attached dwelling unit and at four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for
retail sales and services. Therefore, the proposed 358 attached dwellings (537) and the 13,235
square-feet of retail sales and services floor area (52.94) require a total of 590 parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-1405 of the CDC, when any land, building or area is used for two
or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required
parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements
by the appropriate percentages listed in the table. The development proposal requires a
minimum of 540 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 564 parking spaces will be provided;
thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement.
It is noted that during the first and second phases of the development proposal, only a
portion of the total proposed parking is to be constructed. At the completion of the first phase a
total of 116 dwelling units requiring 174 parking spaces will exist, and 174 parking spaces will
be constructed. At the completion of the second phase a total of 225 dwelling units requiring
338 parking spaces will have been built, and 338 total parking spaces will have been
constructed. Therefore, adequate off-street parking will exist throughout all phases of the
development proposal. The Development Agreement (DVA2007-00003) associated with this
proposal governs the construction of adequate parking as per the above throughout each phase
of the development.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, 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 primary refuse facility for the development will be located within Building 3 with the
Community Development 2007-09-18 9
accessory staging area located on the south side of Georgia Street adjacent to the building. As
the facility will be located within the building, its screening/buffering is not a concern. In addition
to the main facility within Building 3, Buildings 1 and 2 will also have refuse areas within their
lower levels. Connectivity will be provided between these individual refuse areas via
underground service corridors. The Harrison Village component will have a pair of trash rooms
within each of the two buildings. The refuse from each of the individual areas within these
buildings will be transferred to the primary refuse facility for pick-up.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the CDC, all utilities, including individual distribution lines,
shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as
a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits a notation must be
added to the Utility Plan stating 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 complete development proposal will not be built simultaneously, but will instead be
constructed within three phases over a period of approximately eight years (by December
2016). The first phase to be built consists of: 1) The southernmost of the Island View towers
(Building 1); 2) The southernmost “brownstones” along the west side of Osceola Avenue (two
units); 3) The four surface parking spaces and access drive for the aforementioned tower; 4) A
portion of the parking garage (174 parking spaces); 5) The pool and garden (outside amenities);
6) Streetscape improvements along the southern third of the west side of Osceola Avenue; and
7) Streetscape improvements along the east side of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones
and Georgia streets.
The second phase would consist of: 1) The middle Island View tower (Building 2); 2) The
middle “brownstones” along the west side of Osceola Avenue (two units); 3) A portion of the
parking garage (162 parking spaces); 4) Streetscape improvements along the central third of
the west side of Osceola Avenue; 5) Streetscape improvements along the north side of Georgia
Street; and 6) Streetscape improvements within the intersection of Jones Street and North Fort
Harrison Avenue.
The third and final phase would include: 1) The northernmost Island View tower (Building
3); 2) The north and south Harrison Village buildings; 3) The northernmost “brownstones” along
the west side of Osceola Avenue (two units); 4) A portion of the parking garage (224 parking
spaces); 5) Streetscape improvements along the northern third of the west side of Osceola
Avenue; 6) Streetscape improvements along the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue
between Georgia and Jones streets; 7) Streetscape improvements along the east side of
Osceola Avenue (and crosswalks), the south side of Georgia Street, and the north side of Jones
Street; 8) Streetscape improvements at the western terminus of Georgia Street; and 9)
Streetscape improvements within the intersection of Georgia Street and North Fort Harrison
Avenue.
Construction of the first phase is anticipated to begin in December 2008 and will take
approximately two years to complete. Construction of second phase is intended to begin one
year after the completion of the first phase and would take approximately two years to complete.
The applicant has further indicated that the possibility exists that the first and second phases
could be built simultaneously if certain sales targets are met. The third and final phase of the
development is also estimated at two years to complete. The specific improvements to be
constructed during the above phases, the timing of those improvements and the associated
Community Development 2007-09-18 10
streetscape improvements, will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2007-00003)
associated with this proposal.
There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue 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 the 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.
To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to
live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public
Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-
residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square-
feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities
provided by this development in order to justify the request from the Public Amenities Incentive
Pool include the provision of 358 dwelling units (including those requested from the Pool) within
the Downtown Plan area, and substantial contributions to the Master Streetscaping and
Wayfinding Plan along North Fort Harrison Avenue, Osceola Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia
Street as well as the their intersections, which is valued at approximately $3 million. Further,
the development proposal itself is a mixed-use project that will further the Plan’s major
redevelopment goals and character district vision, which is also an eligible amenity from which
to enable the use of the Pool. Based upon the provision of these amenities, which are
consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 109 dwelling
units and 13,325 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive
Pool can be supported.
It is noted that while the overall development proposal includes 109 dwelling units and
13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Pool, the specific request will utilize 13
dwelling units from the Pool during the first phase of the development and one additional
dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with the balance to be
drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units from the Pool in
the first and second phases is to make available the additional building height permitted by the
Plan for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional height and dwelling units being
drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the development proposal will provide
certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases. The specific streetscape
improvements are outlined in the above discussion regarding Project Phasing and the
Development Agreement (DVA2007-00003) associated with this proposal will govern their
implementation.
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 following applicable items were
identified: 1) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the existing street grid pattern shall be
retained where it contributes to an active pedestrian environment, and further that new vehicular
and pedestrian access/circulation that effectively serves the proposed development and vicinity
shall be provided if a vacation of right-of-way is requested. The development proposal includes
Community Development 2007-09-18 11
the vacation of that portion of the Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the subject property.
The existing right-of-way is of substandard width and consists of two approximately 90-degree
turns between Jones and Georgia streets. The development proposal also includes the
dedication of a new 50-foot wide right-of-way for Osceola Avenue that is approximately 90 feet
east of the present location of the right-of-way. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines; 2) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that
residential uses along Clearwater Harbor shall be designed with parking garages or parking
areas internal to the site/building and screened from Clearwater Harbor and abutting rights-of-
way. Further, the Guidelines state that parking garages shall be architecturally integrated with
the design, materials, finish and color of the balance of the building. The development proposal
includes a five-level parking garage, the lowest level of which is subterranean. That portion of
the parking garage that is above grade has been architecturally integrated into the design of the
building and reflects the same architectural features found in the abutting “brownstones”. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines; 3) The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to provide pedestrian passageways that
go through buildings, such as arcades. The development proposal includes the provision of
arcades along the east and west elevations of the Harrison Village development component.
The provision of these arcades, which are interconnected through walkways internal to the
building, will provide for improved pedestrian circulation along the retail storefronts of the
building. The Design Guidelines also state that it is appropriate to provide alleys or courtyards
that match or compliment either the building or the primary street to which the alley connects
with regard to materials, architecture, color and street furniture (waste receptacles, benches,
lighting, etc.). The two buildings that make up Harrison Village are separated by a large
courtyard/open space consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor
seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. This open space also serves to connect
the sidewalks along North Fort Harrison Avenue and Osceola Avenue; thus increasing
pedestrian circulation and access. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with the above Guidelines; 4) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that open
spaces shall be provided that function as transitions between the public sidewalks/streets and
the uses of the property, and that formal/informal seating should also be provided in a manner
consistent with the function of the open space. The development proposal provides for an open
space between the two Harrison Village buildings consisting of substantial hardscaping,
landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guideline; 5) The
Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be oriented toward the street and that
the orientation of the front façade along the streetscape shall contribute to pedestrian interest in
the area. The Harrison Village development component is bounded on the north, south and
east by the Georgia Street, Jones Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue rights-of-way,
respectively, and has been designed with storefronts opening onto these rights-of-way with an
arcade providing shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue).
Harrison Village is also bounded on the west by the realigned Osceola Avenue right-of-way,
which has been designed with access to living areas associated with residential dwelling units in
the development. In addition, the Island View development component has been designed with
townhomes (“brownstones”) oriented toward the Osceola Avenue right-of-way so as to
contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. Based upon the above, the development proposal
complies with above applicable Guideline; 6) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the
size and proportions of new development should be related to the scale of nearby buildings and
that new development should respect the vertical height of existing or approved adjacent
buildings and contribute to a pedestrian scale. The Guidelines further state that the apparent
Community Development 2007-09-18 12
height of a building/development can be influenced and augmented by a combination of step
backs, varying building heights and horizontal features. The more notable building heights in
the surrounding area include the Church of Scientology’s Sandcastle, which is approximately 70
feet in height, the 60-foot tall Osceola Inn, and the 70-foot tall Belvedere Apartments. The
balance of the surrounding development ranges in height between 15 and 35 feet. The
buildings that comprise Harrison Village have a proposed height of 48 feet (to top of parapet),
which is consistent with the heights of the surrounding buildings. The tower feature, which
doubles as a mechanical equipment enclosure, on the southern Harrison Village building has a
height of approximately 60 feet (to midpoint of roof), which will provide further visual interest and
reinforce the Mediterranean Revival architectural style of the development. With regard to the
Island View component of the development, the “brownstones” and parking garage, which front
along the west side of Osceola Avenue, have a height of approximately 41.5 feet as measured
to the top of the parapet, which is roughly consistent with the heights of surrounding buildings
and establishes the pedestrian scale for this half of the overall development. The three towers,
which comprise the balance of Island View, are taller than the surrounding developments, but
will compliment the balance of the proposed development and surrounding properties through
the use of stepbacks and various architectural features. Specifically, each of the towers
incorporate stepbacks in their horizontal plane so as to narrow the building as they move toward
the water and away from Osceola Avenue. The vertical plane of the towers includes stepbacks
thththththth
between the 9 and 10 levels, the 14 and 15 levels, and the 17 and 18 levels; each of
which have been emphasized through the use of broad cornices. The height is also mitigated
as it is split between three towers rather than a solitary monolithic structure. This creates
extensive negative and positive space on all sides of the buildings, thereby adding to the visual
aesthetics. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above
applicable Guidelines; 7) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a
distinct “base,” “middle,” and “cap”. With regard to Harrison Village, the arcade defines the
“base” and the “cap” is defined through the varying parapet roof styles. With regard to Island
View, the “brownstones” have a “base” defined by the raised/covered entries as well as a water
table and a “cap” defined by decorative parapets and tower features. The towers each have a
“base” defined by a decorative front entrance, ornate window treatments and a broad cornice,
and a “cap” defined by stepbacks in the horizontal and vertical planes and decorative
balconies/parapets. In addition to the above, the Guidelines state that low-rise buildings should
accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns or break-up the façade into a
greater number of smaller vertical masses. Both the Island View “brownstones” and Harrison
Village development components exemplify this. The Guidelines also state that with regard to
high-rise buildings, the building levels or step backs should be differentiated by architectural
features such as coping, cornice lines and material changes; and that there should be a
proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions of
step backs used to mitigate the height of the building. The towers consist of numerous
stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes differentiated by cornices of varying widths as
well as decorative balconies that not only create visual interest and mitigate the height of the
building, but also serve to further define the “base,” “middle,” and “cap” of the towers. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines;
8) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that multiple buildings within a single project shall
relate architecturally to each other and the surrounding neighborhood. The façades of the
various buildings will complement and visually support each other as they incorporate similar
parapets, awnings, balconies, windows, and roof materials – all of which are in keeping with the
Mediterranean Revival architectural style. The Mediterranean Revival style of the development
is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines as it is complementary to the fabric of the
Community Development 2007-09-18 13
surrounding neighborhood. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with
the above applicable Guidelines; 9) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary
façade is to be the most highly designed facade and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and
recesses), architectural details, variety in color, material and textures, and storefront display
windows for retail uses. As previously stated, the façades of the Island View towers consist of
numerous stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes that create visual interest. The
elevations also consist of architectural details, such as: decorative balconies, broad cornices,
barrel tile roofs and stylized windows. The “brownstones”, which provide a more pedestrian
scale development between the towers and the Osceola Avenue right-of-way, will consist of
architectural detail including raised/covered entries with and without barrel tile roofs, varying
parapet styles, awnings and decorative window patterns. The Harrison Village façades are
architecturally consistent with those of the towers and “brownstones” with the primary difference
being the provision of retail storefront along the north, south and east elevations. In addition to
the above, the Guidelines state that buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent
location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or
other distinguishing features. At the northeast and southeast corners of the Harrison Village
block the development will incorporate clock towers/balconies that will serve to set the
development apart from surrounding properties. The east façade is also heavily detailed and
incorporates an arcade, which provides the plane change envisioned within the Guidelines.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable
Guidelines; 10) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that windows shall be provided along all
streets; that windows in commercial areas shall be appropriately sized to allow for display and
views into the building; and that bulkheads shall be provided below and transoms above display
windows. The buildings have been designed with appropriately sized windows along all streets,
including the provision of transoms and bulkheads above and below the storefront windows for
Harrison Village. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above
referenced Guidelines; 11) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roofs shall be consistent
with the style of the building utilizing elements such as cornice treatments, overhangs with
brackets, stepped parapets, richly textured materials and/or differently colored materials. The
roof proposed for the Island View towers is consistent with the style of the building and consists
of cornice treatments and overhangs with brackets consistent with the above. The
“brownstones” and Harrison Village also have roofs consistent with the building style that utilize
stepped parapets in addition to those same elements found on the Island View towers. Based
upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced
Guideline; and 12) The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building
colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The proposed
building colors, which are consistent across the various buildings, are appropriate for the
architectural style of the buildings. The building walls are proposed with mixture of colors
including light brown (Rookwood Amber-SW2817), yellow (Classical Yellow-SW2865) and gold
(Classical Gold-SW2831). The building walls will be accented with orange (Tango-SW6649);
the cornices painted light beige (Roycroft Vellum-SW2833); the trim painted off-white (Cotton
White-SW7104); and the awnings will be red (Tanager-SW6601). Based upon the above, the
development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline.
A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the
following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: 1) Vision:
Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and
recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new
residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The development
Community Development 2007-09-18 14
proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban residential uses, and streetscaping
consistent with the City’s Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan, as well as buildings located
along and oriented towards all abutting streets. As such, the project is consistent with the
above Vision; 2) Vision: Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues should be redeveloped as
pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core
Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban
residential uses as well as the streetscape improvements consistent with the City’s Master
Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with the above Vision;
3) Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The
development proposal exemplifies such design practice through building orientation, pedestrian
circulation and coverage. Harrison Village has been designed with storefronts opening onto the
North Fort Harrison Avenue, Georgia and Jones streets rights-of-way with an arcade providing
shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue). The Osceola
Avenue frontage of Harrison Village has been designed with access to living areas associated
with residential dwelling units in the development. Further, Island View has been designed with
townhomes (“brownstones”) oriented toward the Osceola Avenue right-of-way so as to
contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. In addition to the above, the two Harrison Village
buildings are separated by a large courtyard/open space consisting of substantial hardscaping,
landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. This open
space also serves to connect the sidewalks along North Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues;
thus providing quality pedestrian circulation and access. Based upon the above, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Vision; 4) Goal 1: Downtown shall be a
place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage
redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation,
entertainment and shopping destination. This development proposal will provide a density of
84.43 dwelling units per acre and is a pioneering mixed-use project for downtown within the Old
Bay character district. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with
the above Goal; 5) Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the
design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal provides 358
attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor area as part of an attractive
mixed-use development. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent
with the above Objective; 6) Objective 1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate
and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment
opportunities for Downtown residents. The development proposal provides for 13,235 square-
feet of new non-residential floor area, which will further the provision of a stable employment
center and additional employment opportunities. Based upon the above, the development
proposal will be consistent with the above Objective; 7) Objective 1H: The City shall use all
existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to
encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The Plan provides a pool of development
potential from which projects may acquire additional dwelling units and/or non-residential floor
area. This development proposal includes a request to utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235
square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Pool to achieve the desired density/intensity
for the site and thereby increasing the viability and vibrancy of the project. The proposal
includes approximately $3 million in streetscape improvements for North Fort Harrison Avenue,
Osceola Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way, which will be consistent with
the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, the development
proposal will be consistent with the above Objective; 8) Objective 1K: Downtown shall be a safe
environment for both residents and visitors by addressing real and perceived public safety
Community Development 2007-09-18 15
issues. The immediate area, with some notable exceptions, is characterized by low-quality,
attached dwellings that in general are poorly maintained and contribute to a real and perceived
impression of a lack of safety. The redevelopment of this site with attractive high-quality
structures and the influx of additional residents, patrons and pedestrians will improve the
appearance of the area and contribute to a safer environment. Based upon the above, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective; 9) Objective 2A: The
Downtown street grid should be maintained to provide multiple access points in and through
Downtown, to assist in dispersing traffic on various routes and contribute to improved traffic
operations. Vacation of streets shall be evaluated based on redevelopment potential provided
alternative access exists or can be provided. The existing grid system will be improved through
the development proposal. The Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the project has been
vacated and a new right-of-way for Osceola Avenue with a standard width of 50 feet and a
pavement width of 24 feet will be constructed approximately 90 feet to the east of its present
location. The result is the elimination of one of the three existing 90-degree turns and greater
spacing between the remaining two 90-degree bends. Traffic for the development proposal will
be dispersed across multiple rights-of-way as the primary parking garage (beneath Island View)
is located off Georgia Street, and the secondary parking garage (beneath Harrison Village) is
located off Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be
consistent with the above Objective; 10) Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements
shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development
proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements within the Osceola Avenue, North
Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones and Georgia streets rights-of-way that are consistent with the
City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has been
achieved; 10) Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and
visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater’s waterfront location, natural resources, built environment
and history. The development proposal will set a new design standard within the Old Bay
character district while providing for an attractive streetscape through non-residential uses,
striking buildings, new streetscaping and landscaping. Through these improvements to the built
environment, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Goal; 11) Objective
3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a
variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown’s character and heritage. The
development proposal consists of buildings that will complement the existing pattern of
development along North Fort Harrison and Osceola avenues incorporating arched elements,
canopies, balconies and an extensive use of windows as part of a Mediterranean Revival style
of architecture. The stepbacks will give the appearance to passersby of a building in harmony
with other buildings in the area. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be
consistent with the above Objective; 12) Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish
the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in
Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. The development proposal is consistent
with the Design Guidelines as it incorporates a detail rich Mediterranean Revival style
architecture that utilizes high-quality materials, such as stucco and terracotta barrel tile roofs.
The proposed design also incorporates an extensive use of stepbacks and vertical/horizontal
plane changes as well as a variety of architectural details such as ornate balconies, decorative
aluminum railings, decorative metal awnings, a covered arcade, broad cornices and stepped
parapets. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above
Policy; 13) Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and
design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision
of the character district in which it is located. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
envisions the Old Bay character district as a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown
Community Development 2007-09-18 16
employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. Staff has
worked diligently with the applicant to create a development that is consistent with this vision. It
is specifically noted that the Island View development component is consistent with that portion
of the character district vision, which provides for an opportunity for higher-density residential
uses along Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy; 14) Policy 3: The design of all
projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment
through site and building design. The proposed design of the site and buildings contributes to
the pedestrian environment by providing an active streetscape consisting of paver brick
sidewalks, formal/informal seating, landscaping, pedestrian arcade, ground floor non-residential
uses along North Fort Harrison Avenue, and a large open space between the two Harrison
Village buildings consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating
areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. As such, the development proposal will be
consistent with the above Policy; 15) Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities
Incentive Pool that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character
districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development
potential based on a provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints
affecting redevelopment, the Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of
2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-residential uses, available
to all property within the Plan area. This provides an opportunity for the private sector to gain
additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals
for Downtown Clearwater. This development will utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square-
feet of non-residential floor area from the pool. The proposal includes approximately $3 million
in streetscape and wayfinding improvements within the Osceola Avenue, North Fort Harrison
Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way. These improvements will be consistent
with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the development proposal
will be consistent with the above Policy; 16) Policy 19: Residential development shall provide
appropriate on-site recreation facilities based upon the scale of the project. Amenities for the
site include a swimming pool and garden plaza, clubhouse, beach access, fountains, and an
observation pier previously and separately approved under FLD2007-02002. As such, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy; and 17) Policy 25: The City shall
give priority to sidewalk construction within Downtown that enhances pedestrian linkages and/or
completes a continuous sidewalk system on all streets. The development proposal includes
sidewalks along each of the adjacent rights-of-way, which will include interlocking pavers,
benches, shaded arcades (at North Fort Harrison Avenue), solid waste receptacles and
streetlights matching the City’s Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the
development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy.
The following applicable policies shall govern development within the Old Bay Character
District, as well as City actions: 1) The Public Incentives Amenities Pool shall not be available to
any property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between Eldridge Street and the
northern boundary of the Old Bay character district. The subject property is located south of
Eldridge Street; therefore it is eligible for the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which the
project proposes the use of 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square-feet of non-residential floor
area; 2) City rights-of-way that dead-end at the harbor shall be retained and improved for public
access to the water. The development proposal includes the retention of the existing Georgia
Street right-of-way, which dead-ends at the harbor and provides for a scenic outlook consisting
of a paver brick walkway and landing, a decorative wall and columns, benches and landscaping;
3) New development on North Fort Harrison Avenue shall be oriented toward the street to
Community Development 2007-09-18 17
encourage pedestrian activity and a dynamic street life. The development proposal includes
new development oriented towards all abutting streets including North Fort Harrison Avenue.
Non-residential uses are proposed to be located along North Fort Harrison Avenue with
residential uses facing all streets; and 4) Mixed-use development that has office and retail uses
on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged along North Fort Harrison
Avenue. As stated above, the development proposal includes the provision of non-residential
floor area on the ground floor along North Fort Harrison Avenue with residential uses above; 5)
Preferred housing styles east of Osceola Avenue are single-family detached and townhouses.
Attached dwellings in this area may be considered upon assembly of at least one acre and
preferably one city block. The development proposal includes a land assemblage of just over
five acres and an entire city block. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with
this Policy. Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with
the policies governing development within the Old Bay character district.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of August 2,
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) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future
Land Use Plan categories; 3) That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acres) located within
the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; 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; 5) That the development proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6) That there is no
outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the proposed use of 109 attached dwellings and 13,235
square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent
with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the proposed
increases in height via the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from 40 feet to 48 feet (Harrison
Village) and from 150 feet to 180 feet (Island View) are consistent with the provisions of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 3) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 4) 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; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the CDC; 6) That the development proposal is
consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.C of the CDC; and 7) That the
development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per
Section 3-913.A of the CDC.
Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department
recommends approval of the Flexible Development application for a mixed-use development
within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square-feet of
non-residential floor area with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side)
Community Development 2007-09-18 18
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community
Development Code.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits for vertical
improvements, a Final Subdivision Plat must be recorded; 2) That prior to the issuance of any
building permits, any outstanding Fire Department condition shall be addressed; 3) That prior to
the issuance of any building permits, all applicable open space/recreation impact fees shall be
paid; 4) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, separate right-of-way permits must be
acquired for any/all work within the rights-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are
assigned to the City; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a notation must be
added to the Utility Plan stating 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; 6) That prior
to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, a condominium plat must be recorded; 7) That
prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must comply with the current
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule; 8) That the final design and color of the
building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the
CDB, and be approved by staff; 9) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed
concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened
from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 10)
That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally
integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as
part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any
permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the
same color and font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality
materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building;
and 11) That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the approval of the associated
amended Development Agreement with the City (DVA2007-00003).
See page 22 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2007-09-18 19
3. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: DVA2007-00003 – 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC.
Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (911
Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-461-1818; fax 727-462-0365; email:
armstronge@jpfirm.com).
Location: 5.18 acres located west of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and
Georgia streets.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Review, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development
Agreement between Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, and the City of Clearwater (previously
DVA 2006-00001 approved by City Council on February 15, 2007) to modify the effective date
of the agreement, and the provisions of the phasing schedule, as well as add language
pertaining to a proposed site plan modification (FLD2007-07025).
Proposed Use: Mixed-use (358 attached dwellings at 84.43 units/acre with 13,235 square-feet
of non-residential floor area at 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and heights of 48 feet on the Harrison
Village [east] portion of the site and 180 feet on the Island View [west] portion of the site).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood (Kathy Milam, 1828
Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767); North Greenwood Association, Inc. (Jonathan
Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member Coates declared a conflict of interest.
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 currently vacant and bifurcated by North
Osceola Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east)
and Island View (west).
The development proposal includes an associated Flexible Development application
(FLD2007-07025) that relocates the majority of the parking previously approved for this
development from a subterranean parking garage to an aboveground parking garage that will be
located behind the townhomes fronting on the west side of Osceola Avenue.
The proposed Development Agreement amends the Development Agreement between
Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously
DVA2006-00001 approved by the City Council on February 15, 2007) to modify the effective
date of the agreement, and the provisions of the phasing schedule, as well as add language
pertaining to a proposed site plan modification, and includes the following main provisions: 1)
Amends Section 6.1.3.1 to modify the number of dwelling units being constructed and pulled
from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool in each of the three phases; 2) Amends Section
6.1.3.1 to add a new paragraph stating that if the Developer sells combined units in any of the
three towers, thereby reducing the unit count in the towers, the Developer would not lose
entitlements to those units, but would instead be able to use those units in Harrison Village,
subject to a revision to the approved Flexible Development application; 3) Amends Section
6.1.3.2 by correctly stating that the building height to the highest point of the finished flat roof
Community Development 2007-09-18 20
surface of the two buildings comprising Harrison Village shall not exceed 48 feet above the
mean site elevation for the Harrison Village site; 4) Amends Section 6.1.3.7 to modify the
timeline for the implementation of streetscape improvements along the west side of Osceola
Avenue; 5) Adds Section 6.1.6 [first paragraph], which clarifies the construction of the parking
garage across the project phasing and provides language identifying that sufficient parking will
be provided to meet parking requirements for each phase of the development; 6) Adds Section
6.1.6 [second paragraph], which provides language stating that if a construction hiatus of more
than 60 days occurs, the developer shall install and maintain landscaping improvements and
limited temporary architectural façade improvements across the northern face of the parking
structure which obscures at least 75% of the view of vehicles and the interior of the parking
structure from street level; and that in the event the subsequent phase does not start on
schedule, then developer shall fully finish the façade of the northern face of the parking
structure; 7) Deletes Section 6.2.2, which referenced the consideration of a right-of-way
vacation that has now already occurred; 8) Adds Section 14, which states that the previous
Exhibits “B,” “C,” “D,” “D-1,” “D-2,” “D-3,” “E”, “E-1,” “E-2,” “E-3,” and “H” have been replaced
with new Exhibits of the same names and purposes. It is noted that Exhibit “E,” which is the
Phasing Schedule had been modified to provide for a new commencement date of December
31, 2008 and a new completion date of December 31, 2016; 7) Adds Section 25, which states
that in the event the City Council approves a proposed amendment to the existing ordinance
(Ordinance 7769-07) vacating a portion of the existing Osceola Avenue between Jones Street
and Georgia Street, the Developer shall have the option of temporarily finishing Osceola
Avenue to the standards specified in said ordinance amendment prior to Phase 1. Once the
Developer has completed Osceola Avenue to these standards and has had the work accepted
as complete by the City, the City would release Developer’s Letter of Credit posted in
compliance with the ordinance; and 8) Adds Section 26, which provides language pertaining to
the provision of public art in compliance with the City’s Public Art Ordinance and in keeping with
the project phasing.
The CDB has been provided with the most recently negotiated Development Agreement
dated September 12, 2007. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of August 2,
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) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future
Land Use Plan categories; 3) That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acre) located within
the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; and 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.
Conclusions of Law 1) That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the
requirements for the construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site
plan proposal (FLD2007-07025); 2) That the Development Agreement complies with the
Community Development 2007-09-18 21
standards and criteria of Section 4-606 of the Community Development Code; 3) That the
Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) That the Development Agreement is consistent with
the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
and the Old Bay character district.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends the approval, and
recommendation to the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Triangle
Old Bay Holdings, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater (previously DVA2006-
00001 approved by City Council on February 15, 2007) for the site at 410 North Fort Harrison
Avenue.
Member Tallman moved to approve Case FLD2007-07025 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 conditions of approval as listed, and to
recommend approval of Case DVA2007-00003 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. The motion was duly seconded. Members Tallman, Behar, Dame,
DiPolito, Acting Member Dennehy, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Coates abstained.
Motion carried.
Community Development 2007-09-18 22
4. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2006-08006 – 802, 826, and 830 Woodlawn Street, and an unaddressed
parcel designated as 22/29/15/00000/320/0200 (826 Woodlawn Street is the entire
subdivision of Woodlawn Terrace I, A Condominium as recorded in Condominium Plat
Book 92, Page 32 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida)
Owner/Applicant: Woodlawn Church of God Board of Trustees.
Representative: Chris Koncal, Chief Operating Officer, MEP Division, Midway Services,
th
4677 118 Avenue N., Clearwater, FL 33762; Telephone number 727-573-9500x330.
Location: 8.10 acres located northeast of the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Woodlawn
Street.
Atlas Page: 314A.
Request: 1) 802 Woodlawn Street: Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Urban (RU) Category to the Residential Medium (RM) Category; 826 and 830 Woodlawn Street
and an unaddressed parcel designated as 22/29/15/00000/320/0200: Future Land Use Plan
amendment from the Institutional (I) Category to the Residential Medium (RM) Category and 2)
826 and 830 Woodlawn Street an unaddressed parcel designated as 22/29/15/00000/320/0200:
Rezoning from the Institutional (I) District to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Proposed Use: Multi-Family Residential.
Type of Amendment: Large Scale.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to accept Catherine Porter as an expert witness in the
fields of redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, economic development, zoning,
historic preservation, and general planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Planning Manager Catherine Porter reviewed the request. This Future Land Use Plan
(FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves property comprising approximately 8.10
acres in area located northeast of the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Woodlawn Street. This
property has FLUP classifications of Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I) and zoning
designations of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Institutional (I). The applicant is
requesting to amend the FLUP designations of the site to the Residential Medium (RM)
classification and to rezone the property to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District in
order to develop 112 new attached residential units. An existing single family residential
structure and eight attached residential units are proposed to be demolished in order for the
new units to be constructed. Two ponds are located at the approximate center of the site.
In 2001, the applicant was seeking to redevelop the site for institutional use. To
accommodate that use, a portion of this property went through a land use plan amendment from
the Residential Urban to the Institutional FLUP classification and a rezoning from the Medium
Density Residential to the Institutional Zoning District (Case LUZ 01-08-06). Today, for the
property as described above, the applicant is proposing workforce housing, with 112 attached
residential units. To accommodate the residential use, a portion of the prior site is now
proposed to be Residential Medium FLUP classification and Medium Density Residential Zoning
District.
Community Development 2007-09-18 23
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 required.
An amendment of the FLUP from the Institutional (I) and Residential Urban categories to
the Residential Medium (RM) category and a rezoning from Institutional (I) District to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District for the subject site is requested. The site consists of
8.10 acres (353,037 square-feet) total and exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for multi-
family residential use within the Medium Density Residential Zoning District. A predominance of
single-family residential detached dwellings, some multi-family residential units, a church, and a
church office characterize the neighborhood. The proposed future land use plan amendment
and rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Plan classification and
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district are 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 the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
Future Land Use Plan amendments from the Residential Urban and Institutional (I)
Classifications to the Residential Medium (RM) Classification and 2) the rezoning from the
Institutional (I) District to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Ms. Porter said the site planning process will address a resident’s concerns regarding
the rail line.
Jeff Thompson, representative for the Woodlawn Church of God Board of Trustees, said
the church had relocated. He said the request would revert the property back to its previous
zoning and permit the development of affordable housing.
Valerie Ingram-Hinkley requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Valerie Ingram-Hinkley Party Status. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Status holder Valerie Ingram-Hinkley opposed the zoning change as it would
permit too many units on the property, which abuts her single-family-residence, negatively affect
the neighborhood, and increase traffic on Woodlawn. She recommended that zoning limit
development to 7.5 units per acre and that the historic structure at 802 Woodlawn be protected.
Representative William Wolf said the 115 planned units are subject to site plan review.
He said they would donate the structure if it is designated as historic. Ms. Porter said palms on
the property may reduce the number of permitted units. Traffic studies indicate traffic will
decrease. Staff is unaware of any registered historic sites on the subject property. Mr.
Thompson said staff would address the historic issue properly.
Member Dipolito declared a conflict of interest.
Community Development 2007-09-18 24
Discussion ensued with comments that the proposed zoning is not intense and the
adjacent property is similarly zoned. It was felt the request is fair.
Member Behar moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2006-08006 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. Members Coates, Tallman, Behar, Dame, Acting Member
Dennehy, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried.
5. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2007-06002 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital
Improvements Elements, making substantial changes to these elements and creating a new
Public School Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, as agreed upon by the
Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County, the cities of Clearwater, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo,
Madeira Beach, Oldsmar, Pinellas Park, Safety Harbor, Seminole, St. Petersburg, St. Pete
Beach and Tarpon Springs and the School Board of Pinellas County, in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
Type of Amendment: Separate submittal to State DCA (State Deadline: March 1, 2008) -
exempt from large-scale submittal process
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Sandra Herman, Planner III.
In 2005, the Florida State Legislature approved Senate Bill 360 that placed a
requirement in the Florida State Statutes for a new Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) to
be added to certain local comprehensive plans. The proposed text amendments meet the state
mandated requirements of the bill, amending current Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement Elements of
Clearwater’s Comprehensive Plan regarding schools and creating a new Public School Facilities
Element in the Plan.
In response to the mandate, Pinellas County, together with the Pinellas County School
District and the twelve municipalities, including Clearwater, served by the District that are
required to implement school concurrency, began the process of creating a PSFE. A School
Planning Workgroup, that included staff from each affected government, the School District, and
the Pinellas Planning Council, was formed in January 2006 to address this new requirement.
The Workgroup made recommendations to the Pinellas Schools Collaborative. The
Collaborative, which consists of elected officials from Pinellas County, the twelve municipalities,
and the School Board, previously had been formed to prepare the original Public Schools
Interlocal Agreement, which was executed in April 2003.
The Workgroup and Collaborative met numerous times to develop an updated Interlocal
Agreement, agreeing to create one Model PSFE that each local government would find
acceptable to adopt, and to develop a countywide tracking system to ensure consistency in local
Community Development 2007-09-18 25
governments so that public school facilities would not be adversely affected by additional
development and redevelopment.
The agreement was approved, signed and then recorded on April 25, 2007. The Model
Element was approved by the Collaborative on June 6, 2007. The two groups will continue to
work together on a model school concurrency system for tracking purposes along with a
procedures manual.
In accordance with Florida Statutes and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
the requisite schedule requires adoption of the City of Clearwater’s new Public School Facilities
Element by March 1, 2008. The proposed ordinance for this element is modeled by the Pinellas
County ordinance, along with corresponding amendments to the City’s Future Land Use Plan,
Capital Improvements and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements.
A total of six amendments are proposed to the text of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan in Ordinance 7870-07. These text amendments are exempt from the two times a year
large scale plan amendment process, though, they still are required to be reviewed and
approved by DCA; 1) Amendment 1 – FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES – Amend Objective 3.1 and Policy 3.1.3 of Goal 3 of the Plan on Page A-8.
Eliminate the word “schools” from Objective 3.1 and all of Policy 3.1.3 regarding public school
sites; both are being placed within the new Public School Facilities Element as new Objective
33.1, Policies 33.1.1 through 33.1.4; 2) Amendment 2 – FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. Eliminate Goal 6, associated objectives and policies
related to school sites and facilities for compatibility with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. They
will be placed within the new Public School Facilities Element as new Goal 34, Objective 34.1
and Policies 34.1.1 through 34.1.11; 3) Amendment 3 – INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. Eliminate the reference
to “the school board” in Objective 28.1 and eliminate Policies 28.1.1 and 28.1.2 renumbering
Policies 28.1.3 through 28.1.8; add new Objective 28.2 and related policies 28.2.1 through
28.2.8; for the City to continue to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan with plans of the School
Board and other local governments through joint planning processes and procedures, and
recognizing State legislation and funding for continued preservation of South Ward School, a
National Register Historic building; 4) Amendment 4 – INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. Amend Objective 31.2
by the elimination of the words “school siting” and eliminate Policies 31.2.3 through 31.2.6
pertaining to school siting in this objective. See #3 above for new Objective 28.2 with related
Policies 28.2.1 through 28.2.8; 5) Amendment 5 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. Add new Objective 32.7 and related Policies 32.7.1
through 32.7.5 for ensuring that the City in coordination with the School District will ensure that
the capacity of public schools is sufficient to support the anticipated students from residential
site plans and final residential subdivision approvals consistent with the adopted level-of-service
standard for public schools; and 6) Amendment 6 – PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. Add an introduction, a Public School Facilities Needs
Summary, Goals 33-36, and associated objectives and policies for the new Public School
Facilities Element addressed in the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement that was entered into
between the Pinellas County School Board, the City of Clearwater and eleven other
municipalities, and Pinellas County Government in 2007: a) Forming the basis for implementing
school concurrency, b) Establishing jointly the specific ways in which the plans and processes of
the district school board are to be coordinated, c) Acknowledging the School Board’s
Community Development 2007-09-18 26
constitutional and statutory obligations to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a
countywide basis, and the land use authority of local governments, including their authority to
approve or deny comprehensive plan amendments and development orders, d) Providing
mutually agreed upon definitions and procedures, and e) Establishing a uniform public school
facilities element and land development regulations in each local government to assist the
Parties in assuring that sufficient capacity is available for new and existing students in school
facilities.
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1) The
amendment will further implementation of the comprehensive plan consistent with the goals,
policies and objectives contained in the plan. The proposed amendments to the Future Land
Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements and the addition of a
new Public School Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan further refine the
City’s existing policies and objectives related to public school facilities. The proposed
amendments are consistent with the existing goals, policies and objectives contained in the Plan
and actually expand the city’s long range planning policies related to the provisions for school
facilities; 2) The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
They broaden the City’s approach to providing continued coordination with the School Board,
Pinellas County Government and eleven other local governments on setting the processes and
procedures for school concurrency, siting and other comprehensive plan issues related to
schools in Pinellas County. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put
are appropriate to the property in questions and compatible with existing and planned uses in
the area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property; 3) Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed
amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property; 4) The
amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed amendments are
text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property; and 5) The amendment will
not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments are
text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan recognize the
importance of the amendments to the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and
Capital Improvements Elements and the new Public School Facilities Element in the effort of
consistency for the continued cooperation and coordination with the Pinellas School Board,
Pinellas County Government and other local governments included in the interlocal agreement
pertaining to school concurrency, siting, processes and procedures.
The Planning Department Staff recommend approval of Ordinance 7870-07 that amends
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development 2007-09-18 27
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2007-03009 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 conditions of
approval as listed, and to recommend approval of Case CPA2007-06002 on today’s Consent
Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2007-00002 – 304 Spring Court
Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Ralph Rugo (11641 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL
33764; phone: 727-559-7727).
Location: 0.383-acre parcel at the northwest terminus of the Spring Court cul-de-sac.
Atlas Page: 268B.
Zoning: Low Medium Destiny Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: An appeal from an administrative interpretation pursuant to Section 4-501A.1 that
under Community Development Code Section 3-804 a six-foot high wall is not permitted
between the principal structure and the right-of-way in the proposed location in the Low Medium
Density Residential zoning district.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Neil Thompson, Development Review Manager.
Member Coates moved to accept Neil Thompson as an expert witness in the fields of
development code, transportation system planning, system development changes, and
comprehensive plans. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Development Review Manager reviewed the item. An appeal from an administrative
interpretation pursuant to Section 4-501A.1 that under Community Development Code Section
3-804 a six-foot high wall is not permitted between the principal structure and the right-of-way at
the subject property in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district.
This 0.383-acre site is located on the north side of the Spring Court right-of-way west of
N. Osceola Avenue and terminating at Clearwater Harbor. There is an active building permit for
the construction of a single-family residence on the site. On July 18, 2006, James Deckard of
Berkshire Homes, acting as an agent for the property owner, filed a Permit Application for
“Construction of Decorative Wall” at 304 Spring Court. The height of the fence was not
specified in the initial application. As a result of initial review comments on November 13, 2006,
the agent submitted an application for fence/wall permit specifying six-feet as the fence height.
On December 7, 2006, plan review comments were entered in the case file that the maximum
fence height within the front setback is three feet.
Community Development Code Division 8. Fences and Walls Section 3-804. Setback
and height requirements. states: Front setback - Walls and fences located in front of a principal
structure shall be permitted to a maximum height of 36 inches.
Community Development 2007-09-18 28
Article 8. Definitions and Rules of Construction Section 8-102. Definitions. states: 1)
Property line front - means a property line which runs generally parallel to and along a road
right-of-way or street exclusive of alley ways; and 2) Setback front - means the setback between
the front property line and a structure.
At the request of Raffaele Rugo, the Development Review Manager issued a letter dated
August 20, 2007, stating the reasons why the Application for Fence/Wall Permit would not be
approved.
Findings of Fact: 1) The site in question is located on the north side of the dedicated
right-of-way for Spring Court, a City improved and maintained vehicle and pedestrian access; 2)
There being no other rights-of-way associated with the subject site, property line along the
Spring Court right-of-way is the property front; and 3) The applicant/agent requested a permit to
construct a six-foot tall decorative masonry wall in front of the principal structure on the Spring
Court property line.
Conclusion of Law: 1) Fences or walls greater than 36 inches shall not be permitted in
front of a principal structure and 2) A permit cannot be issued.
The appellants filed this appeal on August 27, 2007. Section 4-501.A.2 of the
Community Development Code states that the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from
orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the Community Development Code. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal
of an orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the Community Development Code may be initiated within seven days of the
date of the order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official.
Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail
and by telephone. Pursuant to Section 4-504.B, the CDB shall review the application, the
recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public
hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render
a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal, granting
the appeal subject to specified conditions or denying the appeal.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an
appeal, (overturning or modifying the decision under appeal), the CDB shall find that, based on
substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party, all of the following
criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
provisions of the Community Development Code; and 2) The decision of the CDB will be in
harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) The
decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. .
Appellant Ralph Rugo said a six-foot wall is necessary to protect his family and property
from vagrants and trespassing, which has been a long-term problem. In response to Board
member questions, Mr. Rugo said he could contact the Police every day with complaints. Mr.
Thompson suggested that substantial landscaping materials could be planted. He said a right-
of-way does not require a street. With reference to higher walls around nearby properties, staff
said the City had adopted a new Code in 1999.
Community Development 2007-09-18 29
Member Behar moved to approve staff's denial of the request and to not grant an appeal
of Case: APP2007-00002 based on evidence in the record, including the appeal and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report, and find that required criteria was not met as: 1) The decision appealed from did not
misconstrue nor incorrectly interpret the provisions of the Community Development Code; and
2) The decision of the CDB is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community
Development Code; and 3) The decision of the CDB is not detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1-2)
1. Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure
On August 21,2007, Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes requested the CDB to amend
Article IV, Section 4 of the Board's Rules of Procedures so that the Order of Meeting lists
Requests for Continuances after Approval of the Minutes and prior to Consent Agenda items.
Member Dame moved to amend Article IV, Section 4 of the Board's Rules of Procedures
so that the Order of Meeting lists Requests for Continuances after Approval of the Minutes and
prior to Consent Agenda items. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Holiday Luncheon
Discussion ensued regarding worthy charities, including the CPD (Clearwater Police
Department) bicycle program, which uses donations to purchase bicycles for needy families.
Member Coates moved for the CDB to support the CPD bicycle program this year. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Staff will report on the cost of lunch at the Outback and Sand pearl.
Rules of Procedure
In response to a question, staff will report if Rules of Procedure related to appeals
included language regarding the Consent Agenda.
H. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
~
~~~
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 2007-09-18
30
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
J..
4.S
CITY
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This'form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, 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 CO'MPLIA~CE WiTH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local pUblic office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by'wholl) fJe or she,is retained (includi~g,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 u~der Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are notpropibited from ~ir\9 in}hat
capacity. .
For purposes of this law, a "relatiye:' incljJdes,onlYJhe officer's Jather, IT1qther,.son., daughte,r; Jl\.l~ban~, wife; br<<lther. ~is\er, fath~r;,in-Iaw,
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 par:tner, joint venturer, coowne~ of property, or corporate sharehol,der (where the shares"of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regibnal stock exchang~): . T, ' .' . , , , . . ".' ,
.
., ,;
.
.
.' '
.
~ 1:
ELECTED OFFICERS:
,. . ~ '"
t'. ~
, !
In addition to abstaining from voting ,in the si~uations described above, you mustd!sclo~e the COflflict:
". ' ;. . ". .0 " . . ;... '. .' , . ~ .; .. "
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 respo'1sible for ~ecording the min-
utes 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.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. 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)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IFYOU MAKE 'NO AtTEIVtPT to INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE' MEETING: .
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participa'ting. "
"I.' 'to'
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the pers~n 'responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minut,es. A copy of the form must be pro~ided 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,
nD W\.4.S ~ d:L4S
, hereby disclose that on
Sept. (f
,20~:
(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
~ inured to the special gain or loss of Ir~~ tJ ~d. ~ ~ 5.} 1-1- (!.
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
-I=l.-" 'Ut!)'T -07Zb
od
0\/ A 2.001- - ~E)OO~
~l 0 ~. Ft'. 1Ja.1"(,~~ ~.) ~w~ ~ ~L- .
~~~ -F.. OfP~ e-t: 0.... ~\e,,', bla.. 1)e".dof~ .....
\).ev.e!oy~ ~,...~ .AL.. ()... ~ ''l-e6. -(A..~ t:A.eve.to~..
:t: ~ct."e t1A\ ~r.u..~ ~,t:h ~ dJoO\le. ~~."~p~len.t\~
.{;pc- r>lG..V\W\\"j C4>t'\~c.d..~~ -Soef""V'u'~ r~~~y~.
, by
, which
5eF.
Date Filed
1 tb '2.Do -::r
I
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
'.eArw~
DATE ON WHICH V9>>= OCCURRED
:>.e. c.
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
. ..';~ . ._.... . '.,-v.~~ ~,.l
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
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local pUblic office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss ota principal (other than a gov~rnme('lt agency) by whom ~e or she is retained (including the
parent orgarlization or"subsidiary of a corporate pi"incipat by\vhich he or she is retained); to the special privatl:! gain or loss of a ;elative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. ~ 63.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of il\depend~nt ~p~ci~1. t~x distriC?ts elected 011 a one-acre, one-vote basis are. not prohibited from voticg in that
capacity.' ,
., ...,., " '
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, m6ther;" son, daughter: husband! wife, brother, sister:father-in-Iaw,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter:in-Iaw. A "business associate" means any person or' ell.tity e,nflaQ€ld i!1 orq;lrrying qn B business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, ot 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 min-
utes 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.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. 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)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read pub!icly at the next meeting,after the form is filed. ,
",,-' > ,.', . ..; . "-'-,' " ':. ,~. \ ." .'~-" - ., ,.',
'fi= YOU Mi\IKE'NOATT~MPTroiNFLuENCETHE DECISION'EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT'THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the mea~ure before participating. ' , , '
. You must complete the form and .file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with t,h,e p~r~Qn;"espo.nsjbte1.01' /ecordJng tHe minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the;forril.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,
'Dor~~1'\ 1:>: PQuto
, hereby disclose that on
Sept.
,~
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
Vinured 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
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
L-LA. C: U>Q~ - E>ec!>O~
~OOl, 8~~ ct ':50 WOcDd.l~lI\ st.
:c (!)wn 1>~P~
~~~t.d:. rl>~ ~
f r'\ "ob., ~ a:~ V\ ~ p-
MI/.. 0f1> Yl) vU ·
;,.,.., ~:e- f"bm', )C'~ ~ ~
m.~ L ~ L\..("' 6... ~ ?P('~ D-t
~ f~ ~~ ~ .. ('"-e,~
Date Filed S eft,
If> 2-D 0 "==l-
I
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF, 1/2000
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: September 18, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM atem 1 ):
1.
C~: FLD2007-03007 - 685,689,693 and 699 Bay Esplanade
/
'/ Yes
no
LEVEL TWO APPLCICATIONS (Items 1 -3 )
1.
Cr: FLD2007 -03009 - 2094 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
V Yes no
2. Case: FLD2007-07025 - 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Case: DV A2007-00003 - 410 North Fort
Harri;7:nue
Yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATION atem 1):
1. Case: LUZ2006-08006 - 802, 826, and 830 Woodlawn Street, and an unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200 (826 Woodlawn Street is the entire subdivision of Woodlawn Terrace I, A Condominium
as re~ in Condominium Plat Book 92, Page 32 of the public records of Pine lIas County, Florida)
Yes no
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL atem 1):
1. \ ere: APP2007-00002 - 304 Spring cou~
~Yes no ~<.
Signature: <
S:\Planning De
.. Date: 9 //( /0)
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc' '
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: September 18, 2007
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
CONTINUED ITEM Utem 1):
1. , 7..e: FLD2007-03007 - 685,689,693 and 699 Bay Esplanade
--f-ves no
LEVEL TWO APPLCICATIONS (Items 1 -3 )
1. Case: FLD2007-03009 - 2094 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
. !
*ves no
2. Case: FLD2007-07025 - 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue & Case: DV A2007-00003 - 410 North Fort
Harrison Avenue
+y~
no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATION Utem 1):
1. Case: LUZ2006-08006 - 802, 826, and 830 Woodlawn Street, and an unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200 (826 Woodlawn Street is the entire subdivision of Woodlawn Terrace I, A Condominium
as recorded in condo1ium Plat Book 92, Page 32 of the public records of Pin ell as County, Florida)
Yes no
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL Otem 1):
1. Case: APP2007 -00002 - 304 Spring Court
~ves
no
'",
". '~"" "-
\~ ~
Signature: \ c...) ~ Date: ') -I ~ . 6!
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc