Loading...
09/21/2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER September 21, 2021 Present: Chair Mary A. Lau, Vice Chair John Quattrocki, Board Member Michael Boutzoukas, Board Member Mike Flanery, Board Member Brian Barker, Acting Board Member Muhammad Abdur-Rahim Absent: Board Member Jordan Behar, Board Member Andrew Park Also Present - Jay Daigneault—Attorney for the Board, Matthew Mytych —Assistant City Attorney, Gina Clayton — Planning & Development Director, Patricia O. Sullivan — Board Reporter A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Main Library followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. B. ROLL CALL: C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: August 17, 2021 Member Boutzoukas moved to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2021 Community Development Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Lisa Lanza said last night's Tarpon Springs Planning & Zoning Board meeting began at 7:00 p.m.; the board based its decision on the Comp Plan, not the Code. She said the CDB (Community Development Board) should schedule meetings with high public interest at night so all people could attend. She said the CDB should change its name to the Planning & Zoning Board, as it better describes board responsibilities & purpose. E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2021-04012 — 1002 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application Owner(s): Ellen K Bilgore Applicant/Representative: Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq.; Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A.; email: bia(o)macfar.com; phone: (727) 444-1403. Location: 1002 Eldorado Avenue; 0.143 acre property located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 50 feet north of the intersection with Island Drive. Community Development 2021-09-21 1 Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed pool/pool deck to be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for a single family home in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district for the property located at 1002 Eldorado Avenue. The proposed pool will be 12 inches or less in height from the existing grade. The project requests allowable flexibility from setback requirements and to allow new construction seaward of the CCCL (Community Development Code Sections 2-204.E and 3-905). Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners and Clearwater Beach. Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu, LEED AP, Senior Planner Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. Member Quattrocki moved to approve Case FLD2021-04012 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. The motion was duly seconded. Members Quattrocki, Boutzoukas, Flanery, Acting Member Abdur-Rahim, and Chair Lau voted "Aye." Member Barker abstained. Motion carried F. CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 17, 2021 (ITEM 1) 1. Case: FLD2021-04011— 850 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application Owner(s): Decade Properties, Inc. Applicant/Representative: Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq.; Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A.; email: bia(a)macfar.com; phone: (727) 444-1403. Location: 0.661 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard approximately 500 feet east of Gulf Boulevard. Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed 60-room overnight accommodations and a 16-slip Marina Facility in the Tourist (T) District and Clearwater Pass Character District of Beach by Design for the property located at 850 Bayway Boulevard. The project is 80 feet in height (from DFE), includes a minimum of 80 off-street parking spaces and requests allowable flexibility from setbacks and height requirements and includes a Commercial Dock (accessory; 10 slips)/Marina Facility (non-accessory; 16 slips) Community Development Code Sections 2-803.G, 2-803.K, and 3-603. Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition; Board of County Commissioners Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner Jim Gifford requested Party Status. Member Boutzoukas moved to grant Jim Gifford Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Rudy Michalek requested Party Status. Community Development 2021-09-21 2 Member Barker moved to grant Rudy Michalek Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Donna O'Brien requested Party Status. Member Boutzoukas moved to grant Donna O'Brien Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Christine Michalek requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Christine Michalek Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Nicole L'Heureux requested Party Status. Member Quattrocki moved to grant Nicole L'Heureux Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Vickie Worrell requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Vickie Worrell Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Charles Guss requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Charles Guss Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Miriam Oren requested Party Status. Member Boutzoukas moved to grant Miriam Oren Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mike Worrell requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Mike Worrell Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Andrew Fellios requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Andrew Fellios Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Michael Oren requested Party Status. Community Development 2021-09-21 3 Member Boutzoukas moved to grant Michael Oren Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Susan Watt requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Susan Watt Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Robert Watt requested Party Status. Member Boutzoukas moved to grant Robert Watt Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Samuel Hutkin requested Party Status on behalf of the Clearwater Beach Association. Member Barker moved to grant Samuel Hutkin Party Status on behalf of the Clearwater Beach Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. William Jonson requested Party Status on behalf of the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Member Quattrocki moved to grant William Jonson Party Status on behalf of the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Quattrocki moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning, land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments, landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Senior Planner Mark Parry reviewed the Staff Report. The project was in the Clearwater Pass South Beach District of Beach by Design. The site, zoned Tourist, was across the street from HDR (High Density Residential) zoning. In flood prone areas, a building's height is measured from DFE (Design Flood Elevation), which is BFE (Base Flood Elevation) plus 2 board feet. Calculation of the building's height does not include 16 feet of mechanicals on the roof. The advertisement for this case stated the building's height was based on BFE instead of DFE; the hotel will be 2 feet shorter than advertised. Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said the discrepancy did not affect the case. Mr. Parry said the development was consistent with the City's Comp Plan, the Clearwater Pass South Beach District of Beach by Design, and City development and flexibility standards. Planning Staff recommended approval. In response to questions, Mr. Parry said the hotel could use all boat slips as an accessory use, offering kayak and charter rentals for hotel guests only. Commercial Community Development 2021-09-21 4 uses will not be permitted for the 16 slips that can be leased or sold for privately owned boats. In February 2019, the City Council approved the Development Agreement and transfer of units from the reserve for this project. Use of parking spaces will be limited to registered hotel guests and authorized users of the marina facility. Attorney Brian Aungst, representing the property owner, requested the CDB accept the packet of evidence into the record and expert witnesses for the project. Member Boutzoukas moved to accept Robert Pergolizzi as an expert witness in planning and transportation planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Quattrocki moved to accept Robert Audi as an expert witness in architecture. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Barker moved to accept Michael Palmer as an expert witness in civil engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Boutzoukas moved to accept the package of evidence into the record. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Attorney Aungst said Beach by Design had classified the site's location as a designated strategic renovation area. He said the City Council had approved: 1) the project's Development Agreement, finding it consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2) , the transfer of 27 units to the property from the reserve; and 3) the conceptual site plan and elevations, determining the building would be 80 feet in height from BFE or 78 feet in height from DFE. He said 2 courts had upheld the City Council's decision. Attorney Aungst said a hotel had been onsite since the 1990s. He said project representatives met with the neighborhood and agreed to restrictions that addressed neighbor concerns. He said while the property's 28-slip marina next to the Clearwater Yacht Club had no restrictions, the project will implement restrictions in the Conditions of Approval. He said the restrictions will always be attached to the property. Robert Pergolizzi, representing the owner, reviewed his January 2021 traffic study done at peak time using the standard method used on Clearwater Beach; counts were averaged up to account for increased traffic during other times of year. He said the project will pay multimodal fees. He said the City Council had considered density during the approval process. Michael Palmer, representing the owner, reviewed the project's elevations and site plan design. He said all emails had been read. He said the developer cared about the Clearwater Point neighborhood which had an urban future land use plan. He said every property in the Clearwater Point neighborhood was zoned for buildings up to 100 feet in height above DFE. He said neighborhood high rises were 20 feet taller than the project. He said the development will not impact views from residential buildings down the street. Community Development 2021-09-21 5 Party Status Holder Jim Gifford said the application was not complete as required. He said the Clearwater Point neighborhood was a designed community with high rises in the interior and low rise buildings along the waterfront. He said the project will negatively affect his neighborhood due to its height, bulk, and waterfront location. He said the project did not meet every criteria required for a Level 2 development and should be denied. Party Status Holder Nicole L'Heureux said neighbors were not informed when the subject property was converted to a hotel. She said Beach by Design granted flexibility for development while increasing taxes for the City. She said the project did not conform with Beach by Design. She said the project was submitted 3 times in 3 years. She requested denial. Party Status Holder Donna O'Brien said the project would be 5 feet from the seawall; Pinellas County's amendment to the Florida Building Code prohibited construction within 18 feet of seawalls that cannot be reengineered or reconstructed. She said she could not find evidence of work on the seawall. She said while Traffic Engineering had stated the project should have no more than 2 curb cuts, the proposal had 3 curb cuts: 1) ingress; 2) egress; and 3) dumpsters. She expressed concern that Traffic Engineering later said the third curb cut was not an issue. She said dumpsters will slow traffic, contrary to Beach by Design requirements. Party Status Holder Miriam Oren said the project's Traffic Study concluded the project would significantly increase traffic in her small residential community. She said the large dumpster, trash trucks and vacationers would not minimize traffic as required. She said the Staff Report did not state the project would not be within 1,000 feet of a public parking garage as required. She said the site plan did not show a dedicated control room for fire equipment or rear access for emergency vehicles and personnel as required. She said the site plan showed palm trees and landscaping in the visibility triangle. Party Status Holder Mike Worrell said staff's job description did not obligate them to inform developers how to convince the CDB to approve projects. He said the project was not in harmony and was out of scale with adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity; the Clearwater Point neighborhood's character was senior residential. He said the project would not preserve or enhance his neighborhood's character as required. He said Clearwater Point had no commercial or retail uses. He said the 4 midrise buildings at Clearwater Point were in the interior and low rise buildings lined the shoreline. Party Status Holder Vickie Worrell said the application was inaccurate as it did not state that Clearwater Point had no retail services. She said Clearwater Point should be preserved; it was not part of Beach by Design as stated in the application. She said the large project would wall off the Intracoastal in conflict with Beach by Design requirements. She said the project did not comply with the requirement for a lobby with a front desk and internal corridor connecting to the overnight accommodations. She Community Development 2021-09-21 6 expressed concern several open corridors on the site plan contradicted the application which stated that all corridors were interior. Party Status Holder Michael Oren said the hotel lobby did not comply with Beach by Design requirements that it be staffed and provide access to the accommodations. He said a parking garage elevator sidestepped that requirement. He said the lobby's location in the back corner of the parking garage was tacky and would be difficult to access. He said project drawings did not show a primary pedestrian entrance centrally located on the hotel front facing Bayview Blvd. as stated in the Staff Report. He said Beach by Design had not envisioned an 80-foot mid-sized boutique hotel. Party Status Holder Robert Watt said Beach by Design required mid-sized hotels to have at least 120 rooms; this project only had 60. He questioned if units had been transferred to the site from the Edge property and if the project had a sufficient number of transferred units. He said the applicant had not provided substantial competent evidence or met the burden of proof that the project complied with Code and Beach by Design. He said application deficiencies included failure of the drawings to show marina restrooms and temporary storage. He suggested the marina might provide pump out services or fuel in contradiction to the Development Agreement. Party Status Holder Susan Watt expressed concern that boats in the marina could leak fuel. She questioned the point of having a Code if developers could ignore it. She cited compliance shortfalls: 1) the development did not attempt to follow Beach by Design mandates; 2) drawings were only partially in compliance 3) the project was not within 1,000 feet of a public parking garage; 4) the site plan did not show a control room for fire equipment; 5) the project was out of character with the neighborhood; 6) the entrance described in the Staff Report did not exist; 7) the project was insufficiently set back from the seawall; 8) the project needed to go back to the drawing board due to unanswered questions; and 9) the project could not be approved as the application was deficient, unsatisfactory, and flawed. Party Status Holder Charles Guss referenced the Pinellas County seawall setback requirement and expressed concerns the hotel would be too close to the seawall, it would not provide a pedestrian path similar to the path fronting nearby waterfront developments, and installation of building footings would cause tremors that will stress and crack the seawall and nearby buildings. He requested the Board oppose the project as the harm it could cause to nearby structures and seawalls was unknown. Party Status Holder William Jonson, representing the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, said the project's unique location was on a tourist zoned lot that extended into a residential district. He said the City Council adopted the Code in 1999 and amended it in 2005 to require developments to meet specific provisions, which this project did not. He said it was unfortunate that public comments were not accepted at DRC (Development Review Committee) meetings as uncertainties could have been resolved at that time. Community Development 2021-09-21 7 Party Status Holder Samuel Hutkin, representing the Clearwater Beach Association, said this decision would affect residents for decades. He said the developers tried to maximize the size of the building by locating it 5 feet from the seawall. He expressed concern the Fairfield Inn on North Clearwater Beach had obtained permits even though it pushed the framework of Beach by Design into a neighborhood. He questioned if the beach had sufficient infrastructure and police officers to handle an additional hotel along with problems associated with South Beach hotels. He said many beach residents were concerned the City did not listen to them. He said beach residents wanted to shrink development, especially those who have lived near this project for decades. Party Status Holder Rudy Michalek said the Chart House's application did not include financial information and should not have been approved. He said the purpose of the Code was to strengthen the City's economy and increase its tax base. He said the Chart House paid a fraction of beach resident taxes and increasing the building's size would only minimally increase City revenue. He requested the Board consider that the concrete monolith's minimum setbacks, lack of lawn or foliage, and increased traffic problems would reduce Clearwater Point property values by 10% as well as the City's future tax growth. He said the development would destroy the paradise that existed in his neighborhood enclave. Party Status Holder Andrew Fellios said his family began operating a South Clearwater Beach hotel and restaurant in the 1950s. He said after decades in the Devon Drive family home, his mother had moved off the beach when traffic increased significantly following extraordinary development. He said the Clearwater Point community provided an escape from beach activity, residents took pride in their walkable neighborhood, and they were unified to stop this hotel project which would logjam their traffic. He said the Traffic Study was poorly timed and its results were laughable as it manipulated numbers to underreport the massive increase in traffic that will be associated with hotel. He said Clearwater Beach traffic was gridlocked on weekends and he had to ride his bicycle on Sundays to get around. Party Status Holder Christine Michalek said the Courtyard by Marriott development was being constructed with a 15 to 20 foot setback from the seawall. She said this proposal was flawed and did not follow regulations. She said her poor community was struggling against a wealthy developer and expressed concern the Board would mistreat them. She requested the Board deny the request. In response to questions from Attorney Aungst: Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said the City Council had approved the site's 60-unit density; the CDB was not tasked with reconsidering density. The Courtyard by Marriott development was in a separate Beach by Design character district. Mr. Parry said the 178 page application was detailed. Beach by Design had designated Clearwater Point for revitalization. It was not uncommon for projects to issue initial Community Development 2021-09-21 8 completeness letters. When plans were completed, the DRC reviewed projects with staff providing comments; applications were later resubmitted with responses to staff comments. Applications were submitted to the CDB once they were legally sufficient. It was common for staff to review multiple sets of plans during the approval process; only the January 8, 2021 submission for this project was being considered. The final submittal was complete and sufficient. The applicant had worked on the project for 3 years. There was no evidence the applicant had tried to skirt Beach by Design or Comp Plan rules. Party Status Holder accusations that he had colluded with applicants were untrue; he provided complete information to all citizens and property owners. He did not consider the review process to be adversarial; his goal was to make certain that all projects and permits met all zoning requirements. For Level Two cases, a rear setback could be reduced to 0. Changes to the marina required a Level Two hearing. If the CDB approved the application, the property owner would move forward with a building application which required submittals, inspections, and finally a Certificate of Occupancy. CDB approval of the rear setback would not override structural requirements; the applicant needed to submit full construction documents and all seawall details to the Building Official. The seawall's condition was not a CDB concern. The application complied with flexibility criteria for overnight accommodations and a marina. Nearby public parking was not required because onsite parking was sufficient to meet Code. Conditions of Approval listed the deed restrictions. Mr. Parry said the hotel will have an enclosed lobby with a front desk and access to accommodations. No units had ever been transferred from the site. No pump outs will be permitted at the marina. Marina restrooms will be connected to City sewer. The property owner could have requested a taller building. There was no requirement for applicants to present financial records; the property owner had estimated the project would create 25 jobs. Attorney Daigneault said staff who did not testify previously were not subject to cross- examination. Mr. Parry said the 3 project curb cuts were for ingress, egress, and Solid Waste access to the dumpsters. He said Traffic Engineering indicated satisfaction with the one-way d riveways. The CDB recessed from 3:17 to 3:32 p.m. In response to questions from Party Status Holders: Mr. Parry said he did not know the type of footings proposed. Each page of an application did not require a signature. An affidavit of authorization was submitted. Attorney Mytych said the Code did not define the word harmony; staff depended on the dictionary definition. Community Development 2021-09-21 9 Mr. Parry said when he reviewed general applicability criteria, he considered the desired character of an area bound by the overriding special area plan in Beach by Design. No new beach hotels would have been built had they had to be consistent with the existing character of mom-and-pop motels. The project was consistent with the desired and existing character of the area based on Beach by Design character district design guidelines. The project will meet FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) guidelines; currently the property does not. Mr. Parry said the Pinellas County Building Code's seawall setback requirement was structural and differed from zoning setbacks. The setback from the seawall may be reduced at the Building Official's discretion based on the seawall's construction and the building's weight and lateral pressures. That decision will be made during the permit phase after the owner submits all documents required by the Building Official. Traffic Engineering did not permit 2 two-way driveways but did approve curb cuts for 1) ingress; 2) egress; and 3) Solid Waste dumpster access. Mr. Parry said the applicant did not request flexibility for parking. As the number of onsite parking spaces met Code, a requirement for the project to be within 1,000 feet of a public parking garage did not apply. He was unaware of any mixed-use development in South Clearwater Beach. The Clearwater Pass South Beach District of Beach by Design included Clearwater Point which was zoned High Density Residential; the subject site and abutting empty lot were zoned Tourist. Beach by Design encouraged hotel development. Ms. Clayton said the City Council had made units from the reserve available to all non- resort properties covered by Beach by Design; the reserve was created to incentivize the development of non-resort hotels to replace mom-and-pop motels. Hotels requesting reserve units were not required to have 120 rooms. Mr. Parry said guests will be able to access accommodations via the lobby; not every building elevator must be in the lobby. The most recent submission for this project showed all hallways were enclosed. He told all developers the additional information needed when incomplete applications were submitted and answered all resident emails requesting project information. Architect Robert Audi, representing the property owner, said the addendum clarifying that passageways to all rooms were air-conditioned was submitted in 2019. Attorney Aungst said the City Council had determined the project's conceptual design was consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Pergolizzi said the project was in an area of mixed heights, including a 9-story residential property on Bayway Boulevard in the center of Clearwater Point. He said project step backs and setbacks met Beach by Design requirements. He said the site's ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio) was 83% where up to 95% was permitted. He said the City Council had not been provided a level of detail that included density drawings of Community Development 2021-09-21 10 adjoining properties. He said the project would not discourage the development or redevelopment of adjacent properties. He said the mix of uses in the Clearwater Pass neighborhood included retail, hotel, motel, a yacht club, vacant lot and 3-story and 9- story residential properties. He said the project was due west of the 3-story residential properties down the street and would not affect their views. Mr. Parry said the CDB had to approve requests for 0 rear setbacks, subject to Code criteria. The easily identifiable entrance to the hotel was not in the center of the building. The Staff Report summarized the project's adherence to all required elements of the Code. Projects must go through a process to qualify for reserve units. The CDB approved TDRs (Transfers of Development Rights) to qualified developments; sending site deed restrictions, approved by court, reduced the number of permitted units on that sending site. Edge units were never transferred as the receiving site was not built. Mr. Parry said the applicant had not submitted an engineering study on the seawall's condition or project foundation; these studies were not required at this point in the process. The yacht club and police substation were east of Gulf Blvd. The Courtyard by Marriott development in the Beach by Design Marina Character District was required to construct an accessible public boardwalk; the subject project did not have that requirement. Properties surrounding the project were not redeveloped under Beach by Design and did not meet FEMA regulations. A nearby property's 20-foot setback from the seawall was based on its developer's design. Mr. Parry said an environmental impact study was not required; the Code and Beach by Design established study requirements. The City's Environmental Specialist had reviewed the project and expressed no concerns. The dock will not be moved and he did not anticipate the project would impact waterways or seagrass. Silt fences will be required to prevent environmental degradation. The CDB was responsible for determining if projects met Beach by Design guidelines, flexibility criteria, and the Code. The project had a different footprint than the current structure; there was no requirement for the project to remain within the current footprint. Discussion ensued with comments that ingress and egress uses differed from dumpster access. Concern was expressed that Clearwater Point residents had not been advised before its adoption that Beach by Design could allow their neighborhood to resemble Sand Key. In response to Board questions, Mr. Parry said this project was before the CDB because: 1) the building would be taller than 50 feet; 2) the reduction of the rear setback; and 3) use of 16 marina slips. He did not know if a smaller project would be feasible on this site. Beach by Design flexibility permitted added height for Tourist- zoned properties. The entire Beach by Design area was designated as a high intensity activity center on the Countywide Land Use Map. The request was reasonable; minimum development was not an option for Tourist zoned properties. He did not think the project would set precedent as Clearwater Point property owners were allowed to replace the residential structures with residential buildings up to 100 feet in height. Community Development 2021-09-21 11 A resident stated it was important to trust the CDB's decision. He said City departments had vetted the project before it was presented to the CDB and the Code was written to be in the best interest of the City and citizens. A resident expressed concern that stormwater had overwhelmed the Marshall Street Plant and questioned when the wastewater or stormwater master plans were updated. She said the name "Community Development Board" was a misnomer. She said infrastructure referenced in Beach by Design had not been built. Party Status Holder William Jonson, representing the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, expressed concern that residents had purchased their homes 40 years ago without knowing that nearby development could reach 100 feet in height. He reviewed the development of Beach by Design stating that the City needed to consider consequences of developing properties abutting lower density zoning. He said the application of quality standards was not as rigorous as the original intent of Code. He said no quantifiable evidence was provided re adjoining properties. He expressed concern the application was not available for public review. Party Status Holder Jim Gifford expressed concern that residents were unable to present their strong case against the project during cross-examination. He said the project would be not be in harmony with the scale of adjacent properties. He said sections of the Code's general standards disqualified the project from requesting flexibility; the project was not consistent with the vacant lot next door. Party Status Holder Samuel Hutkin, representing the Clearwater Beach Association, said the Code had been updated many times. He said Beach by Design could be tweaked. He said the City Council had approved the density credit by a 3:2 vote. He encouraged the CDB to consider minimizing flexibility for side and rear elevations. Party Status Holder Susan Watt questioned which Traffic Engineering decision was correct, the one opposed to more than 2 curb cuts or the one supporting 3 curb cuts. She said she could not locate the project's exemption from the requirement that it be within 1,000 feet from a public parking garage. She said the Edge had received transferred units. She said the project did not have a front entrance as a ramp was in the center of the building. She expressed concern pedestrians would have to walk 60 feet through the parking garage to reach the lobby. She said the elevator in the parking garage did not go through the lobby as required. Attorney Aungst said the application had been vetted more thoroughly than any other. He said 2 courts had upheld the City Council's approval of the transfer of units from the reserve and the project's Development Agreement. He said deed restrictions on accessory uses were attached to the property forever. He said the building could not be shorter due to parking requirements. He said the City Council had approved the project's conceptual plan to be 80 feet in height above BFE. He said it had taken the property owner 3 years to reach this point. He expressed admiration for project Community Development 2021-09-21 12 opponents who made the applicants show their work, including how each Code standard was met. He said no expert testimony was presented on behalf of the public. Discussion ensued with comments: 1) the project was not consistent with the community character or in harmony with the area; 2) the CDB was not an escape hatch for developers; 3) the owner had submitted a detailed development agreement which staff scrutinized to verify the project met all applicable criteria; 4) the City Council had approved Beach by Design, and 5) the project met Beach by Design requirements. Discussion ensued with comments: 1) it was rare for a property to be bound with deed restrictions forever; 2) the project will impact nearby residents who raised some valid concerns; 3) the dock would not be changed; 4) the seawall would be inspected; 5) some studies and construction drawings were not required before project approval due to substantial costs involved; 6) the engineering plan will be necessary to support a rear setback reduction; 7) Code permitted a curb cut for Solid Waste access; 8) harmony was a subjective term; 9) this was not the first application for a hotel adjoining residential properties; 10) developer compromises were not typical for hotel uses on the beach; and 11) the property owner had met the burden of proof. The community was thanked for their participation and complimented for the organization of their presentations. The City was encouraged to tweak the Code to provide transitions between zoning districts as impacts to properties adjoining higher density zoning can be significant. Staff was thanked for their efforts. It was felt that the lack of response to some emails to staff was not intentional. Empathy was expressed for Clearwater Point resident concerns. It was suggested that residents could approach the City Council to argue for changes to the Code and Beach by Design. In response to a question, Attorney Daigneault said Code did not require the CDB to add conditions of approval. Discussion ensued with comments: 1) the Building Official would review and approve the project's structural integrity and construction impacts on nearby buildings; 2) resident concerns for impacts on traffic safety and noise were acknowledged; 3) project parking will be limited to marina users and hotel guests; 4) the hotel would not offer amenities that attract beach goers; 5) the site's zoning and development agreement existed before today; and 6) the property owner had the right to develop the property according to its zoning classification. Community Development 2021-09-21 13 Member Barker moved to approve Case FLD2021-04011 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Quattrocki, Boutzoukas, Barker, Acting Member Abdur-Rahim, and Chair Lau voted "Aye"; Member Flanery voted "Nay." Motion carried. G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. H. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Attest: B 1 Ch Co 'Way Development Board Community Development 2021-09-21 14 WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies 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 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 would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a 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 (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating 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 page 2) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C. PAGE 1 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST , —FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAM 1 MALI ADDRESS 3 g 44/4111,r C 4 NAME OF BOARD, COUNCI COMMISSION, A THORITY, OR OMMITTEEE /y� Coh�ihl Up he -t/ r Xd THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AU TY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 ERVE ISA UNIT OF: //r4hl ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY ^ L/e--Ar� Us- �/� COUNTY F/ GI E OF POUTIC • S JBDIVISION: i / DATE ON WHICH VOTE URR /1I�2 / MY POSITION IS: 0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies 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 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 would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a 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 (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating 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 page 2) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C. PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST , hereby disclose that on 2 ,20 2/: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) inured to my special private gain or Toss; inured to the special gain or Toss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative `x inured to the special gain or loss of 1).0.11-7 9 A- ,c, Cp,,..( I �• / , by whom I am retained; or iq/`j e/er rirr- 714,41'._ I /I / h%�OJ'&...f/ �Gr inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling 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: e er- o f Con/ 1(r - 0 r0 h/%/1'` r �„'�� � GF-7itiWiEtSigi**g5Mige4W411"45r- 20 2 / - 090/ Z �t ONO /Qoz /#6 If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules goveming attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attomey, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, 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 PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 86 - EFF. 11/2013 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C. PAGE 2 CITY OF CLEARWATER CLEAR\LATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLE'ARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE `VENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (72 562-4567 TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 21, 2021 DATE: September 16, 2021 Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following: Unapproved minutes of August 17, 2021 will be emailed to you Level Two Avolications (Items 1-2) 1. FLD2021-04011— 850 Bayway Boulevard Assigned Planner: Mark Parry ICP, Senior Planner Yes: No: 2. FLD2021-04012 —1002 Eldorado Assigned Planner: Vinod Ka EED AP, Senior Planner Yes: No: I have conducted a Dersonal investigati Signature: Date: ,9/2./2/ Print Name: r /bvv\ Z,7,0 Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Assistant on the personal site visit to the following properties. CITY OF CLEARWATER CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENGE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE C727) 562-4567 TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 21, 2021 DATE: September 16, 2021 Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following: Unapproved minutes of August 17, 2021 will be emailed to you Level Two Applications (Items 1-2) 1. FLD2021-04 11— 850 Bayway Boulevard Assigned anner: Mark Parry, AICP, Senior Planner Yes: No: 2. FLD2021-04012 —1002 Eldorado Assigne tanner: Vinod Kadu, LEED AP, Senior Planner Yes: No: I have conducte pe •onal " v tigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Cb4k, Date: Print Name:owLaName: C) Prepared by: Sherry L. WatkiasjAdministrative Assistant INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER Name: Address: City: Zip: Telephone Number: Email Address: h S ct A Ga.,0,Zd1, 6 / • C0 1'vV Speaking under citizens to be heard re items not on the agenday74 Agenda item(s) to which you wish to speak. �-` pi B' I '/ c 1)3 s A c /74) P% , n� -rarpeP Z- irr-41 What is your position on the item? For Against WAS v R ced ,r Nike re s Ed � !� 7j�• 1otie_ stile r D% e.G1S c Citizen Comment Card 1 i 5 2