01/15/2008
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 15, 2008
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Kathy Milam Vice-Chair
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Neil Thompson Planning Manager
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order
.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 18, 2007
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of December 18, 2007, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DREQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1)
. Level Three Application
Case:
REZ2007-10001 – 1201, 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
(Continued from the meeting of December 18, 2007)
Owner/Applicant:
Andrew R. Duff TRE Trust 2020229 and D. A. Bennett Company.
Representative:
E. D. Armstrong, III, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O. Box
1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; telephone: 727-461-1818).
Location:
Approximately 7.73 acres located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard
approximately 1,800 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge.
Atlas Page:
294A and 303B.
Request
: Application for a Zoning Atlas amendment from the Business (B) District to the Tourist
(T) District.
Existing Uses:
Overnight Accommodations, Retail Sales and Services, Restaurant and Office.
Neighborhood Association(s):
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Sand Key Civic Association (Mike Dooley, President,
P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter:
Steven Everitt, Planner II.
Ed Armstrong, representative, stated the applicant requests a continuance, as the
project is being reformulated. He said this is the applicant’s first request for a continuance. He
Community Development 2008-01-15 1
said the project involves two parcels. The Marriott’s contract to purchase one of the parcels is
no longer valid. A rezoning request and a separate application will be brought forth.
Member Dame moved to continue Case REZ2007-10001 to February 19, 2008. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case: –
APP2007-00003403 Magnolia Drive (Continued from December 18, 2007)
Owner/Appellant:
Kiely M. Allen.
Representative:
Jeff Smith, J.W. Smith Design Group, LLC (35095 U.S. Highway 19 North,
Suite101, Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-785-4441; fax: 727-789-6275; e-mail:
roger@jwsmithdesign.com).
Location:
0.54-acre property located at the southeast corner of Magnolia Drive and Bay
Avenue.
Atlas Page:
295B.
Zoning:
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request:
An appeal from a Level One (flexible standard development) approval decision
pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-501.A.3, that a requested
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to building) as a Residential Infill
Project is inconsistent with the Flexibility Criteria as set forth in CDC Sections 2-203.B.1.a and
2-203.B.1.c, as well as, the General Standards for Level One Approvals as set forth in CDC
Sections 3-913.A.1 and 3-913.A.5.
Proposed Use:
Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s):
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Member DiPolito recused herself.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the areas of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner Robert Tefft reviewed the request. At its meeting of December 18, 2007, the
Community Development Board (CDB) heard an appeal on this application. The CDB elected
to give the appellant a continuance to the following meeting of January 15, 2008, in order to
provide further information regarding the case.
On January 9, 2008, the appellant submitted additional evidence to the Planning
Department regarding their application. Upon review of this evidence, staff has made the
following findings:
The evidence provided does not address the findings the CDB is required to make in
order to grant an appeal. Most notably, no evidence had been provided by the appellant that
the decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this
development code.
The evidence provided attempts to address the criteria upon which the Flexible Standard
Development application was initially denied: CDC Sections 2-203.B.1.a and c, and 3-913.A.1
and 5.
Community Development 2008-01-15 2
The evidence provided, in the opinion of staff, does not necessarily give a true account
of the neighborhood. The aerial photographs/GIS information depict property lines that bisect
existing buildings and driveways. Therefore the relationship between the aerial photograph and
the property lines overlaid upon it is questionable, and consequently the setbacks being
presented as evidence must be questionable as well. A further example is the property located
at 310 Lotus Path, which as per the evidence submitted by the appellant, has a front setback of
22.17 feet. However, pursuant to a signed/sealed survey provided as part of the permit
BCP2002-03336, the front setback is actually 25.6 feet.
The evidence provided takes into account a neighborhood comprised of 86 residentially
used parcels, and of those 86 parcels only 15 were identified as having a setback of less than
25 feet. This accounts for 17.44% of the total parcels. Conversely, when only the 18 residential
parcels on Magnolia Drive were considered, three, or 16.66%, were similarly identified. As
such, the evidence provided by the appellant still supports the position that a regular/uniform
setback of 25 feet or greater has been established in the neighborhood and a reduced setback
would be inconsistent with that setback as well as the character of the neighborhood.
Based upon the above, staff finds that the appellant has not provided substantial,
competent evidence that the decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
provisions of this development code; and further stands by its original findings that the approval
of the Level One Flexible Standard Development application to reduce the front (north) setback
from 25 feet to 20 feet (to building) would be inconsistent with the Flexibility Criteria as set forth
in CDC Sections 2-203.B.1.a and 2-203.B.1.c, as well as, the General Standards for Level One
Approvals as set forth in CDC Sections 3-913.A.1 and 3-913.A.5.
The 0.54-acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Magnolia Drive and
Bay Avenue within the Harbor Oaks subdivision. The property consists of a single-family
detached dwelling that, according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office, was
constructed in 1925, although the building and property have been subsequently
updated/improved.
On August 3, 2007, a Flexible Standard Development application was submitted for a
Residential Infill Project to allow an addition for the existing detached dwelling with a reduction
to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building). The applicant amended this
request following the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting of September 6, 2007,
changing the requested reduction from 10 feet to 20 feet.
Following the amendment of the application, City staff conducted a review of the
proposal and identified several issues. The review conducted by the Planning Department
noted that pursuant to CDC Section 2-203.B.1.a, a determination of the front setback shall
consider the extent to which existing structures in the neighborhood have been constructed to a
regular or uniform setback from the right-of-way. The application indicated that the proposal
would be in keeping with the detached dwelling and privacy wall located 20 feet from the front
property line on the abutting parcel to the east at 415 Magnolia Drive, as well as the properties
located at 314 and 322 Magnolia Drive. However, other than this statement no evidence was
provided to substantiate the claim or indicate what those setbacks might be at 314 and 322
Magnolia Drive. As such, staff commented that further evidence (such as a block survey)
needed to be provided that the proposed building addition at a setback of 20 feet will be
consistent with a regular/uniform setback already established by structures in the neighborhood.
In addition to the above, the Planning Department also noted that pursuant to CDC Section 2-
Community Development 2008-01-15 3
203.B.1.c, the reduction in front setback shall be consistent with neighborhood character. No
evidence addressing this criterion other than that previously noted was provided in the
application. As such, staff commented that evidence (such as a block survey) needed to be
provided that existing structures in the neighborhood have been constructed at a setback
consistent with the proposed 20-foot setback.
On October 4, 2007, the DRC met with the property owner and designated agent for the
subject development proposal to discuss staff’s comments on the proposal. The Planning
Department comments provided at the meeting identified certain criteria that needed to be
satisfactorily addressed for the application to be approved. Those comments further stated that
the criteria needed to be addressed (through revised plans and/or application materials) by
October 15, 2007 with a final determination on the application to be made no later than
November 1, 2007. During the course of the meeting the owner/agent indicated that evidence
in support of the reduced front setback had already been submitted to the case planner, who
was not in attendance at the DRC meeting. This evidence was indicated as addressing the
criteria set forth in CDC Sections 2-203.B.1.a, 2-203.B.1.b, and 2-203.B.1.c. The DRC
mistakenly accepted this statement that evidence addressing the comments had been provided
and while the owner/agent had provided evidence, it was, in fact, that same evidence that the
comment was based upon. Upon being questioned by the agent, the DRC further indicated that
the submittal of additional evidence to address those comments would not be necessary.
Additionally, the DRC indicated to the owner/agent that following a consultation with the case
planner, if there were no outstanding issues with the proposal, then a development order
approving the application would be issued the next week.
Subsequent to the DRC meeting, the evidence submitted by the owner/agent during the
course of the meeting was reviewed by the case planner. The evidence was found to reference
setbacks for the same three properties as the evidence having previously been submitted in the
application with the addition of another property, 304 Magnolia Drive. However, the evidence
on the new property was determined to be irrelevant to the request as it pertained to a five-foot
high wall, the setbacks for which are governed by a different section of the CDC. The evidence
provided stated that there are three properties along Magnolia Drive with a setback of 20 feet;
however there are 18 properties that front on Magnolia Drive (not including the subject
property). The position of the Planning Department is that a 20-foot front setback for three of
the 18 properties does not constitute a regular or uniform setback in the neighborhood that
would support the request. In contrast, the evidence provided supported the position that a
regular/uniform setback of 25 feet or greater had been established in the neighborhood and a
reduced setback would be inconsistent with that setback as well as the character of the
neighborhood. Therefore, on October 23, 2007, the Planning Department issued a letter to the
designated agent for the project, that the information provided at the DRC meeting did not
sufficiently address the Planning Department’s comments concerning the application, and
further indicated that those comments needed to be sufficiently addressed prior to the issuance
of a development order approving the application.
Subsequently, Planning Department staff discussed the letter of October 23rd with the
agent as well as those events that transpired at the DRC meeting. It was relayed to the agent
that while the DRC may have indicated that no further evidence was required, it was done in
error due to confusion over what had already been provided by the owner/agent and what was
actually being provided at the meeting. It was also relayed that even though the DRC may have
indicated that the application was to be approved, it is not within the powers of the DRC to
actually approve an application, and that the DRC only acts as a recommending body to the
Community Development 2008-01-15 4
Community Development Coordinator, who is ultimately responsible for the approval or denial of
a Level One (flexible standard development) application.
On November 1, 2007, in the absence of the submittal of further evidence sufficient to
make positive findings concerning the application, the Community Development Coordinator
issued a development order denying the application. The development order stated that
positive findings could not be made with regard to the application, and the application was
therefore denied based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.54-acre subject property is located at the southeast
corner of Magnolia Drive and Bay Avenue; 2) That the subject property is located within the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use
Plan category; 3) That there are no active Code Enforcement violations associated with the
subject property; 4) That the request to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet
requires that positive findings be made with regard to the Flexibility Criteria set forth in CDC
Section 2-203.B; and 5) That the request to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20
feet requires that positive findings be made with regard to the General Applicability Criteria set
forth in CDC Section 3-913.A.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section
2-203.B.1.a, in that a determination of the front setback shall consider the extent to which
existing structures in the neighborhood have been constructed to a regular or uniform setback
from the right-of-way; 2) That the development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section 2-
203.B.1.c, in that the reduction in front setback shall be consistent with neighborhood character;
3) That the development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section 3-913.A.1, in that the
proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and
character of adjacent properties in which it is located; and 4) That the development proposal is
inconsistent with CDC Section 3-913.A.5, in that the proposed development is consistent with
the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
An appeal from the above Level One Flexible Standard Development decision was filed
on behalf of the property owner by J.W. Smith Design Group, LLC on November 8, 2007,
consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.A.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-501.A.3, the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from Level One
(flexible standard development) decisions.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.A, the CDB shall review the application, the
recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public
hearing on the application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of CDC
Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or
denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.B, in order to grant an appeal, overturning
or modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial
competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the
following criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted
the provisions of this development code; 2) The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3) The decision of the CDB will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Community Development 2008-01-15 5
In response to questions, Mr. Tefft said although there was some confusion regarding
the application process, the information provided by the applicant to date is insufficient to
approve the application. He said prior to the DRC meeting, although staff suggested a block
survey would be one means of providing substantial evidence to support their case, staff did not
require the applicant to provide one. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said although
petitions, etc. from neighbors are considered during the review process, this is an appeal of a
previous decision to deny the request. A suggestion was made that the applicant obtain letters
of support from neighbors. It was felt that a precedent would be set if decisions were made
based upon all the neighbors in an area expressing their approval of a project.
Jeff Smith, representative, said the applicant submitted letters of support for this project
at the last CDB meeting. He said the applicant also provided GIS mapping to depict homes that
encroach into the setbacks in this neighborhood. He felt sufficient evidence has been presented
to support this request. He said four homes on Magnolia Drive encroach into the established
setbacks. He said approximately five years ago, staff told this applicant to go forward with the
process.
Kiely Allen, applicant, stated there are a number of homes on Bay Avenue with
freestanding garages that encroach into the established setbacks. She said when her home
was originally built the setbacks were not at 20 feet. She said at the last CDB meeting, the
negative vote was from the President of the homeowner’s association. She said the
homeowners were not polled regarding this project. She said her goal is to maintain the
integrity of Harbor Oaks and that this design is in the neighborhood’s best interests. She said
there is no regulation or standard regarding whether or not staff misconstrued the law, as staff is
rendering an opinion. She submitted a letter of support for the project. In response to a
question, Ms. Allen said there has never been a garage on the property. However, at one time
there was a carriage house on another parcel that had been part of this property.
Discussion ensued with comments that no one wants to set a precedent, that GIS
information is not completely accurate, that there are homes with similar setbacks in the
neighborhood as those being requested and therefore no precedent would be set, that staff did
not misconstrue or incorrectly interpret the provisions of the Code, that the Code does not
specify that a certain percentage of existing variances to setbacks is required prior to granting
additional variances, that the Code changed after variances to setbacks were granted to homes
in this area, and that the application should have been approved originally. In response to a
question, Mr. Tefft said there is no standard regarding the level at which a deviation from Code
becomes a new standard.
In response to a question, Ms. Grimes explained this is the first step in the appeal
process. She stated that in order to grant an appeal, overturn or modify the decision appealed
from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the
applicant or other party that each and every one of the following criteria in CDC Section 4-504.B
must be met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
provisions of this development code; 2) The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3) The decision of the CDB will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. She said to grant the appeal, the
CDB would need to find that staff misconstrued the Code in finding that setbacks were uniform,
that there were no uniform setbacks established based on evidence given, that this request
would not be inconsistent with the various setbacks in the neighborhood, and for that reason
staff did not correctly interpret or apply the Code.
Community Development 2008-01-15 6
Member Dame moved to grant the appeal, Case APP2007-00003, and reverse Staff’s
development order denying the application, based on the evidence and testimony presented in
the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the following
Findings of Fact based on said evidence and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the
application complies with the City Code Sections 2-203.b.1, 2-203.b.1.c , 3-913.a.1 and 3-
913.a.5. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Behar, Dame, and Chair Fritsch
voted “Aye”; Members Milam, Tallman, and Alternate Member Carlough voted “Nay”; Member
DiPolito abstained. Motion carried.
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 – 4):
1.
Pulled From Consent Agenda
Case:
FLD2007-09029 – 1310 Cleveland Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant:
Abdol Kheiriddine.
Representative:
Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 South Belcher
Road, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; fax 727-446-8036; e-mail:
renee@northsideengineering.com).
Location:
0.53 acre located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Fredrica Avenue.
Atlas Page:
287B.
Zoning District:
Commercial (C) District, East Gateway Character District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to
permit a retail sales/service and office use in the Commercial (C) District within the Downtown
East Gateway Character District with a reduction to the required front (south) setback from 25
feet to zero feet (to steps), a reduction to the required front (west) setback from 25 feet to zero
feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to parking lot),
a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to parking lot), an increase in the
allowable building height from 25 feet to 36 feet (to parapet) and a reduction to the required
parking spaces from 41 spaces to 33 spaces under the provision of Section 2-704.C. and a
reduction to the required front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, a reduction to
the required front (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to one foot, a reduction to the required
side (north) landscape buffer from 12 feet to six feet, a reduction to the required side (east)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to the required foundation landscaping
from five feet to zero feet and a reduction to required interior landscape from 10 percent to eight
percent under the provisions of a Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
Retail Sales and Services and Office.
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner Scott Kurleman reviewed the request. The 0.53-acre property is located on the
northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Fredrica Avenue. The property is within the
Commercial (C) District and is more specifically situated within the East Gateway Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Character District. This being the case, the proposal is
governed by the Commercial District zoning regarding intensity, density and height while also
being consistent with the East Gateway Character District policies. The subject property at the
Community Development 2008-01-15 7
southern portion includes an abandoned automobile service station and the northern portion is a
nonconforming parking lot. The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including offices,
manufacturing, duplexes and detached dwellings.
Two prior proposals to expand the automobile service station were unsuccessful as the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan prohibits automobile service stations and all types
of vehicle sales and service uses.
The development proposal consists of the demolition of the vacant automobile service
station and associated site improvements and the construction of a two-story building containing
6,325 square-feet of retail use and 4,859 square-feet of office use.
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the CDC, the maximum allowable F.A.R. for properties
with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. As such, the maximum development
potential of the 0.53-acre parcel is 12,757 square-feet. The proposal includes gross floor area
totaling 11,184 square-feet in size, which results in an F.A.R. of 0.48. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard
to the maximum allowable F.A.R.
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the CDC, the maximum allowable I.S.R. in the
Commercial District is 0.95. The proposed I.S.R. within the Commercial District is 0.85, which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the CDC, the minimum lot area for both office and retail sales
and services is 10,000 square-feet. The lot area for this proposal zoned Commercial District is
23,195 square-feet, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the CDC, within the Commercial (C) District, office and
retail sales and service uses are required to have a front setback of 25 feet, and a side setback
of 10 feet. However, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, there are no
minimum setback requirements.
As the parcel on which the use is proposed has frontage on two rights-of-way (Cleveland
Street and Fredrica Avenue), the parcel consists of two front setback areas and two side
setback areas. This parcel being located in both the Commercial District and the East Gateway
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Character District requires it to be as consistent as
possible with both sets of criteria. While the Commercial district has distinct setback
requirements there are none in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The
development proposal is requesting setback reductions on both fronts from 25 feet to zero feet
and side setback reductions on the north and east sides from 10 feet to six feet and from 10 feet
to five feet, respectively.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the CDC, the maximum allowable height is 25 – 50 feet. The
proposed development will have a building height of 36 feet to the parapet, which is consistent
with Code provisions.
Pursuant to Section 2-702 of the CDC, within the Commercial (C) District off-street
parking is required to be provided at a rate of five parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross
floor area for retail sales and service, and four parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross
floor area for offices. Therefore, the proposed 6,325 square-feet of retail floor area (32) and the
4,859 square-feet of office floor area (19) requires a total of 51 parking spaces. However,
Community Development 2008-01-15 8
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 following table depicts the development
proposals parking requirement as per the shared parking table:
Based upon the above, the development proposal requires 41 parking spaces. Thirty-
three spaces are proposed resulting in a deviation of eight spaces. The agent prepared a
parking demand study under the direction of the City’s Traffic Engineering department. The
study demonstrated that the proposed 33 parking spaces are sufficient to serve the proposed
development. Included in the study was information relating to the proposal being located in
one of the Downtown character districts therefore anticipating some patrons walking rather than
driving. Additionally, it is anticipated that future right-of-way redevelopment will include on street
parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, all outside mechanical equipment shall be
screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical
equipment will be located on the roof screened from public streets and/or abutting properties.
As such, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of
outdoor mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the CDC for development that does not involve a
subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground
unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of approval that all
on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are placed underground as part of
the redevelopment of the site.
The development proposal includes the provision of a 10-foot by 24-foot refuse
enclosure at the northeast corner of the parking lot. The proposed solid waste facility has been
found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
It is attached as a condition that any signage proposed for this development apply for approval
through the Comprehensive Sign Program.
The subject property is located within the East Gateway character district of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
envisions the district as a vibrant, stable, diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural
base and mixed land uses. It will continue to be developed as a low and medium density
residential neighborhood supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices
concentrated along the major corridors of Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street
and Missouri Avenue. The Plan further states that new commercial development should provide
employment opportunities for the district’s residents, as well as serve the daily commercial and
personal service needs of the neighborhood. Commercial and office development should be
redeveloped at a scale compatible with the neighborhood; consolidation of small obsolete
development parcels/buildings is encouraged to create an adequate lot size for modern
development standards.
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
Community Development 2008-01-15 9
these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were
identified:
The Downtown Design Guidelines state existing grid street patterns should be respected
as redevelopment occurs. The guidelines further state that lots should maintain a consistent
size, scale, pattern and rhythm of the surrounding blocks. This proposal maintains the existing
grid street pattern and the proposed building is consistent with both adjacent properties
regarding the size and build-to line along the block face.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the location, number and design of
driveways shall maintain the urban fabric of the downtown and that it is appropriate for vehicular
access to occur from secondary street frontages. The subject property presently consists of two
curb cuts along Cleveland Street and one along Fredrica Avenue. The development proposal
will eliminate both of the curb cuts along Cleveland Street. All ingress and egress to the site will
be from the two curb cuts on the secondary street, Fredrica Avenue. Based upon the scale of
the development, the number of curb cuts is adequate to serve the site while not being
excessive so as to be inconsistent with the fabric of the downtown, and the location and design
of the curb cuts will improve upon the existing urban fabric of the downtown and will be
consistent with the manner in which curb cuts have been previously approved in the downtown.
Further, the elimination of the curb cuts along Cleveland Street (the primary street frontage) and
the utilization of Fredrica Avenue (the secondary street frontage) for access is consistent with
the Guidelines. It is noted that presently, Fredrica Avenue is a one-way street. This street will
be converted back to a two-way street per the City’s Engineering Department.
The Guidelines further state that parking lots shall be located behind the primary façade
of the principle building and that parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way shall be screened by a
landscape buffer, solid wall, or fence that is three feet in height. The subject property has been
designed for all parking to be located behind the primary façade of the principle building and is
screened by a tiered landscape buffer containing podocarpus.
Lastly, the use of interlocking pavers, brick or other similarly textured materials are used
for parking lot surfacing and/or accents. Both ingress and egress drives have been designed to
have interlocking pavers accenting the parking lot. Based upon the above, the development
proposal complies with above applicable Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and
landscaped pedestrian pathways should be provided between streets, parking areas and
buildings. The development proposal provides safe, direct and convenient pedestrian pathways
on the south, west and north side of the building. Based upon the above, the development
proposal complies with above applicable Guideline.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless
communication facilities, loading and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the
site, located in the most unobtrusive location possible and buffered and screened appropriately.
The development proposal locates the loading area in the rear of the building near the east
property line with appropriate landscape buffering.
The mechanical equipment for the development will be located on the roof of the building
and screened by the proposed parapet walls. With regard to wireless communication facilities,
it has been attached as a condition of approval that any/all wireless communication facilities to
be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development are
Community Development 2008-01-15 10
screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as
applicable. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the
development proposal complies with above applicable Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be orientated toward the
street; thus contributing to pedestrian interest in the area. The subject property abuts two
rights-of-way, thereby making it quite difficult to create a building that is orientated toward each
street. As such, the proposed building has been oriented toward the primary abutting right-of-
way (Cleveland Street), and designed with access to the building from the secondary right-of-
way (Fredrica Avenue) also. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with
the above applicable Guideline.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to maintain the build-to line
of the development’s block, buildings orientated to face public rights-of-ways and developments
which provide coverage similar to surrounding properties and/or meet the desired vision of the
character district. As discussed previously, the development proposal locates the building at the
same build-to line as the two adjacent commercial properties and the building is orientated to
face Cleveland Street. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with the
above applicable Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary façades shall be the most highly
designed façades and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and recesses), architectural details,
variety in color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. Further,
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. Both façades have building wall projections and recesses, retail
entrances, variation in height and protruding front metal canopies and protruding stoops. In
addition, substantial variation in colors has been provided that in combination with one another
create a highly designed primary façade. Based upon the above, the development proposal is
in compliance with the above referenced Guidelines.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roofs shall be consistent with the style of
the building utilizing elements such as cornices, overhangs with brackets, stepped parapets,
richly textured materials, and/or differently colored materials. The proposed building consists of
a flat roof with a cohesive mixture of parapet designs including cornices and stringcourses of
differing colors. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the
above referenced Guideline.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that building materials shall be consistent with
and relate to the architectural style of the building. The majority of the building base exterior
consists of stucco finish system with pre-cast stringcourses, cornices and metal canopies as
accents. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above
referenced Guideline.
The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building colors
should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The color scheme for the
development proposal includes the use of a gray (Proper Gray, Sherwin Williams SW6003) for
the metal canopies and area just above them; a clay (Baked Clay, Sherwin Williams SW6340)
for the lower level building façade; a beige (Divine White, Sherwin Williams SW6105) for
portions of the upper level building façade and north facade; and a light green (Svelte Sage
SW6164) for the west façade. The proposed color scheme is appropriate for the architectural
Community Development 2008-01-15 11
style of the building. 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:
Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments.
The development proposal will result in 6,325 square-feet of retail space and 4,859 square-feet
of office space. The proposed redevelopment will generate new “traffic” that will help to
stimulate the surrounding neighborhoods and further this Vision statement.
Vision: Cleveland Street is downtown’s “Main Street” and is valued both for its historic
character/setting and as the major retail street. Although probably not considered “Main Street”
in this area, the proposal will have all retail space on the lower floor.
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 proposal will provide neighborhood and community-scale commercial uses and a
building located along and oriented towards the abutting streets. As such, the development
proposal will further this Vision statement.
Vision: An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses. As
previously discussed under the Off-Street Parking analysis, the development proposal requires
a total of 41 parking spaces and will provide 33 parking spaces on site. The agent performed a
parking demand study justifying the reduction, additionally it is anticipated that new on-street
parking will become available with the streetscape project.
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. The development proposal
consists of 6,325 square-feet of retail floor area and 4,859 square-feet of office floor area within
the East Gateway District making it both a shopping establishment and an employment
attractor. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this Goal.
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. Again, the development proposal will provide 6,325 square-feet of retail
use and 4,859 square-feet of office use. It is anticipated that the retail and possibly the office
uses will provide employment opportunities for Downtown residents; therefore the development
proposal will be consistent with this Objective.
Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to
pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the
provision of streetscaping along Cleveland Street and Fredrica Avenue that is consistent with
the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has
been achieved.
Policy 1: The Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in the Downtown with which all projects must
be consistent. The development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it
Community Development 2008-01-15 12
incorporates a stucco finish over concrete block construction with decorative E.I.F.S. trim and
accents. The flat roof of the building will be accented with decorative parapets. The building
design incorporates both vertical and horizontal architectural elements providing relief
throughout the elevations. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with
this Policy.
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. As discussed later in this staff report, the
development proposal is found to be in compliance with the policies governing development
within the East Gateway Character District. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent
with this Policy.
Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to
the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The proposed office and retail use
will establish a pedestrian scale building on the subject property abutting the Cleveland Street
and Fredrica Avenue rights-of-way. In addition the development proposal will also provide
streetscape improvements including landscaping, lighting and pavers. Based upon the above,
the development proposal is consistent with this Policy.
Policy 9: Projects located at or near the border of the Downtown Plan area shall use
effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer
between the different areas. The proposed project is directly east of the Downtown (D) zoning
while still within the East Gateway Character District. As discussed previously the building is to
be located at the same build-to line as the property to both the west and east. Based upon the
above, compliance with this Policy has been achieved.
Policy 11: Nonconforming uses are encouraged to relocate to a zoning district that
permits their use. The City shall explore all incentives and planning tools that will assist in the
relocation of nonconforming uses. Use of the CDC tool known as “Termination of Status as a
Nonconformity” is not permitted within the Downtown Plan area. The development proposal will
eliminate a nonconforming automobile service station. As mentioned above, two prior proposals
to expand this use were unsuccessful. The property owner did not desire to relocate this
nonconforming use. Based upon the above, compliance with this Policy has been achieved.
East Gateway District Policies: The following policies shall govern development within
the District, as well as City actions:
Any proposed rezoning and/or land use plan amendment with the East Gateway should
be consistent with this Plan. The subject property is not requesting rezoning and/or land use
plan amendment; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal.
The residential base including rental properties should be stabilized by providing for an
improved mix of affordable and market-rate housing options including infill developments,
rehabilitations, homeownership and rental housing choices. The subject property does not
include a residential base; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal.
The expansion of the existing Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (CHIP) facilities
should be supported as a Downtown “campus” that will address the emergency and transitional
housing needs of the Downtown homeless (within a structured/supervised program), and which
will prevent future intrusion of scattered homeless facilities throughout the neighborhood. The
Community Development 2008-01-15 13
development proposal does not involve the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project; therefore
this policy is not applicable to the development proposal.
The concentration of problematic uses, especially day labor facilities, should be reduced
through voluntary relocation or amortization. The development proposal does not involve a
problematic use; therefore, this policy is not applicable.
The rehabilitation of existing motels into residential apartments shall be prohibited. The
development proposal does not involve a motel; therefore, this policy is not applicable.
Foster a sense of neighborhood cohesion through urban design elements, as well as
through the creation of neighborhood associations. The subject property has been designed to
be a pedestrian orientated environment; therefore, compliance is achieved with this policy.
Attract and assist existing retail and personal service establishments in order to create
neighborhood employment opportunities. The subject proposal includes four retail/personal
service tenants and at least two office tenant spaces. Many of the tenant spaces could provide
neighborhood employment opportunities; therefore, compliance is achieved with this policy.
New development on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard shall be oriented toward the street to
encourage pedestrian activity. While not on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, the development is oriented
toward Cleveland Street with pedestrian friendly areas; therefore compliance is achieved with
this policy.
Evaluate limited expansions of the Commercial and Downtown zoning District
boundaries on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Cleveland Street that may create opportunities for
commercial expansions and/or redevelopment that is consistent with CDC requirements. The
subject proposal does not involve an expansion of either zoning boundaries; therefore, this
policy is not applicable.
Residential development fronting on Cleveland Street may only be permitted if part of a
mixed use development. The development proposal does not involve a residential component;
therefore, this policy is not applicable.
Encourage the assembly of vacant and underutilized properties, as well as the
demolition of deteriorated buildings to accommodate redevelopment projects that meet
Clearwater CDC Standards. The subject development proposal has combined two parcels and
is demolishing a vacant automobile service station; therefore, compliance is achieved with this
policy.
Encourage adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings in the event redevelopment is not
feasible. The subject proposal is for redevelopment; therefore, this policy is not applicable.
Provide neighborhood-wide education programs relating to housing maintenance and life
safety issues prior to conducting any systematic code enforcement program. The subject
proposal does not involve a code enforcement program; therefore, this policy is not applicable.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the CDC, this site is required a 15-foot wide
landscape buffer along Cleveland Street, a 10-foot landscape buffer along Fredrica Avenue, a
12-foot landscape buffer along the north side and a five-foot wide landscape buffer on the east
side. Buffers are to be planted with one (1) tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is
Community Development 2008-01-15 14
required. It is noted that these are buffer requirements for the Commercial zoning district.
Downtown zoning does not have buffering requirements. The proposal includes a reduction to
all landscape buffers as required in the Commercial district; however, landscaping has been
provided in all available space in the buffers. The requested buffer deviations are necessary to
meet the site design requirements of minimal building setbacks and larger pedestrian areas
required of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Likewise, the reductions to the
foundation landscape and interior landscape are necessitated to meet the site design
requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. While reductions have been
requested the landscape plan proposes over 600 shrubs and over 30 trees with the plantings in
a tiered effect resulting in a more attractive landscape than simply a row of shrubs and trees in
the buffers. The plantings have been chosen to both accent and highlight the architectural
features of the building and the downtown streetscape. This proposed landscape is a significant
enhancement to this corridor. Additionally, this landscape will have a beneficial impact on the
property values in the immediate vicinity, as there is little or no landscaping in the immediate
vicinity.
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.
As expressed above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found
to be consistent with all applicable criteria. The proposal will visually enhance views of the site
both by the traveling public, patrons and the surrounding primarily commercial neighborhood.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of October 4,
2007 and December 6, 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 0.53 total acres is located on the northeast corner of
Cleveland Street and Fredrica Avenue; 2) That the subject property has 100 feet of frontage
along Cleveland Street and 210 feet of frontage along Fredrica Avenue; 3) That the site is
located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use
Plan category; 4) That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as it is
located within the East Gateway character district; 5) That the applicant proposes a reduction in
parking from 41 spaces to 33 spaces, which is justified; 6) That the proposed landscaping will
be a significant enhancement for this corridor; and 7) That there are current outstanding Code
Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Design Guidelines; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-704.C;
3) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability Criteria as per
Section 3-913; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the East
Gateway character district; 5) That the development proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-
1202.G of CDC.
Community Development 2008-01-15 15
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to permit a retail
sales/service and office use in the Commercial (C) District within the Downtown East Gateway
District with a reduction to the required front (south) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to steps),
a reduction to the required front (west) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to sidewalk), a
reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to six feet (to parking lot), a reduction to the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to parking lot), an increase in the allowable building
height from 25 feet to 36 feet (to parapet) and a reduction to the required parking spaces from
41 spaces to 33 spaces under the provision of Section 2-704.C. and a reduction to the required
front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, a reduction to the required front (west)
landscape buffer from 10 feet to one foot, a reduction to the required side (north) landscape
buffer from 12 feet to six feet, a reduction to the required side (east) landscape buffer form five
feet to zero feet, a reduction to the required foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet
and a reduction to required interior landscape from 10 percent to eight percent under the
provisions of a Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G. with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Land
Resource conditions must be addressed; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits,
all Engineering conditions must be addressed; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, evidence of filing a recorded Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels
involved in the application (15-29-15-12276-002-0260 and 15-29-15-12276-002-0300) must be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 4) That prior to issuance of any
building permits, storefront doors and their design are approved by the Planning Department; 5)
That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all landscaping must installed to
the satisfaction of Staff; 6) That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on-
site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, must be placed underground; 7) That
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, a six foot high solid (three foot high
solid in the front setback) fence be installed along the entire north property line adjacent to the
residential district; 8) That the uses proposed are consistent with those permitted uses listed
within the CDC and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 9) That the final design
and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as
modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 10) That if the proposed project necessitates
infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements
and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant
and at their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the
installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire
Department requirements; 11) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all utility
equipment, including but not limited to electrical and water meters, is screened from view and/or
painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 12) 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; 13) That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work
performed in the public right-of-way; 14) That any/all future signage must be approved through
the Comprehensive Sign Program 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: 1) All
signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and
size, 2) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the
colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 3) That the first building permit be
Community Development 2008-01-15 16
applied for within one year of the CDB approval (by January 15, 2009); and 4) That the final
Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit.
Concern was expressed regarding the zero setback at the street level. In response to
questions, Mr. Kurleman referred to a rendering of the project. He said zero setbacks are
permitted in the East Gateway District as they create a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Discussion ensued with comments that the project is well done, the project softens the
transition to the street, is consistent with the area, and consolidation of the two parcels is
encouraged in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Kurleman said although Fredrica Avenue currently is a
one-way street, it will be converted to a two-way street.
Renee Ruggerio, representative, said the applicant worked on this project for many
months to ensure it met the criteria for the area. She said the East Gateway District promotes
urban design and pedestrian-friendly development. She said this project is consistent with the
City’s goals.
Member Milam moved to approve Case FLD2007-09029 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 and carried unanimously.
2.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Cases:
FLD2007-11034/TDR2005-05022 – 430 South Gulfview Boulevard
Owner/Applicant:
Salt Block 57, LLC.
Representative:
E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone:
727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; e-mail: eda@jpfirm.com).
Location:
2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58-acre zoned Open
Space/Recreation District) located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately
500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach.
Atlas Page:
276A.
Zoning Districts:
Tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District.
Request:
(1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight
accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the
provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 230 overnight
accommodation units in the Tourist (T) District with reductions to the front (east) setback from
15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and to zero feet
(to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to sidewalk) and
to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the rear (west) setback from the CCCL from 20
feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk), an increase to building height from
35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck) for two portions of the building, a
deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two-year time frame to submit
for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling
units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and
transferred under TDR2005-05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus
Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625-627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay
Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4-1402.
Proposed Use:
230 Overnight Accommodation units.
Community Development 2008-01-15 17
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Gary Baker requested party status.
Member Coates moved to grant Gary Baker party status. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
George Papageorgiou requested party status.
Member Dame moved to grant George Papageorgiou party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Behar moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned
Tourist District; 0.58 acre zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of
South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south
of Clearwater Beach. The former Adam’s Mark Hotel on this property closed due to damage
sustained during Hurricane Jeanne in September 2004. On April 19, 2005, the CDB approved,
with 10 conditions, Case FLD2005-01005/SGN2005-01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of
Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217-room/unit hotel (where 74
rooms/units were permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155-foot high
building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development
approval to permit a 217-room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks,
an increase to building height from 35 feet to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to
required parking from 217 to 201 spaces (existing), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005-01016). On August 16,
2005, the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 for the (1)
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing
to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units were permitted at that time); (2)
Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78
overnight accommodation rooms/units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height
from 35 feet 100 feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and from 35 feet to 150
feet for the residential tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90
feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-05022) of four
dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625-627 Bay Esplanade
and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade. On June 20, 2006, a six-month time
extension to February 16, 2007, was granted by the Planning Director to submit for a building
permit to build the improvements. On November 21, 2006, a one-year time extension to
February 16, 2008, was granted by the CDB to submit for a building permit to build the
improvements. The hotel was not reopened and was demolished on October 8, 2005 under
BCP2005-09027.
Community Development 2008-01-15 18
The 440 and 450 West attached dwelling condominiums towers are located to the south
of this subject property and are 157 feet in height (each tower). The properties directly east of
this property are developed with retail sales and services and restaurant uses. On September
20, 2005, the CDB approved Case FLD2005-07068 for the properties to the northeast at 401,
411 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard permitting 100 attached dwelling units in a 100-foot high
building. This project has been granted a time extension by the CDB to March 20, 2008, to
submit for a building permit to construct the improvements. The City’s Beach Walk project is
still under construction transforming South Gulfview Boulevard to the north of this site into a
winding beachside promenade with lush landscaping, artistic touches and clear views to
Clearwater's award-winning beach and the water beyond. A City public parking lot is located to
the north of this property. The western submerged portion of the property is the Gulf of Mexico.
The proposal is to construct a new building on the property with a vacation/interval
ownership project consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units. The nonconforming status
of the prior hotel density has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was
demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 and the
time extensions granted. With a vacation/interval ownership use, unit sizes are generally larger
than normal overnight accommodation uses. The size of these proposed units are similar to
that of dwelling units. To ensure use of this property will be for overnight accommodations,
meeting the definition of the CDC, owner and guest stays should not to exceed 30 days
(whether occupancy of units arise from a rental agreement, other agreement or the payment of
consideration). This development will not be deemed attached dwellings with individual dwelling
units, nor will the units qualify for homestead exemption or home or business occupational
licenses. The proposal includes three floors of parking for a total of 409 parking spaces at a
ratio of 1.76 spaces per unit (one space per unit required). Due to the nature of the proposed
vacation/interval ownership units, coupled with a desire to ensure adequate parking is available
for guests and their visitors within the garage, 178 spaces in excess of the minimum Code
requirement have been provided. The applicant will provide a 10-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the site frontage of South Gulfview Boulevard with a shell finish, in accordance with
Beach Walk specifications. The proposal includes one poolside restaurant and bar on the fourth
level. The property’s guest services will encourage guests to patronize local restaurants and
entertainment activities. The building has been designed with a lower tower on the south side at
a height of almost 100 feet, since the existing 440 West condominium tower to the south is 157
feet in height, to comply with Beach by Design requirements for tower heights. A higher portion
of the building tower on the north side is at a height of 150 feet. This higher portion is separated
from the 440 West condominium tower by approximately 158 feet to comply with the Beach by
Design requirement to have a minimum spacing of 100 feet between towers exceeding 100 feet
in height. The fourth level of this building is the amenity level, including the pool, poolside
restaurant/bar, guest lounge, health/fitness, kid’s club/arcade, administrative and sales offices
and maintenance/operations areas. Levels 5 – 16 will have the interval ownership units,
ranging from a minimum of nine units on the uppermost three floors on the north side to a
maximum of 27 units on the lower levels. Units will range from 816 to 1993 square-feet in size.
The proposed building has been designed using a contemporary coastal architectural
style. From a bird’s eye view, the building will look like an “H” on top of the parking deck base.
The building form is divided vertically into three components: the three-story base of the parking
garage, the middle body made up of the amenity level and guest units on Levels 4 – 11, and the
upper cap of Levels 12 – 16 consisting of the luxury suites of that portion of the building above
100 feet (the middle of the “H” and the northern portion). In addition to the tiering of building
height due to Beach by Design tower spacing requirements basically on a north/south axis, the
building steps back in the middle of the building (middle of the “H”) facing South Gulfview
Community Development 2008-01-15 19
Boulevard and the upper cap portion on the north side further steps back an additional 12 feet
(from the middle body face). Viewed from the north and south, the building also steps back on
the west side at Level 5 and then again at Levels 12 – 16. The façade of the body of the
building is typified by modulations in the floor plan that move in and out between five to 10 feet a
minimum of once in each 28-foot structural bay. The building façade is further detailed with six-
to-eight-foot deep balconies and occasionally a small awning-style metal roof. The building
form creates strong shadow patterns that define the elements of the project’s form. The upper
cap pattern of the building is different from the body of the building and helps to break down the
massing of the building. This is most evident on the north elevation where two 12-foot deep
slots are cut into the upper four floors effectively dividing the upper mass into three sections.
The location of the balconies on this upper cap area in relation to balconies on the body of the
building and stepping back at the tower corners help create a tiered effect. The upper roof
portions of the building are punctuated by accent metal roof elements containing stairs, elevator
overruns and mechanical rooms, as well as horizontal shading elements. Balconies, roof eaves
and shade structures meet Code requirements for encroachments into setbacks. The majority
of the building will be painted cottage cream, accented by white columns, pilasters and balcony,
eave and shade structure bracing. Accent metal roof structures at various levels of the building
and at the very top of the building will be of a muted green color (arboretum or sea moss).
Balcony railings will be black.
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions.
Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one
year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval.
Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum density for properties
with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight accommodation units per acre.
Based on the 1.87 acres zoned Tourist District, a maximum of 93 overnight accommodation
units are permissible under current regulations. The former Adam’s Mark Hotel had 217 units,
which was nonconforming to current regulations. The applicant is requesting Termination of
Status of Nonconformity for density to maintain the same number of overnight accommodation
units in a conforming manner. The applicant previously transferred eight dwelling units under
TDR2005-05022 from three locations on the beach to this site and intends to convert these
eight dwelling units to 13 overnight accommodation units (1.67 conversion ratio).
The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of
Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight
accommodation units are permitted today). The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density
has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status
of the approval of Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 and the time extensions granted. An
important factor in this case is the ability to retain an overnight accommodation use on the
beach where many hotels/motels have been lost to condominium (attached dwelling)
construction. The criteria for Termination of Status of Nonconformity, as per Section 6-109 of
the CDC and outlined in the table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer
requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing
nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will
be met with this development proposal.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist
District. While there is an existing surface parking lot on the subject property, it will be removed
with this proposal. All proposed parking will be within a parking garage, where landscaping is
not required. Any prior nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory
Community Development 2008-01-15 20
structures/uses have already been removed when the Adam’s Mark Hotel was demolished. A
Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required for this proposal, as the proposed
landscaping meets Code requirements. Should the applicant desire attached or freestanding
signage in excess of minimum Code requirements, the Comprehensive Sign Program may be
used for proposed signage.
Pursuant to Section 4-1402 of the CDC, parcels governed by a special area plan, such
as Beach by Design, may only receive density transfers from parcels within the same special
area plan. The Code does not limit the number of overnight accommodation units that may be
transferred to this site, as opposed to residential transfers that may not exceed the otherwise
applicable maximum density by more than 20 percent. However, for comparative purposes, the
maximum number of overnight accommodation units permitted today on this site is 93 units,
where a 20 percent transfer would be a maximum of 18 units. In this case, eight dwelling units
were previously transferred to this site and are being converted to 13 overnight accommodation
units, which is less than 20 percent of the maximum number of overnight accommodation units
permitted today.
The applicant has previously transferred a total of eight dwelling units under TDR2005-
05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from
625-627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade. This proposal is
recognizing this prior transfer. Accordingly, the TDR has been found to be consistent with the
requirements of Section 4-1402 and Section 4-1403 of the CDC as outlined in the following
table:
Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the CDC, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The
overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.81, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum lot area for overnight
accommodations is 20,000 square-feet. The subject property is 81,450 square-feet in area
landward of the seawall (zoned Tourist District). Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot
width for overnight accommodations can range between 100 – 150 feet. The lot width of this
site along South Gulfview Boulevard is 235 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code
provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum front setback for overnight
accommodations can range between zero – 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range
between zero – 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between zero – 20 feet. This
site contains a Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) along the west and north sides of the
property. Section 3-905.A requires setbacks to be measured from the CCCL. The proposal
includes reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area),
reductions to the side (north) setback from the CCCL from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and to
zero feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to
sidewalk) and to zero feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the rear (west) setback from
the CCCL from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk).
The proposed building has been designed maintaining the minimum 15-foot front
setback along South Gulfview Boulevard to the building. The building will have a refuse holding
room on the ground floor on the south side of the first parking level. Dumpsters will be rolled out
to the staging area on collection days. The location of the trash staging area within the front
setback at a zero front setback from South Gulfview Boulevard is necessary to eliminate the
necessity of the trash truck coming on-site and is common with many newer developments.
Community Development 2008-01-15 21
The CCCL along the north property line is at an angle to and is not parallel with the north
property line, being narrower at the front property line and wider towards the seawall at the rear
of the building. The proposed reduction to the side (north) setback to six feet to the building is
at the western portion of the building where the CCCL cuts greatest into the property. The
upper habitable portions of the building (Levels 4 – 16) are actually over 11 feet from the north
property line, even though the setback is not measured from that point. Levels 1 – 3 are
actually approximately 15 feet to the north property line. The site has been designed with a
sidewalk along the north side of the building at a zero-foot setback to the CCCL. This sidewalk
is required by the Fire Department for access to the rear of the building in the event of a fire.
This sidewalk also provides required Building Code egress from stairwells on both the south and
north sides of the building and interconnects with the sidewalk on the south side of the City’s
parking lot to the north. The proposed reduction to the side (south) setback to three feet is for a
sidewalk that provides required Building Code egress from the southern stairwell through the
service drive out to the public sidewalk within the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way. The
proposed reduction for the trash staging area and service drive at a zero side setback is for less
than 100 feet depth from the front property line. While not required by Code, the applicant is
providing the service drive on the south side of the building for delivery trucks, while also
functioning for the trash staging area. To reduce negative views of this area as a means of
compatibility, the applicant is screening this service area adjacent to the south property line with
a six-foot high wall. Levels 1 – 3 are actually approximately 15 feet to the south property line.
The upper habitable portions of the building (Levels 4 – 11) are actually 11 feet from the south
property line. The proposed setback reduction to eight feet to the building at the rear or west
side is from the CCCL and is at the southwest corner of the building where the building is
closest to the CCCL, whereas the building is approximately located 20 feet from the seawall.
This setback reduction from the CCCL to eight feet is for only Levels 1 – 5, as Levels 6 – 11
step back to approximately 36 feet from the seawall (24 feet to the CCCL). The rear setback
reduction to zero feet is for the sidewalk on the west side of the building, which is primarily to
provide required Building Code egress from the stairwells and to provide Fire Department
access in the event of a fire. The proposed setbacks are similar to those approved by the CDB
on August 16, 2005, on Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the maximum allowable
height for overnight accommodation uses is 100 feet. Beach by Design permits buildings up to
a maximum of 150 feet through the use of Transfer of Development Rights, which this proposal
employs. The building has been designed in a tiered manner with a lower tower on the south
side at a height of almost 100 feet, since the existing 440 West condominium tower to the south
is 157 feet in height, to comply with Beach by Design requirements for tower heights. A higher
portion of the building tower on the north side is at a height of 150 feet. This higher portion is
separated from the 440 West condominium tower by approximately 158 feet to comply with the
Beach by Design and the Transfer of Development Rights requirement to have a minimum
spacing of 100 feet between towers exceeding 100 feet in height. The applicant has previously
transferred eight dwelling units to this property from three other properties on the beach. Based
on a conversion factor of 1.67 (50 overnight accommodation units to 30 dwelling units), these
eight dwelling units convert to 13 overnight accommodation units. The proposed height of the
lower and taller portions of the tower is consistent and compatible with the heights of adjacent
properties. This site is located within the Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design, which is
indicated as a distinctive area of mixed use, including high-rise condominiums. The applicant
has submitted documentation indicating compliance with the Beach by Design criteria for no
more than two buildings more than 100 feet in height within 500 feet of each other. The
proposal also complies with the Code requirements under the definition of “Height, Building or
Structure” for elevator and stair overruns and mechanical rooms, which are permitted to extend
Community Development 2008-01-15 22
a maximum of 16 feet above the otherwise permitted height. Since both portions of the roof
meet the maximum height limitations of the Code and Beach by Design, the definition of
“Height, Building or Structure” does not allow rooftop occupancy by the public or guests.
Approval of this request should be conditioned prohibiting such rooftop use. The design of this
project creates a form and function that will be consistent with and enhance the character of this
area.
Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum required parking is one parking space
per unit, or 230 parking spaces. The proposal provides a total of 409 parking spaces. Three
parking spaces are provided on the north side of the building as taxi waiting spaces. Guest
parking is provided at a ratio of 1.76 spaces per unit. Due to the nature of the proposed
vacation/interval ownership units, coupled with a desire to ensure adequate parking is available
for guests and their visitors within the garage, 178 spaces in excess of the minimum Code
requirement have been provided. The applicant is providing this excess parking to deal with the
seasonal congestion on the beach and the lack to-date of new public parking facilities, while
ensuring that all parking demands of this project can be accommodated on-site. There are
parking spaces on all three levels of the parking garage where, due to adjacent solid building
walls for stairwells or trash rooms, motorists will be required to back out blindly from these
spaces. In order to aid motorists, mirrors will be installed and signage installed in front of these
spaces alerting the motorists to use these mirrors when backing. The civil and architectural
plans need to be coordinated as to the location of these mirrors and signage prior to the
issuance of any permits. The proposal includes a drop off area along the front of and under the
building with 150 feet of stacking space, allowing vehicle stacking to not interfere with vehicles
entering or exiting the parking garage nor with traffic flow on South Gulfview Boulevard. The
proposal includes a loading/unloading service area at the southeast corner of the site for large
delivery trucks, which is not required by Code and will prevent blocking traffic on South Gulfview
Boulevard. Smaller delivery vehicles can also utilize the drop off area. The parking garage is
designed with a total of 46 stacked valet parking spaces, to allow the resort to provide valet
parking service for some guests. The drop off area will also be used to access this valet
service.
The site has been designed providing access via one-way driveways, with the entrance
on the north and the exit on the south of the site. The proposal includes a deviation to allow
direct access to an arterial street. The site has no other means of street access except to South
Gulfview Boulevard, which is currently designated an arterial street in the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Access is much as the former Adam’s Mark Hotel
previously had. With Beach Walk construction, Coronado Drive will function as the main arterial
street between the roundabout and Hamden Drive, south of the subject property. This change
of street designation will be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, all outside mechanical equipment shall be
screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The proposed
parking garage will be open air, where fans will not be necessary to effect air flow in the garage.
The applicant is proposing mechanical equipment to be located on the roofs of the building
within enclosures meeting Code requirements for maximum height above the flat roof. Based
upon this, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of
outdoor mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the CDC, to minimize hazards at driveway intersections
with South Gulfview Boulevard, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct
Community Development 2008-01-15 23
views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight
visibility triangles. The proposed site and landscape design meet this requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.B of the CDC, to enhance views of the water from waterfront
property, no structures or landscaping may be installed (other than non-opaque fences not
exceeding 36-inches in height) within waterfront visibility triangles. The proposal indicates
waterfront visibility triangles at the northwest and southwest corners of the seawall. but these
are not drawn according to Code requirements. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the
applicant will need to correctly show these waterfront visibility triangles on the site and
landscape plans.
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the CDC, for development that does not involve a
subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground
unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal indicates that
all on-site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in conformance with this
Code requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D of the CDC, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this site. The landscape design incorporates plant material that is native and
salt tolerant, while providing visual interest. Medjool Date Palms are proposed along the front of
the site to provide height and scale to the building. The pedestrian scale along South Gulfview
Boulevard will be further enhanced through the use of ornamental trees, accent shrubs and
dense groundcover beds. The north, south and west sides of the building will be enhanced with
Cabbage Palms and other salt tolerant vegetation to create a landscape that will contribute to
the overall sense of place and be coordinated with Beach Walk improvements to provide a
seamless feel between properties. The proposed on-site landscaping complies with and
exceeds Code requirements.
Vertical concrete curbing is required on-site to protect landscape materials and areas
from vehicular encroachment. The edges of the trash staging area are not curbed, as this area
is also intended to double as a delivery truck loading area. Prior to the issuance of any permits,
the civil plans should be amended to include such curbing. To ensure proposed site grading of
swales and yard grate inlets works with the proposed landscaping, the site plan should include
detailed perimeter grading prior to the issuance of any permits. Finally, there are double doors
from the building adjacent to the trash holding room on the south side that will require a stoop.
Presently these doors appear to open into a landscape area.
The proposal will utilize interval ownership staff to remove trash from units. A trash
chute is located adjacent to a housekeeping service elevator. Staff will roll full dumpsters to a
trash holding room on the south side of the building. These trash dumpsters will be rolled to a
trash staging area on the south side of the property adjacent to South Gulfview Boulevard on
trash days. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time for this overnight
accommodation use. Freestanding signage in the Tourist District is restricted to a maximum
height of four feet, or six feet through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any approval of this
application should include a condition allowing for freestanding signage, where such future
freestanding signage must be a monument-style sign meeting Code requirements and be
designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
Community Development 2008-01-15 24
Section B.3 requires the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height be limited
to a maximum of 25,000 square-feet between 45 – 100 feet and a maximum of 10,000 square-
feet between 100 – 150 feet, but allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the
mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building
envelop allowance above 45 feet. The largest floorplate between 45 – 100 feet is approximately
43,179 square-feet and between 100 – 150 feet approximately 20,832 square-feet. The
applicant requests such deviations. The Design Guidelines provide that no more than 60
percent of the theoretical maximum building envelop located above 45 feet be occupied by a
building. The applicant has calculated the overall building mass between 45 – 150 feet at 44.5
percent. This Staff Report has discussed the tiering effect of the building design, which Staff
believes is acceptable, to justify the increased floorplates proposed.
Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square-feet to be
constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or
horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is approximately 60,804
square-feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 207.5 feet
along South Gulfview Boulevard and 276 feet along the north side, while the vertical plane is
approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are
equal. Modulation of the building massing also provides considerable dimensional variation.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100
feet without an offset of more than five feet. The building massing modulates significantly on
the east and west elevations as the two portions of the tower on the north and south sides are
expressed, where the middle of the “H” is recessed approximately 40 feet from the front of the
building and approximately 148 feet on the west side of the building. The north portions of the
tower steps back 14 feet at Levels 12 – 16 on both the east and west ends. The planes of all
elevations provide in and out modulation of five – 10 feet, where the largest uninterrupted plane
is approximately 29 feet (significantly less than 100 feet).
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 62.6
percent, the east elevation at 70.7 percent, the south elevation at 66.1 percent and the west
elevation at 68.8 percent.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
6, 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) The 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acre
zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard
approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach; 2)
On April 19, 2005, the CDB approved with 10 conditions Case FLD2005-01005/SGN2005-
01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of
an existing 217-room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms/units were permitted at that time) and for
height to allow the existing 155-foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is
permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217-room/unit overnight
accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height from 35 feet to
155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201 spaces
(existing) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required
interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign
Program approval (SGN2005-01016); 3) On August 16, 2005, the CDB approved with 18
Community Development 2008-01-15 25
conditions Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of
Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104
dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units wee permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development
approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation
rooms/units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height from 35 feet 100 feet for
the overnight accommodation building tower and from 35 feet to 150 feet for the residential
tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to
allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and
(3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579
Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625-627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from
667 Bay Esplanade; 4) The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density has been
determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the
approval of Case FLD2005-05047/TDR2005-05022 and the time extensions granted; 5) The
proposal is to construct a new building on the property with a vacation/interval ownership project
consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units; 6) The development proposal includes a
request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation
units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); 7) Eight dwelling units
were previously transferred to this site under TDR2005-05022 and are being converted to 13
overnight accommodation units for this project; 8) The proposal includes three floors of parking
for a total of 409 parking spaces at a ratio of 1.76 spaces per unit (where one space per unit is
required); 9) The proposal includes a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, where
the site has no other means of street access except to South Gulfview Boulevard; 10) With
Beach Walk construction, Coronado Drive will function as the main arterial street between the
roundabout and Hamden Drive, south of the subject property and this change of street
designation will be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update; 11) The proposal
includes reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area),
reductions to the side (north) setback from the CCCL from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and to
zero feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to
sidewalk) and to zero feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the rear (west) setback from
the CCCL from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk); 12) The proposal
includes an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to
roof deck) for two portions of the building; 13) The higher portion of the building is separated
from the 440 West condominium tower to the south by approximately 158 feet, which is in
compliance with the Beach by Design requirement to have a minimum spacing of 100 feet
between towers exceeding 100 feet in height; 14) The proposal includes a request for deviations
to Beach by Design guidelines which require the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in
height be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square-feet between 45 – 100 feet and a maximum of
10,000 square-feet between 100 – 150 feet, as the largest floorplate between 45 – 100 feet is
approximately 43,179 square-feet and between 100 – 150 feet is approximately 20,832 square-
feet, but the guideline allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the mass and
scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop
allowance above 45 feet; 15) Beach by Design guidelines requires for buildings with a footprint
of greater than 5,000 square-feet, where the proposal is approximately 60,804 square-feet, to
be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or
horizontal planes are equal in length. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions are
approximately 207.5 feet along South Gulfview Boulevard and 276 feet along the north side,
while the vertical plane is approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None
of these dimensions are equal; 16) Beach by Design guidelines requires no plane or elevation to
continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The
planes of all elevations provide in and out modulation of five – 10 feet, where the largest
uninterrupted plane is approximately 29 feet; 17) Beach by Design guidelines requires at least
Community Development 2008-01-15 26
60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The
applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 62.6 percent, the east elevation at 70.7
percent, the south elevation at 66.1 percent and the west elevation at 68.8 percent; and 18).
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the CDC; 2) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the CDC; 3) That the development proposal
is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the
CDC; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach
by Design.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the (1)
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where
93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6-109;
(2) Flexible Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units in the Tourist
(T) District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging
area), reductions to the side (north) setback from the CCCL from 10 feet to six feet (to building)
and to zero feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet
(to sidewalk) and to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the rear (west) setback from
the CCCL from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk), an increase to
building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck) for two
portions of the building, a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two-
year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and (3) including the Transfer of Development
Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units)
previously approved and transferred under TDR2005-05022, including four dwelling units from
557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625-627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling
units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4-1402, with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That application for a building permit to construct the
approved project be submitted no later than January 15, 2010, unless time extensions are
granted pursuant to Section 4-407; 2) That the final design and color of the overnight
accommodation building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as
modified by, the CDB; 3) That the use of this property be for overnight accommodations,
meeting the definition of the CDC, with owner and guest stays not to exceed 30 days (whether
occupancy of units arise from a rental agreement, other agreement or the payment of
consideration). This development shall not be deemed attached dwellings with individual
dwelling units, nor shall units qualify for homestead exemption or home or business
occupational licenses; 4) That a Declaration of Unity of Title (for condominiums) be recorded in
the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 5) That a condominium or other form of
plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit or first Certificate of Occupancy,
depending on the form of the sale of the units, as necessary or required; 6) That there be no
public/guest use of either roof; 7) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, waterfront visibility
triangles be correctly indicated on the civil site and landscape plans; 8) That any future
freestanding sign be a monument-style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials
and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet
high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 9) That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be
employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the
Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 10) That, prior to
the issuance of any permits, the civil plans be amended to indicate the following: a) curbing of
Community Development 2008-01-15 27
the edges of pavement for the trash staging/loading area; b) detailed perimeter grading to
ensure proposed site grading of swales and yard grate inlets works with the proposed
landscaping; and c) a stoop outside the double doors from the south side of the building
adjacent to the trash holding room; 11) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the civil and
architectural plans be coordinated as to the location of mirrors and signage to aid motorists
backing out of visually blocked parking spaces on all levels of the parking garage; 12) That,
prior to the issuance of any permit, compliance with all requirements of General Engineering
and Stormwater Engineering be met; 13) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to
the issuance of any permits; 14) That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid
prior to the issuance of any permits; and 15) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to
the issuance of any permits.
Ed Armstrong, representative, said the City needs more hotel rooms, which is exactly
what this project provides.
Mike Chatham, project architect, reviewed his background and credentials.
Member Coates moved to accept Mike Chatham as an expert witness in his field. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Chatham stated this applicant’s goal is to develop a transient lodging project that will
benefit the community. Steps were taken to reduce the impact on the neighbors with respect to
building heights and views. He reviewed the project’s design, which incorporates a
contemporary coastal architectural style. Parking will be in excess of that required by Code. He
said the style and mass will compliment the beach. The applicant is in agreement with the
conditions listed by staff.
In response to a question, Mr. Armstrong said interval ownership is a timeshare. The
project also can serve as a traditional hotel. He said the developer is confident in his ability to
proceed with the project without respect to the percentage of units that need to be sold. He
anticipates a two-year timeframe for completion of the project. However, hopes are to complete
the project sooner.
Party status holder Gary Baker expressed concern regarding setbacks, heights, and the
close proximity of the project to the adjacent property. He referred to an aerial photograph of
the project’s north building in relation to his condominium. He suggested the roof feature near
the edge of his building could have been pushed back more to the east, and that the developer
is using varying heights and setbacks that are different than those granted to the previous
developer. He felt the developer should have met with adjacent property owners prior to
proceeding with this application.
Party status holder George Papageorgiou expressed concern that nonconforming
properties should not be granted conformity in order to get what they want. He said adjacent
property owners need assurances that established setbacks will not change. He said projects
that received variances, etc. under previous ownership should not be granted to new property
owners. He said currently, no one can drive or park on the beach. He urged the CDB not to
grant the variances requested.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the aerial photograph of the project appears to
be closer to the adjacent property than it is. He said the distance between the setback
Community Development 2008-01-15 28
requested on the east side of the project to the sidewalk is 15 feet. The zero setback is only for
the trash staging area. He explained how setbacks are measured.
Mr. Chatham said the setbacks that were previously approved are being maintained for
this project. He stated the aerial photograph provided is not accurate, as the distance from this
project and the adjacent property is approximately 100 feet. He said the project would not be
viable without a reduction in the easterly setback, as a parking garage and roadway access is
needed. He said the roof complies with Code. The applicant has taken every step possible to
protect neighbors from visual clutter and considered the neighbors’ views to the south.
Mr. Wells stated staff feels the applicant’s project will positively impact the beach. The
parking being provided will discourage street parking needed by the public.
Mr. Armstrong stated this project’s heights are the same heights that were approved in
2005, the project meets Code requirements, and the City has expressed the importance of a
hotel in this area.
Discussion ensued with comments that the lower portions of the building are closer to
the property lines, that the aerial rendering does not adequately reflect the distance between the
project and the adjacent property, that the applicant did a good job addressing massing issues
and the neighbors’ concerns, and that this is an attractive product.
Mr. Wells said the lower three portions of the building are proposed to have a 15-foot
setback and the upper portions of the building will extend further out to accommodate balconies.
The balconies and the roof overhang meet the requirements of the Code.
Member Milam moved to approve Case FLD2007-11034/TDR2005-05022 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 and carried unanimously.
3.
Level Two Application
Case:
FLD2007-11033 – 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590,
1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen-Booth Road
Owner:
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD.
Applicant:
Woolbright Development, Inc.
Representative:
E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone:
727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; e-mail: eda@jpfirm.com).
Location:
18.9 acres located at the southwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and SR 590.
Atlas Page:
274A.
Zoning District:
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT).
Request:
Flexible Development approval for termination of status as a nonconformity for a
Retail Sales & Service use (shopping center) within the Industrial, Research & Technology (IRT)
District, pursuant to CDC Section 6-109 along with a Comprehensive Landscape Program
pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
Offices, Retail Sales and Services, Restaurants, and Vehicle Service.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
Community Development 2008-01-15 29
The 18.9-acre subject property, which is located at the southwest corner of McMullen-
Booth Road and SR 590, is zoned Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) with an
underlying Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use designation. The property consists of a
164,995 square-foot shopping center, a 3,390 square-foot office (Bank of America), a 710
square-foot restaurant (Checkers), and a 6,105 square-foot vehicle service use (Tires Plus).
The initial development of the shopping center occurred in 1989, at which time the
property was zoned Industrial Planned Development (IPD). Pursuant to the zoning code in
effect at the time of the development [ref.: Section 131.104(d)(3)], “commercial, office, and
industrial planned districts would permit such uses in a manner so as to allow for improved
arrangement of retail, professional and business office or industrial use, or combination thereof”;
therefore, the mix of uses that currently exist on the subject property were permissible.
Subsequent to the development of the shopping center, the zoning on the property was
changed to Limited Industrial (IL), which allowed “indoor retail sales” as a permitted use [ref.:
Section 40.503]. The office, restaurant and vehicle service uses also in existence were also
permitted uses at that time.
Upon the adoption of the CDC in 1999, all property that had been zoned IL was
reclassified as IRT. This reclassification occurred regardless of the existing use, or what the
prior zoning district allowed as permitted uses. As a result of this rezoning, the existing retail
sales and services use became a nonconforming use, and the provisions of CDC Section 6-103
governing nonconforming uses became applicable.
The applicant has submitted a Flexible Development application for the existing
shopping center (retail sales and services) in order to terminate its status as a nonconforming
use within the IRT zoning district. It is noted that in addition to this proposal, the applicant is
simultaneously pursuing a zoning map amendment to Commercial (C) and a Future Land Use
Map amendment to Commercial General (CG) for the subject property that would bring all of the
uses on the property into conforming status with the CDC. The development proposal’s
compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is discussed below.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum I.S.R. permitted within the Industrial
Limited (IL) Future Land Use category is 0.85. The existing development has an I.S.R. of 0.53,
which meets the above requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum F.A.R. permitted within the IL Future
Land Use category is 0.65. The existing development has an F.A.R. of 0.21, which meets the
above requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-1302, 2-1303 and 2-1304, there are no established
minimum setbacks for the retail sales and services use within the IRT zoning district. As such,
the applicant is requesting that the existing setbacks associated with the development be
considered to be conforming along with the use in the IRT district.
It is noted that the subject property is bordered by rights-of-way on two sides: on the
north by State Road 590, and on the east by McMullen-Booth Road. As such, the subject
property has two fronts and two sides for the purpose of determining setbacks.
With regard to the building containing the retail sales and services uses, the existing
setbacks are in excess of those that would be permissible for the same use within the
Commercial (C) zoning district, the zoning district most closely compatible with the existing use.
Community Development 2008-01-15 30
With regard to the setbacks as attributable to pavement, some of the setbacks would require
approval through a Comprehensive Infill application, but they would certainly not be outside of
the norm for parking areas and/or drive aisles, and similar setbacks have been approved
elsewhere in similar circumstances.
Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-1302, 2-1303 and 2-1304, there is no established maximum
height for the retail sales and services use within the IRT zoning district. As such, the applicant
is requesting that the existing maximum height of 30 feet be considered to be conforming along
with the use in the IRT district. The existing height is consistent with that which is permissible
for the same use within the C zoning district, which, as stated previously, is the zoning district
most closely compatible with the existing use.
Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-1302, 2-1303 and 2-1304, there is no established minimum
off-street parking requirement for retail sales and service uses. However, the minimum off-
street parking requirement for the same use within the C zoning district, the zoning district most
closely compatible with the existing use, is five spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area.
Based upon this comparable parking requirement, the retail sales and services use requires 825
(824.97) off-street parking spaces.
The retail sales and service use exists in association with three other uses on the
subject property: an office (Bank of America), a restaurant (Checkers), and a vehicle service
use (Tires Plus). 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.
The development proposal requires a minimum of 848 parking spaces. As proposed, a
total of 851 parking spaces will be provided; thus the existing development exceeds its parking
requirement.
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.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where a non-residential use is adjacent to an
arterial or collector right-of-way such as McMullen-Booth Road (east) or State Road 590 (north),
a 15-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided. Where a non-residential use is adjacent to
attached dwellings (west), a 10-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided. The existing
developed site has a landscape buffer of approximately 11 feet in width along McMullen-Booth
Road (east) and of only 6.4 feet in width along State Road 590 (north). As the site is already
developed and would not have sufficient excess off-street parking to eliminate in order to
provide further perimeter landscaping, and the applicant has proposed through the
Comprehensive Landscape Program to provide additional landscaping that will ultimately result
in the subject property being demonstrably more attractive that what presently exists, positive
findings can be made that the existing development is in compliance with the applicable CDC
sections in 3-1202.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, interior landscape islands shall be designed so
that in most cases no more than 10 parking spaces are provided in a row (staff may permit
flexibility up to 15 spaces in a row). The existing development includes several parking tiers
where 20, 22, 23, or 26 consecutive parking spaces are found without the required landscape
Community Development 2008-01-15 31
island. The applicant has proposed to remove existing parking spaces in these instances and
install the required interior landscape island along with the necessary landscape materials.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, one tree shall be required within each interior
landscape island. The majority of the existing interior landscape islands have a shade tree
planed therein and therefore meet this requirement; however there are several islands where no
shade tree (or accent/palm tree equivalent) exists. The difficulty posed by these islands is that
they are of inadequate width to accommodate a shade tree, and forcing the requirement to plant
a shade tree or even the accent/palm tree equivalent, would likely result in damage to the
surrounding pavement and quite possibly hinder the ultimate survival of the tree. As such, the
applicant has proposed to install single accent trees, such as crepe myrtle or Chinese elm
where the required trees are missing.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100% of
a building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way, excluding space necessary for
building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at
least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub
for every 20 square-feet of required landscaped area. There are a few locations where
meaningful additional foundation landscaping can be provided based upon the existing
conditions of the building and parking areas. The applicant has proposed to remove a large
area of excess pavement along the easternmost elevation of the existing retail sales and
services building, and install new palms and shrubs.
Pursuant to CDC Sections 6-109.A and C, a nonconforming use or structure may be
deemed to be in conformity with this development code, and may thereafter be allowed to
continue and to expand as a lawfully existing use or structure, if such use or structure is granted
Level Two approval.
The Comprehensive Landscaping and Comprehensive Sign Programs can be used to
satisfy the requirements of the development code. A request for Comprehensive Landscape
Program approval is a part of this application and positive findings can be made with the
applicable criteria for the approval of the Comprehensive Landscape Program: 1) Perimeter
buffers conform to the requirements of Section 3-1202.C; 2) Off-street parking lots shall be
improved to meet the landscaping standards established in Section 3-1202.D; 3) Any
nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure use located on the lot shall be
terminated, removed, or brought into conformity with this development code; and 4) The
Comprehensive Landscaping and Comprehensive Sign programs may be used to satisfy the
requirements of this development code. The subject property already has an approved
Comprehensive Sign Program in place via SGN2005-01007 and therefore meets all required
sign codes. No outdoor lighting or accessory structures/uses on the property are
nonconforming. Therefore, positive findings can be made regarding the above criteria
pertaining to the termination of status as a nonconformity for the existing retail sales and
services use.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
6, 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 18.9-acre subject property is located at the southwest
corner of State Road 590 and McMullen-Booth Road; 2) That the subject property is located
within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District; 3) That the subject property is
Community Development 2008-01-15 32
located within the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use category; 4) That the existing retail
sales and services use is a nonconforming use within the IRT District; 5) That the existing office,
restaurant, and vehicle services uses are conforming uses within the IRT District; 6) That the
existing development is compatible with the surrounding area; and 7) That there are no active
Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the existing development is consistent with the F.A.R. and
I.S.R. maximums as per CDC Section 2-1301.1; 2) That the off-street parking associated with
the existing development is consistent with the shared parking requirements of CDC Section 3-
1405; 3) That the existing development is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A; 4) That the existing development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G; and 5) That the
existing development is consistent with the requirements for Termination of Status as a
Nonconformity as per CDC Sections 6-109.A and C.
Based upon the above and subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning
Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request for termination of status
as a nonconformity for a retail sales and service use (shopping center) within the Industrial,
Research and Technology (IRT) District pursuant to CDC Section 6-109, along with a
Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all
outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed, and 2) That the off-
street parking and landscape improvements proposed as part of this application must be
constructed and a certificate of completion issued within a period of time not exceeding two
years from the date of approval (by January 15, 2010), or the termination of status as a
nonconformity shall be void.
See page 38 for motion of approval.
4. Case:
FLD2007-11032 – 63 Park Place Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner:
Offices at Park Place, LLC.
Applicant:
Zeus Development, LLC.
Representative:
Richard Harris, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 Icot Boulevard, Suite 605,
Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090; e-mail:
rharris@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com).
Location:
7.394 acres located at the southeast corner of Drew Street and Park Place Boulevard.
Atlas Page:
291A.
Zoning District:
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT).
Request:
Flexible Development approval for a Retail Sales and Services use (child care) as a
principal use where it would otherwise only be permissible as an accessory use within the
Industrial, Research & Technology (IRT) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project
pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304.C.
Proposed Use:
Retail Sales and Services (Child Care).
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 7.394-acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Drew Street and
Park Place Boulevard. It is noted that the subject property is presently under construction for an
unassociated office building that will occupy the eastern portion of the site.
Community Development 2008-01-15 33
The property is zoned Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) with an underlying
Future Land Use category of Industrial Limited (IL), and is also located within the boundaries of
the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The Park Place DRI was established on
September 1, 1983, via Ordinance 3205-83, but has been amended several times since its
inception. According to the most recent ordinance (Ordinance 7215-03) regarding the DRI, the
uses associated with subject property shall be Light Industrial.
The development proposal does not require any deviation from the development
standards of the IRT zoning district with regard to minimum lot area, minimum lot width,
minimum required setbacks, maximum building height, minimum off-street parking requirement,
or any landscape code requirement. The purpose of the application is that the proposed stand-
alone retail sales and services use (child care) is not an allowed use within the IRT zoning
district. As such, the applicant has submitted a Flexible Development application for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project to establish the stand-alone retail sales and
services use (child care) within a 12,500 square-foot building with an accessory 5,000 square-
foot outdoor playground.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1303.L.3, the retail sales and services use shall be located
within a building used for a minimum standard use in the district and the retail sales and
services use shall occupy no more than ten percent of the floor area of the building. The
applicant proposes to establish a retail sales and services use (child care) within its own 12,500
square-foot building, which is inconsistent with the above provision of the zoning district.
Accordingly, an application was made to establish the use through the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project provisions as set forth in CDC Section 2-1304.C.
The following are the criteria set forth in CDC Section 2-1304.C, the responses by the
applicant (as applicable), and staff’s analysis of the criteria:
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the
use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
The applicant’s response to this criterion is that: “A day care center within the Park Place
DRI is a great accessory use. The requested deviations are necessary due to 1) The parcel
being zoned IRT which occurred as a result of the parcel originally being part of the Bausch and
Lomb tract, and 2) The proposed day care center being located in a separate building from the
surrounding uses it will serve. If located within the nearby office building, the proposed use
would be considered as an accessory use, which would not require comprehensive infill
approval. The proposed day care center meets the intent of the Code in allowing accessory
uses. However, it is accessory to many uses, not just one particular building, as it will be
located in the Park Place DRI which consists of office, light industrial and residential uses, all of
which are expected to use the day care facility. There are also retail uses in the DRI.”
The simple answer to the criterion is that the development of the subject property is not
otherwise impractical without a deviation from the use standards of the zoning district. An office
use could easily be established on the site. An office is currently under construction on the
easternmost portion of the site. However, the primary reason that the application is being
processed under these criteria is that this retail sales and services use, which would otherwise
be allowable in the district, is being proposed as a stand-alone use and not within a building
containing a minimum standard use. If this use were connected to the other building proposed
on this site, this would not be an issue. Given the nature of the DRI, the applicant’s response
Community Development 2008-01-15 34
makes sense, that the child care use will be accessory to the other uses on the subject property,
as well as those uses on adjacent and nearby properties with the only difference being that
there is an exterior walkway connecting the uses, not an interior walkway.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives
of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district.
Pursuant to Objective 2.2 of the Future Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, the City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and
mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent
and compatible with the surrounding environment. Further, pursuant to CDC Section 1-103.E.4,
it is, in part, the purpose of this development code to provide the most beneficial relationship
between the uses of land and buildings. The proposed retail sales and services use (child care)
is compatible with the surrounding environment. The use provides for a valuable and needed
service/amenity in the area that will be beneficial to both those who reside in the nearby
residential developments (including those within the Park Place DRI) as well as those who work
in the adjacent light industrial and office uses.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of surrounding properties.
The applicant’s response to this criterion is that: “The proposed use will not impede
development and improvement of the surrounding parcels. The surrounding parcels in the DRI
are already developed. The proposed day care facility is to be located within the remaining
undeveloped northerly parcel of the DRI known as Parcel 1. The entire parcel has been
designed to provide adequate parking, traffic flow, and pedestrian walkways to serve the day
care facility and adjoining office buildings and will be accessed by Park Place Boulevard.”
It is unlikely that any redevelopment will occur in the foreseeable future on any of the
adjacent properties (north: Summerville Assisted Living Facility and E. C. Moore Softball
Complex; south: Bausch & Lomb; east: Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park; and west: The
Grand Reserve Apartments), and there is no provision in the Code that would negatively impact
these properties should the proposed retail sales and services use (child care) be permitted on
the subject property. Moreover, these adjacent uses will likely derive some benefit from their
proximity to the use.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
As was previously stated with regard to criterion #3, there is no provision in the Code
that would negatively impact adjoining properties should the proposed retail sales and services
use (child care) be approved. Furthermore, it is likely that the adjoining property to the south
(Bausch & Lomb) as well as the other neighboring properties will derive some benefit from their
proximity to the proposed use.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use
characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the
following objectives: a) The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a Minimum
Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development use; b) The proposed use would be a
Community Development 2008-01-15 35
significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy
or by creating jobs; c) The development proposal accommodates the expansion or
redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d) The proposed use provides for the
provision of affordable housing; e) The proposed use provides for development or
redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land
use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f)
The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working
waterfront use.
The applicant’s response to this criterion is that: “The parcel has a [future] land use
designation of Industrial Limited. According to the Countywide Plan Rules, commercial and
support uses are allowed as secondary uses in the land use category. The day care use is
compatible with adjacent land uses, which are residential, office and light industrial. Residents
and employees [within the] Park Place DRI will use the proposed day care center. Due to
serving the many business uses within the DRI, the project meets objective (c),
accommodation of the expansion of an existing economic contributor. The proposed
application also meets objective (e), in that it provides for redevelopment where a land use
plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot zoning for this particular location. As the
day care center has been designed within the proposed Parcel 1 office development, it would
not be practical to rezone the building occupied by the day care use.”
The proposed use is permitted by the underlying IL Future Land Use category, as the
Countywide Plan Rules identify Retail Commercial and Personal Service/Office Support as
appropriate and consistent secondary uses within the IL. Further, as previously discussed, the
proposed use will be compatible with adjacent land uses, and will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood. The proposed use will also provide for
development in an area with other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; thus meeting objective (e) of
the criterion. It is noted that objective (c), regarding the accommodation of the expansion of an
existing economic contributor would not be met with this proposal.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking
are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a)
The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b) The
proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c) The
design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging
character of an area; d) In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive
appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following
design elements: 1) Changes in horizontal building planes; 2) Use of architectural details such
as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; 3)
Variety in materials, colors and textures; 4) Distinctive fenestration patterns; 5) Building
stepbacks; and 6) Distinctive roofs forms; and e)The proposed development provides for
appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Design objective (a), regarding the proposal not impeding the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties, has already been addressed in
criterion #3, above, and the proposed will not result in any impedance. Design objective (b) is
not applicable to this request, as no design guidelines exist for the subject property. With
regard to design objective (c), the applicant has stated “the design, scale and intensity of the
DRI is established. The proposed development has an FAR of 0.18, which is similar to or less
Community Development 2008-01-15 36
than that of adjoining parcels (IRT allows 0.65 FAR). The site layout, including landscaping, is
in harmony with existing developments within the DRI.”
With regard to design objective (d), the applicant has stated that the “design elements
have been incorporated as are realistic for the size of this one-story building. To the extent
possible, the building has been designed to be consistent with others within the DRI.” However,
the proposed architectural elevations are wholly inconsistent with the office building currently
under construction on the easternmost portion of the subject property as well as the adjacent
Bausch & Lomb building to the south. The inconsistency in architectural style between the
proposed building and the building currently under construction will not provide for the cohesive,
visually interesting and attractive appearance sought after by this design objective. What will
result will be two diametrically opposed buildings that lack any cohesion or visual interest.
Further, the proposed building lacks changes in horizontal building planes, distinctive
fenestration patterns, building stepbacks, and a distinctive roof form; elements that, for the most
part, will be found on the building at the easternmost portion of the subject property. Based
upon the above, the proposed building has not incorporated a substantial number of design
elements, and does not address the intent of the design objective. However, these are not
unrecoverable issues, and the building can be redesigned to provide these design elements,
meet the intent of the design objective, and thereby fulfill the requirements of this criterion.
Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building
permits, revised architectural elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review/approval that are consistent with the building at the easternmost portion of the subject
property and that meet a substantial number of the design elements set forth in design objective
(d).
With regard to design objective (e), the subject property requires no deviations from
required setbacks and/or landscape buffer widths. Further, the site will be appropriately
buffered from the surrounding properties by the proposed landscaping.
Based upon the above, the proposed application has been determined to meet five of
the six required Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria. However, compliance
with the presently unmet criterion is possible and the requirements for said compliance has
been attached as a condition of approval. Therefore, positive findings can be made with regard
to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria.
As stated previously, the subject property is a part of the Park Place DRI, which was
established on September 1, 1983, via Ordinance 3205-83. The original DRI has been
amended several times since its inception and according to the most recent ordinance
(Ordinance 7215-03), the subject property is for light industrial use. However, the ordinances
have always been silent as to what would be permissible as a light industrial use. Therefore,
with regard to determining use compliance, the practice has always been to defer to the zoning
district associated with the specific property. As such, the proposed retail sales and services
use (child care) would be determined to be consistent with Master Development Plan for the
Park Place DRI if the use were also to be determined to be consistent with the IRT zoning
district.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December
6, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the
CDB.
Community Development 2008-01-15 37
Findings of Fact: The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by
the applicant and requirements of the CDC, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to
support the following findings of fact: 1) That the 7.394-acre subject property is located at the
southeast corner of Drew Street and Park Place Boulevard within the Park Place Development
of Regional Impact (DRI); 2) That the subject property is zoned Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT) District with an underlying Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use category; 3)
That the applicant proposes to establish a stand-alone retail sales and services use (child care)
where it would otherwise only be permissible as an accessory use within a building used for a
minimum standard use; 4) That the development proposal does not require any deviations from
applicable minimum lot area requirements, minimum lot width requirements, minimum setback
requirements, maximum building height, minimum off-street parking requirements, and/or any
landscape code requirements; and 5) That there are no active Code Enforcement issues
associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact,
reaches the following conclusions of law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with
the Master Development Plan for the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI); 2)
That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria for the Industrial,
Research and Technology (IRT) District as per CDC Sections 2-1301.1 and 2-1304; 3) That the
development proposal will be consistent with the Flexibility Criteria for Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects as per CDC Section 2-1304.C, provided that the conditions of approval
are met; and 4) That the development proposal will be consistent with the General Standards for
Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A, provided that the conditions of approval are
met.
Based upon the above and subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning
Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request for a Retail Sales and
Services use (child care) as a principal use where it would otherwise only be permissible as an
accessory use within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment project pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304.C.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all
outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 2) That prior to the
issuance of any building permits, revised architectural elevations shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review/approval that are consistent with the building at the
easternmost portion of the subject property and that meet a substantial number of the design
elements set forth in design objective (d); 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
floor plan shall be provided that is consistent with the site plan with regard to building
size/dimensions and playground size/dimensions; and 4) That all future signage associated with
the development and/or tenant spaces be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the
buildings and be consistent with the materials and colors of the buildings.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2007-11033 and FLD2007-11032 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,
with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. DIRECTOR’S ITEM (Item 1):
1. Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure – add “Continued Items” following the
“Request of Continuance” in Order of meeting – Article IV, Section 4.
Community Development 2008-01-15 38
Planning Director Michael Delk stated the CDB's Rules of Procedure did not reference the
order in which continued items would be hearing at subsequent meetings. Staff suggests adding
"Continued Items" following the "Request of Continuance" in Order of meeting - Article IV,
Section 4.
Consensus was to add "Continued Items" following the "Request of Continuance" in
Order of meeting - Article IV, Section 4, to the CDB Rules of Procedure.
Other Business
It was remarked that when people take time off from work, use vacation days, or travel
from out of State to attend CDB hearings, it can be frustrating when items are continued at
meetings without prior notice. It was remarked that an applicant, staff, or the CDB could request a
continuance at CDB meetings. Suggestions were made to consider requiring applicants to submit
requests for continuances 10 days prior to a CDB meeting, requiring there be mitigating
circumstances before a continuance is granted, and posting requests for continuances on
agendas on the City's website. It was remarked that all cases that come before the CDB is
reviewed on an individual basis. Mr. Delk said there is no procedure for late public notification of
requests for continuances. Staff makes every effort to contact homeowners' associations and
individuals that are known to have an interest in a case that could be continued.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said Beachwalk is approximately six months to a year
ahead of schedule.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
.?~~
Chair, Community Development oard
~ .)?&rb
Board Reporter
Community Development 2008-01-15
39
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
E-F ST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
. . DC]) eer\
o
qrT{ .
~o(" ~
DATE ON~ICH VOTE OCCURRED
:.J . 5' ~tOt)f>
w.
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
r ~ to ; " . B61a-n:t
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. A RITY OR COMMITTEE ON
ICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY 0 COUNTY
NAME OF POLl~L SUBPIVISION:
V; Y\ d\tl
MY POSITION IS:
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
o ELECTIVE
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 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 of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described 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 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 fonn must be read publicly at the next meeting after the fonn is filed.
I,
Doree~
1)". "Pol~-tz>
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
.-.--
:J fJ-y . 1 5 ;;008
)
, hereby disclose that on
'X-:
(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
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:
A 1'f> .:lbO-r - Otbo(!> ~ 4 ~:3 }J..~ l)r~ "fe ~
~~ ()A.. ~ ~ D a.. VCU'\~
WL~ ~ yro'l'l.~~ 4-0 ~ r'e~~
r.e?1~. rn ~ ~ \5
~~~).l ~ 4t>~~
~ ~ ciA fA- ~~ 1:J ~ ~~.
Au:..J,,\oV\.~ "'D yr<>~ ~ ~ ~.
~o~+~ ~._ffi~~
Date Filed Signature .
, by
, which
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 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2