Loading...
03/17/2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER March 17, 2009 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice Chair Frank L. Dame Board Member Doreen DiPolito Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Brian A. Barker Board Member Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member Absent: Jordan Behar Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board – Arrived 1:10 p.m. Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: January 20, 2009 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of January 20, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1 – 4) 1. Case: FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 – 635 Mandalay Avenue Owner/Applicant: Don R. Whitehurst. Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: renee@northsideengineering.com). Location: 0.28 acre located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Royal Way. Atlas Page: 258A. Zoning Districts: Tourist (T) District. Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order. Proposed Use: Mixed Use (eight attached dwellings and 1,253 square-feet of retail floor area). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Community Development 2009-03-17 1 See Exhibit: Time Extension FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 2009-03-17 MEMO See page 4 for motion of approval. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2009-02008 - 904 McMullen-Booth Road Level Two Application Owner: Savoy LLC. Applicant: The Brew Garden LLC. Representatives: Jeff and Cassandra Fritz (2709 Manning Drive, Trinity, FL 34655-9614; phone: 727-772-3292; fax: 727-236-9614; email: jefvencorp.com). Location: 1.599 acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road. approximately 150 feet north of Terrace View Lane. Atlas Page: 283A. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a nightclub with an accessory sidewalk cafe in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,700 square-foot shopping center with 100 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. Proposed Use: Nightclub with an accessory sidewalk cafe. Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Member Coates 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. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 2009-03-17 Planner III Wayne Wells reviewed the staff report. Staff was concerned this business did not match the definition of a restaurant, as it mainly will serve beer and wine. Staff would not support a typical nightclub at this location. Conditions of approval limit the use to a more upscale establishment. Applicant/Representative Jeff Fritz said in addition to serving coffee to early morning commuters, the business needs to draw customers during the remainder of the day. He said the establishment will be classy and serve as a gathering place, attracting neighbors and Ruth Eckerd Hall attendees, not an unruly element. He said the business will serve high-end beers and wine, smoothies, coffee, and food. He reviewed conditions of approval that limit music volume. He said he visited all residents who received City notice regarding this request and the community was overwhelmingly supportive. He said the only negative comments were related to the nightclub designation. He agreed that staff concerns were justified. Anthony Damianakis requested Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant Anthony Damianakis Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2009-03-17 2 James Whitaker requested Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant James Whitaker Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. James Whitaker said he lives behind the establishment and had concerns that the use might change to a typical nightclub. He said he was present to protect the neighborhood from a problematic use in the future. Planning Director Michael L. Delk said Mr. Fritz had never expressed an interest in opening a nightclub and had submitted the conditions for approval. Staff had concerns regarding the business' operational characteristics and supported the proposal with conditions that require the business to operate as stated. Another public hearing would be required if the operation changed. Staff is considering a Code modification that reflects this type of business. Anthony Damianakis, representing the property owner, said the nightclub designation is misleading. He said the business will be similar to a cafe, but will serve alcohol. Discussion ensued with comments that the conditions will protect the neighborhood and a suggestion that the owners participate on a Ruth Eckerd Hall committee. The owner was commended for meeting with residents. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-02008 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 Three Application Case: TA2009-02005 - Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater, Parks and Recreation Department. Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code specifying that City Council will provide final approval for the commission of public artwork for city capital improvement projects after receiving a recommendation from the Public Art and Design Board. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Margo Walbolt, Cultural Affairs Manager. See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-02005 2009-03-17 See page 4 for motion to recommend approval. Community Development 2009-03-17 3 4. Case: FLD2009-01001 - 431 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: C. John Re, Peter Pullara, Joseph A. Pullara Representative: Robert E. Gregg (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-796-8774 x331; fax: 727-791-6942; email: arch regpa aol.com). Location: 0.12 acre located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street. Atlas Page: 267A. Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant with an accessory sidewalk cafe in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,400 square-feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing/ proposed building), a side (south) setback of 5.4 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a rear (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed sidewalk), a building height of 14.67 feet (to flat roof) and zero parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant with an accessory sidewalk cafe. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 2009-03-17 Member Dame moved to approve the request to extend the time frame of the Development Order for Case FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 on today's Consent Agenda based on reasons for the request and Code provisions for time extensions, and to recommend approval of Case TA2009-02005 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report(s) and to approve Case FLD2009-01001 on today's Consent Agenda 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. Community Development 2009-03-17 4 E. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2009-02005 - 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9 Level Two Application Owner: Mary G. Realty, Inc. Applicant/Representative: Lisset H. Diego, Havana Exclusive Cigars, LLC. (490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-216-6166). Location: 0.4 acre located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. Atlas Page: 267A. Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from retail sales and services to nightclub within the Tourist (T) District within an existing 6,254 square-foot shopping center with 26 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Nightclub. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. Mr. Delk said this request is similar to FLD2009-02008, with the proposed use designated as a nightclub and conditions of approval that limit activity. Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft 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. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 2009-03-17 Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the staff report. The business does not propose to serve food. Applicant/Representative Lisset Diego reviewed her request, stating she wanted patrons to enjoy a beer along with their cigars. Kent Taylor requested Party Status. He said he had not received notice of this hearing from the City but received information from his association's manager Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said as staff could not locate Mr. Taylor's name on the list of notices, the case could be continued and renoticed. She expressed concern that other nearby residents may not have been noticed and provided an opportunity to attend today's meeting. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes expressed similar concerns. Mr. Delk said continuing the item would delay the applicant's request for 30 days, as the City would not license the sale of beer without board approval. The City can provide sufficient notice for the April meeting. Opposition was expressed to a suggestion for additional conditions as the business is in the tourist district. Community Development 2009-03-17 5 Member Dame moved to continue Case FLD2009-02005, due to uncertainty if adjacent neighborhoods had been provided sufficient notice. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION: (Item 1) 1. Level Three Application Case: LUZ2008-11003 - 303 Pinellas Street; 323 Jeffords Street, and 300 Pinellas Street; and an unaddressed parcel located east of 323 Jeffords Street on Reynolds Avenue Owner: Morton Plant Hospital Association. Applicant/Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567). Location: 1.33 acres generally located west of South Fort Harrison Avenue in the vicinity of Reynolds Avenue and Bay Avenue. Atlas Page: 305B. Request: (a) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval to change from Residential/Office General (R/OG) to Institutional (1); and (b) Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Office (O) to Institutional (1) under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 4-602 and 4-603. Proposed Use: Hospital. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Planner 111. See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17 Planner III Lauren Matzke reviewed the staff report. Morton Plant Hospital representative Mark Marquardt said he had worked on the hospital's master plan in the 1990s and was surprised to recently learn that the property had not been zoned Institutional. He said three properties acquired since the original application, plus a vacated right-of-way, are part of this request. This application was filed on behalf of the City. He said the hospital will address a complaint from a Belleair resident regarding activity on the hospital campus; the complaint does not relate to this zoning issue. He reviewed the hospital's agreement with the Town of Belleair to maintain a 150-foot construction buffer along the town's border. He said all hospital construction projects must meet City engineering requirements that include estuary issues. One person spoke in opposition to the request. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said when the City Commission adopted the ordinance in 1995, the intent was to zone the hospital campus Institutional. It is not known why the process was not completed. Countywide rules require the property to be zoned Institutional. In response to a question, Mr. Marquardt said the construction project at Bay Avenue and Pinellas Street is hundreds of feet away from Belleair's border. Community Development 2009-03-17 6 Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2008-11 003 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Items not on the Aoenda Support was expressed for modifying the Code related to businesses that serve alcohol but are not nightclubs, such as Cases FLD2009-02008 and FLD2009-02005. It was stated that advertising these uses as nightclubs had raised unfounded concerns. G. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m. ~~~:tt air Community Development Board Community Development 2009-03-17 7 Exhibit: Time Extension FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 - 2009-03-17 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board FROM: Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planning III RE: Request for Time Extension FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 – 635 Mandalay Avenue DATE: February 2, 2009 Attached is information related to the request by Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc., for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 635 Mandalay Avenue. On February 20, 2007, the CDB approved a request for a Mixed Use (eight attached dwellings and 1,253 square feet of retail floor area) for this site. A one-year extension is being requested which would expire on February 20, 2010. Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time “shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for economic reasons as it relates to the current market conditions. It should be noted that, pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a one-year time extension. The Code further directs that the Community Development Board may consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments that would significantly affect the project. There are no pending or approved code amendments that would significantly affect the project. Attachments: Letter of Request Time Extension Development Order January 7, 2008 Maps and Photos S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Mandalay 0635 Tiffany Terrace (T) - Approved\Mandalay 635 Time Extension Memorandum for 3.17.09 CDB.doc Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 CDB Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Case Numbers: FLD2009-02008 Agenda Item: D.2. Owner: Savoy LLC Applicant: The Brew Garden LLC Representative: Jeff and Cassandra Fritz Address: 904 McMullen Booth Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a nightclub with an accessory sidewalk cafe in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,700 square foot shopping center with 100 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Commercial General (CG) USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Restaurant Proposed Use: Café with on-premise consumption of beer and wine, including an accessory sidewalk cafe EXISTING North: Pinellas County Detached dwellings SURROUNDING ZONING South: Pinellas County Detached dwellings AND USES: East: Commercial (C) and Retail sales and services; Attached High Density Residential dwellings Districts West: Pinellas County Detached dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.599 acres is located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road, approximately 150 feet north of Terrace View Lane. The site is currently improved with an approximate 16,700 square-foot, multi-tenant shopping center. A Starbucks restaurant operated within the subject tenant space and accessory sidewalk café from October 2007 to October 2008, when the restaurant closed. The existing multi-tenant shopping center is oriented toward McMullen Booth Road, with the rear of the tenant spaces facing west adjacent to the rear yards of the detached dwellings to the west of this site. A one-way vehicular drive aisle is situated between a solid fence along the west property line and the rear building face. Parking areas are located on the north side of the northern portion of the building and east and south side of the southern portion of the building. There are two driveways for this property, which exist in slightly different locations than shown Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 1 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 on the submitted site plan. The northern driveway is located farther north than indicated, lining up with the northern parking rows’ drive aisle. The southern driveway is located a few parking spaces south of that indicated on the submitted site plan. There are no existing parking spaces to the rear of the multi-tenant shopping center as indicated on the submitted site plan. While the submitted site plan indicates 100 parking spaces, which is how the application was advertised, in reality there exist 82 parking spaces. Detached dwellings exist to the north, west and south of this multi-tenant shopping center parcel. Detached dwelling subdivisions wrap around this shopping center, but there is no direct vehicular access (driveways) between the shopping center and subdivision streets. A retail sales and service use (Sam Ash) is located to the east across McMullen Booth Road. A mid-rise attached dwelling development is located to the northeast across McMullen Booth Road. Development Proposal: The applicant originally applied to operate this establishment as a restaurant. A restaurant is defined by the Community Development Code (CDC) as “a use providing for the preparation or sale of prepared food for consumption by customers primarily on the premises, including the subordinate sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises, but excluding facilities with prepared food service within grocery stores and delicatessens.” Upon review of application materials, there was staff concern regarding the subordinate nature of the alcoholic beverage sales and the ability by the City to monitor such. The CDC defines a nightclub as “any facility licensed by the State of Florida for on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages but not including restaurants.” To address staff concerns regarding whether the on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages would be subordinate or primary in relationship to food items, this application has been filed to permit the use as a café with on-premise consumption of beer and wine, including an accessory sidewalk cafe. Due to the manner of how uses are set out in the Zoning Districts in the Community Development Code and to meet advertising requirements, the request has listed the proposed use as a “nightclub”. Staff is not supportive of a nightclub at this location, but is supportive of the use envisioned by the applicant with appropriate conditions of approval to restrict its use. The application proposes to utilize the existing 2,153 square-foot enclosed tenant space with an existing 476 square-foot sidewalk café where there was previously a Starbucks restaurant. The applicant is proposing to utilize the same tenant space, not enlarging the enclosed floor area or the sidewalk café area from that which exists today. Additionally, there are no proposed changes to other site improvements (parking areas, driveways or landscaped areas). The site conforms to current standards for minimum lot area, minimum lot width, impervious surface ratio (I.S.R.) and floor area ratio (F.A.R.) and no changes are proposed. The existing building and pavement setbacks are nonconforming to current Code requirements and are not proposed to be modified. The existing building height for this tenant space is less than the maximum height for the minimum standard Code requirement. The shopping center as a whole is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of off-street parking. Based upon CDC Section 3-1405 for shared parking and the existing/proposed uses, the subject property would require a minimum of 98 off- street parking spaces, or 16 spaces more than presently existing. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. The applicant’s concept for this establishment (The Brew Garden) is that of a high-end coffee café that also serves select beer and wine. More than 100 different varieties of coffee, tea, ciders, hot chocolate, Italian sodas and fruit smoothies will be offered. Desserts, pastries, cold sandwiches, salads, panini’s, bruschetta and cheeses will be also offered. Food and all coffee house items will be available during all operating hours. The applicant will not offer for on-premise consumption more than beer and wine and will not offer any enticing alcoholic drink specials (such as, but not limited to, ladies night, sink or swim or quarter beer Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 2 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 night). The proposed hours of operation are 6:00 am to 11:00 pm weekdays and 7:00 am to 12:00 am on weekends. In order to be respectful of the detached dwellings to the west of this shopping center, the rear door will be closed at all times (not propped open). There will be no music played loud enough to impede low decibel conversation or reading activities indoors or on the sidewalk café patio, as well as there will be no amplified music. The applicant is not planning any jukeboxes, pool tables, dartboards or arcade games of any kind. There is an existing building permit for dumpster enclosure(s) that was submitted for Starbucks but was never issued, although the enclosure(s) were constructed (BCP2007-07293). The owner and/or applicant should finalize this permit so that it may be issued and inspected. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the uses allowed within the Commercial (C) District are subject to the standards and criteria set forth in this Section. Among those criteria established for the review of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects is the following: 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: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, ?? balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. As previously noted, the proposal does not contain any changes to either the existing shopping center building or the off-street parking area, and while the proposal will meet some of the above criteria, it cannot meet others without being required to modify the existing architectural elevations of the shopping center. However, to require such changes simply to accommodate the proposed use for an existing tenant space would be impractical and inappropriate. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 3 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the nightclub proposal with the standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent 1 Maximum F.A.R. 0.55 0.239 X 1 Maximum I.S.R. 0.95 0.80 X 1 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 sq. ft. 69,677 sq. ft. X 1 Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet 593 feet X 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet Two feet (to existing X building); Five feet (to existing pavement) 1 Side: 0 – 10 feet North: Five feet (to existing X pavement) 1 South: Five feet (to existing X pavement) 1 Rear: 10 – 20 feet 13 feet (to existing X building); Three feet (to existing pavement) 1 Maximum Height 25 – 50 feet (retail sales and 20 – 25 feet (to existing X restaurants) (25 feet for flat roofs) nightclubs) 1 Minimum Off-Street 88 parking spaces 82 parking spaces X Parking (per shared parking table) 1 Figures reflect existing conditions on-site (based on the submitted site plan) that are not being altered or approved by the proposed application. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 4 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations X from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X 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. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the X proposed development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 1 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: f. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; g. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; h. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; i. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, ?? pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? j. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. 1 See above discussion with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 5 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB). Findings of Fact. The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 1.599 acres is located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road, approximately 150 feet north of Terrace View Lane; 2. The site is currently improved with an approximate 16,700 square-foot, multi-tenant shopping center; 3. A Starbucks restaurant operated within the subject tenant space and accessory sidewalk café from October 2007 to October 2008, when the restaurant closed; 4. The application proposes to utilize the existing 2,153 square-foot enclosed tenant space with an existing 476 square-foot sidewalk café where there was previously the Starbucks restaurant. The applicant is proposing to utilize the same tenant space, not enlarging the enclosed floor area or the sidewalk café area from that which exists today; 5. The subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the existing shopping center building and off-street parking area not meeting the minimum required setbacks; 6. The proposal is to permit a café with on-premise consumption of beer and wine within one tenant space of the existing shopping center building, along with the accessory sidewalk cafe; 7. The proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height, as they presently exist; 8. The proposed use will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming setbacks for the shopping center building or the off-street parking area; 9. The subject property is developed with a total of 82 off-street parking spaces, which, as a whole, is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of off-street parking; Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 6 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 10. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements; and 11. There are no outstanding 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 Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a café with on-premise consumption of beer and wine with an accessory sidewalk café in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,700 square foot shopping center with 82 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That this use (café with on-premise consumption of beer and wine) be limited to this tenant space only. Any desired relocation within this shopping center or enlargement of floor area or sidewalk café area shall require a new application for re-review by the CDB; 2. That the hours of operation be limited to 6:00 am to 11:00 pm weekdays and 7:00 am to 12:00 am weekends; 3. That on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages be limited to beer and wine (2-COP) and there be no package sales in sealed containers of liquor; 4. That there be no enticing alcoholic drink specials, such as, but not limited to, ladies night, sink or swim or quarter beer night; 5. That food and all coffee house items be available during all operating hours; 6. That the rear door be closed at all times (not propped open); 7. That there be no music played loud enough to impede low decibel conversation or reading activities indoors or on the sidewalk café patio; 8. That there be no amplified music; 9. That there be no jukeboxes, pool tables, dartboards or arcade games of any kind; and 10. That Building Permit No. BCP2007-07293 for dumpster enclosure(s) be finalized so that it may be issued and inspected. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map ?? Aerial Map ?? Zoning Map ?? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ?? Photographs of Site and Vicinity ?? Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 7 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02008 - 2009-03-17 S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\McMullen Booth 0904 Brew Garden (C) 3.17.09 CDB - WW\McMullen Booth 0904 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02008 – Page 8 of 7 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 CDB Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Case Number: TA2009-02005 Ord. No.: 8026-09 Agenda Item: E.2 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code specifying that City Council will provide final approval for the commission of public artwork for city capital improvement projects after receiving a recommendation from the Public Art and Design Board. INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater, Parks and Recreation Department BACKGROUND: In 2005, Ordinance No. 7489-05 was adopted and established policies and procedures for a Public Art and Design Program as well as a Public Art and Design Board to administer the program. At the December 1, 2008 Council work session, City Council directed staff to make changes to the approval process for Public Art by including language establishing that final approval for all public art, recommended by the Public Art and Design Board for installation on City of Clearwater public property, shall be the responsibility of the City Council. The Public Art and Design Board has reviewed the proposed amendments and on January 20, 2009 revised the Public Art and Design Program Guidelines to reflect the approval changes of the proposed amendment. Proposed Amendments Proposed Ordinance 8026-09 includes amendments to the existing Community bold Development Code as follows: (changes are in text) Division 11. Public Art and Design Board Section 5-1103 d. Powers and duties Related to City construction projects, in concert with City staff, is responsible for working with appropriate department in program planning; designating sites; determining providing project scope and budget; managing the artist selection process; recommendation for the commission of artworks; approving design, execution and placement of artworks; and overseeing the maintenance of the artworks and the process for removal of artworks from the City’s public art collection. The Public Art and Design will review proposed artwork and prepare a recommendation for commission Board Staff Report - Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 - Case TA 1 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 subject to review and approval by City Council. Approvals for purchase are then guided by City purchasing requirements. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendment to the Community Development Code. A.5.6 Objective - Use the Public Art and Design Program to contribute to Clearwater’s visual identity, create memorable images of the city for visitors and residents, reinforce Clearwater’s role as an emerging regional leader in culture, recreation and environmental management and the City’s reputation as a wonderful place to live, earn, work and play. Policies: A.5.6.1 Create art projects that help to shape the City’s image, strengthen civic connectivity and support neighborhood identity. A.5.6.2 Implement the public art program to create attraction points, enhance neighborhood character and support personal interaction. A.5.6.3 Improve city connectivity through the placement of public art in areas where neighborhoods come together through recreation and social activities. A.5.6.4 Strengthen neighborhood identity through the placement of public art at libraries, public safety facilities and neighborhood parks. A.5.6.5 Create landmarks in the city by locating public art in highly visible and accessible areas such as in Downtown, Clearwater Beach, at city gateways, and at recreational and cultural destinations to project the City’s image. A.5.6.6 Encourage the incorporation of historic and current elements of Clearwater character into public art projects. 2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purposes of the Code. ?? Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the Staff Report - Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 - Case TA 2 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city. ?? Section 1-103(B) – It is further purpose of this Development Code to create value for the citizens of the City of Clearwater by: (3) Strengthening the city’s economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. ?? Section 1 – 103(D) – It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that the existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well- maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. ?? Section 1 – 103(E) – It is further purpose of this Development Code to: (2) Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city; (5) Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city’s economic underpinnings; SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. APPROVAL The Parks and Recreation Department Staff recommends of Ordinance No. 8026.09 that amends Division 11. Public Art and Design Board, Section 5-1103d of the Community Development Code in that the Public Art and Design Board will provide recommendation of proposed public art on city property and the City Council shall review and approve the artwork. Prepared by Parks and Recreation Department Staff: ______________________________________ Art Kader, Assistant Director ______________________________________ Margo Walbolt, Cultural Affairs Manager Attachments: Ordinance No. 8026-09 Staff Report - Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 - Case TA 3 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 CDB Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Case Numbers: FLD2009-01001 Agenda Item: D.3. Owners/Applicants: C. John Re, Peter Pullara and Joseph A. Pullara Representative: Robert E. Gregg Address: 431 Mandalay Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant with an accessory sidewalk café in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,400 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing/proposed building), a side (south) setback of 5.4 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a rear (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed sidewalk), a building height of 14.67 feet (to flat roof) and zero parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Resort Facilities High (RFH) USE CATEGORY: BEACH BY DESIGN Retail and Restaurant District CHARACTER DISTRICT: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Retail Sales Proposed Use: Restaurant with an accessory sidewalk café EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Restaurant SURROUNDING ZONING South: Tourist (T) District City Parking Lot and Retail Sales AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales West: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations (Hilton) ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.12 acres is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street. The site, until recently, has operated as a retail sales and services establishment. On July 25, 2008, a Development Order with four conditions of approval was issued for Case No. FLS2008-07016 to convert Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 1 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 the existing building from retail sales and services to a restaurant. Building Permit No. BCP2008-05503 was issued August 21, 2008, to convert the existing building from retail sales and services to a restaurant. The surrounding neighborhood is a tourist area comprised of hotels/motels, retail sales establishments and restaurants. The Hilton Hotel is located across Mandalay Avenue from the subject property. There are adjacent restaurants to the north and east. Other retail sales establishments and restaurants exist along Mandalay Avenue between the roundabout and Rockaway Street. City parking lot #34 is adjacent to the south of the subject parcel. Development Proposal: The proposal is to permit a sports-themed restaurant at this location through conversion of the existing retail sales building and the construction of an approximate 1,800 square-foot addition to the east side of the existing 2,584 square-foot building. The addition will contain the kitchen and restroom facilities for the restaurant. The proposed addition includes a covered patio on its south side for a sidewalk café, and a walk-in cooler/freezer on the east side of the addition. The design of the proposed addition will appear as an extension of the existing building with a similar height and similar exterior material and color. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback reductions to recognize the location of the existing building at less than the required setbacks, but also to provide for the proposed building addition with similar setbacks. There presently does not exist any foundation landscaping along the front of the building along Mandalay Avenue. The application includes the reduction from five to zero feet of the required foundation landscape area along the front of the building, which is not possible to install due to the existing building’s location at a zero front setback. A paver sidewalk along the south side of the sidewalk café will provide required building egress to the City parking lot to the south. This pedestrian path to the City’s parking lot will require the recording of an agreement to replace this required accessible path should the City’s property ever be sold for another use. There does exist landscaping along the south side of the building, which was installed and is maintained by the City within an easement obtained by the City on the subject property. Due to the location of the existing building and the size and configuration of the subject property, this site has not previously been provided with any on-site parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the required parking for a restaurant from 66 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to zero spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property, north of the roundabout. The restaurant is proposed to operate from 11:00 am to the latest of 2:00 am, typical of many beach establishments. The proposal will utilize an existing community dumpster located on Poinsettia Avenue to the southeast of this parcel. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The proposed one-story building footprint produces a floor area ratio of 0.81, which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the Community Development Code (CDC), the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.90, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum lot area for restaurants ranges between 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The subject property is 5,400 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can range between 50 – 100 feet. The lot width of this site along Mandalay Avenue is 50 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 2 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum front setback for restaurants can range between zero – 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range between zero – 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing/proposed building), a side (south) setback of 5.4 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk) and a rear (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed sidewalk). The proposed rear setback is one reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The requested front setback reduction recognizes the building’s existing location adjacent to the front (west) property line. Most buildings along both sides of Mandalay Avenue are located in a similar location adjacent to the front property line. While the request also recognizes the existing zero side (north) setback of the existing building, the building addition is proposed at less than one-foot to permit actual construction of the addition. The adjacent building to the north exists at a zero side setback to the common property line. The existing building is located 5.82 feet from the side (south) property line at its southwest corner. The building addition is proposed as an extension of the southern building façade, but due to a slight lot or building angle, the southeast corner of the building addition will be at a side (south) setback of 5.47 feet. The main building addition is proposed at a rear (east) setback of five feet at its southeast corner. The walk-in cooler/freezer on the rear of this building addition is proposed at a 2.25-foot setback. A sidewalk to a rear door of the addition will provide access to the kitchen for deliveries and taking out garbage and is located at a zero-foot rear setback. The interior of the existing building is accessed from Mandalay Avenue by a sidewalk at its southwest corner, which exists at a zero-foot side (south) setback. In order to provide access meeting Building and Fire Codes, a sidewalk is proposed adjacent to the south side of the proposed sidewalk café portion of the building addition and directs persons to an access area in the adjacent City parking lot. This pedestrian path to the City’s parking lot will require the recording of an agreement to replace this required accessible path should the City’s property ever be sold for another use. Given the character of the surrounding area, many properties along both sides of Mandalay Avenue have similar setbacks where buildings have been constructed close to or at the property lines. As such, the setbacks proposed in this request are appropriate and consistent with the developed character of the surrounding area. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the maximum allowable height for restaurants ranges between 25 – 100 feet. The existing building height is 13.3 feet to its flat roof. The height of the building addition is proposed at a maximum of 14.67 feet to its flat roof. The existing and proposed parapet around the building edge is 16 feet, well below the range permitted. Generally, commercial buildings along both sides of Mandalay Avenue are one- to two-story stories in height. The design of this project creates a form and function that will be consistent with and enhance the character of this area. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum required parking for restaurants can range between seven and 15 parking space per 1,000 square feet, or between 31 – 66 required parking spaces. The existing building and site has no on-site parking with no ability to provide any such parking. The proposal provides zero on-site parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study of available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property (north of the roundabout). Many properties along Mandalay Avenue do not have any on-site parking of their own. The proposed restaurant is located within walking distance of numerous motels, hotels and residences. Businesses within this area rely on metered on-street parking and metered parking lots. City Parking Lot #34, with 24 metered parking spaces, is located adjacent to the south side of the subject property. Most people park and then walk to businesses, usually visiting more than one business. The Beach Trolley also Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 3 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 presently provides bus service from downtown to properties along Mandalay Avenue. The submitted Parking Demand Study demonstrates that adequate parking is available within a reasonable walking distance of this property to support the requested reduction to on-site parking. The proposed parking reduction is another reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, all outside mechanical equipment is to be screened so as to not be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical equipment is located on the existing building rooftop and mechanical equipment for the addition is proposed to also be located on the roof. The building’s architect has indicated these rooftop mechanical units will not be visible from the properties to the north and east, due to those building’s location close to or adjacent to the common property lines. The building’s architect has also indicated these rooftop mechanical units will not be visible within 100 feet from the south and 250 feet from the west. Compliance with the screening requirement for the mechanical equipment is best handled at the building permit phase. Based upon this, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Utilities: 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. Overhead utility lines presently feed the existing building. Plans for this proposal indicate that new underground service will be provided, in conformance with this Code requirement. Landscaping: The improvement value in relation to the current building value, pursuant to Section 3- 1202.A.3 of the CDC, requires landscaping to be brought into full compliance with current Code requirements. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D of the CDC, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. Since there is no parking lot on this property, there is no interior landscape area requirement. CDC Section 3-1202.E.2 requires foundation landscaping along the frontage of a building façade facing a street right-of-way. The building fronts on Mandalay Avenue, but due to its proximity to the front property line, the applicant is unable to provide this required foundation landscaping. Many properties on both sides of Mandalay Avenue do not have any foundation landscaping. Given these circumstances, the application includes a request to reduce this requirement from five to zero feet, which is appropriate. There does exist landscaping along the south side of the building, which was installed and is maintained by the City within an easement obtained by the City on the subject property. In order to construct the proposed sidewalk along the south side of the sidewalk café, existing shrubs will need to be removed. The location of the existing palm trees restricts the width of the sidewalk to a maximum of three feet, which will be constructed with pavers. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department for the removal of these shrubs and any trees, including the existing irrigation for such landscaping, and may require the applicant to assume maintenance of the landscaping and/or irrigation. Based on a 2006 aerial photo, there were a number of trees in the currently vacant area at the rear of the property where the addition is planned that have been removed without a permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an after-the-fact permit will need to be obtained and either tree replacements or payment in lieu be approved by the City’s Land Resource Specialist. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize an existing community dumpster located on Poinsettia Avenue to the southeast of this parcel. Restaurant staff will need to transport the trash to this dumpster. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 4 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 Signage: No freestanding signage is possible for this site due to the building’s location on the site. Only attached signage will be allowed. There presently is an attached sign on the west side of the building along Mandalay Avenue. Code allowable window signage should be used otherwise. The southern proposed elevation includes an existing banner that must be removed. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the restaurant proposal with the standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Maximum F.A.R. 1.0 (5,400 square feet) 0.81 (4,385 square feet) X Maximum I.S.R. 0.95 0.90 X Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 sq. ft. 5,400 square feet X Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet 50 feet X 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet Zero feet (to existing X building) 1 Side: 0 – 10 feet North: Zero feet (to X existing/proposedbuilding) 1 South: 5.4 feet (to proposed X building); zero feet (to existing sidewalk) 1 Rear: 10 – 20 feet 2.25 feet (to proposed X building) and zero feet (to proposed sidewalk) Maximum Height 25 – 100 feet Existing: 13.3 feet (to flat X roof); Proposed addition: 14.67 feet (to flat roof) 1 Minimum Off-Street Seven - 15 spaces per 1,000 square Zero spaces X Parking feet (31 – 66 spaces) 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 5 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations X from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X 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. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the X proposed development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 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: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, ?? pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 6 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB). Findings of Fact. The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 0.12 acres is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street; 2. The subject property is located within the Retail and Restaurant Character District of Beach by Design; 3. The site, until recently, has operated as a retail sales and services establishment; 4. On July 25, 2008, a Development Order with four conditions of approval was issued for Case No. FLS2008-07016 to convert the existing building from retail sales and services to a restaurant. Building Permit No. BCP2008-05503 was issued August 21, 2008, to convert the existing building from retail sales and services to a restaurant; 5. A Unity of Title tying the lots included in this parcel’s legal description was recorded in OR Book 16323, Page 2372; 6. City parking lot #34, with 24 metered parking spaces, is adjacent to the south of the subject parcel; 7. The surrounding neighborhood is a tourist area comprised of hotels/motels, retail sales establishments and restaurants; 8. The proposal is to permit a sports-themed restaurant at this location through conversion of the existing retail sales building and the construction of an approximate 1,800 square-foot addition to the east side of the existing 2,584 square-foot building; 9. The design of the proposed addition will appear as an extension of the existing building with a similar height and similar exterior material and color; Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 7 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 10. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback reductions to recognize the location of the existing building at less than the required setbacks, but also to provide for the proposed building addition with similar setbacks; 11. The application includes the reduction from five to zero feet of the required foundation landscape area along the front of the building, which is not possible to install due to the existing building’s location at a zero front setback; 12. Due to the location of the existing building and the size and configuration of the subject property, this site has not previously been provided with any on-site parking; 13. The proposal includes a reduction to required parking for a restaurant from 66 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to zero spaces; 14. The submitted Parking Demand Study demonstrates that adequate parking is available within a reasonable walking distance of this property to support the requested reduction to on-site parking; and 15. There are no current outstanding 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 Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.C of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with an accessory sidewalk café in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,400 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing/proposed building), a side (south) setback of 5.4 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a rear (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed sidewalk), a building height of 14.67 feet (to flat roof) and zero parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That the final design and color of the restaurant building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, an agreement acceptable to the Engineering Department be recorded in the public records indicating the applicant will provide alternative access to the public sidewalk on Mandalay Avenue from the secondary building exit should the City or successor in title to ownership of the City-owned parking lot change the use of the parking lot thereby blocking access to the public sidewalk. Such agreement shall further make clear the applicant agrees to pay all costs associated with restoring access to the public sidewalk and meet all applicable accessibility Code requirements; 3. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, screening requirements for rooftop mechanical units be approved by the Planning Department; 4. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant coordinate the removal of shrubs and trees and existing irrigation with the Parks and Recreation Department to construct the paver sidewalk Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 8 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 along the south side of the sidewalk café, which may require the applicant to assume maintenance of the landscaping and/or irrigation; 5. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, an after-the-fact permit be obtained for trees removed from the rear area of the subject property, providing either tree replacements or payment in lieu, as approved by the City’s Land Resource Specialist; and 6. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering and the Land Resource Specialist be addressed. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map ?? Aerial Map ?? Zoning Map ?? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ?? Photographs of Site and Vicinity ?? Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 9 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-01001 - 2009-03-17 S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Mandalay 0431 Way Cool Grill (T) 2009.03 3.17.09 CDB - WW\Mandalay 431 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-01001 – Page 10 of 9 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 CDB Meeting Date: March 17, 2008 Case Number: FLD2009-02005 Agenda Item: D. 1. Owner: Mary G. Realty, Inc. Applicant: Lisset H. Diego Address: 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from retail sales and services to nightclub within the Tourist (T) District within an existing 6,254 square foot shopping center with 26 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Retail Sales and Services Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services / Nightclub EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings; and ZONING AND USES: Retail Sales and Services East: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services; and Restaurants West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.40-acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, which is within the “Destination Resort” District of Beach by Design. The site is currently developed with a 6,254 square foot shopping center that is divided into five tenant spaces, as well as a 26-space off-street parking area. It is noted that both the building and the off-street parking area are nonconforming with regard to the minimum required setbacks; however the site does currently meet all other development standards. Development Proposal: On February 2, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. The application proposes to establish a nightclub use within an existing 720 square foot tenant space where there is presently a retail sales and services use. It should be noted that while the proposed use is technically described as a nightclub, the actual function of the proposed use would be more consistent with that of a cigar bar. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 1 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 The existing shopping center building and off-street parking area will remain unchanged. Therefore, as there will be no building additions or modifications to these existing site improvements, there will be no impact upon the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, maximum building height, and minimum setback development standards. The development proposal’s compliance with those remaining applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Minimum Off-Street Parking: The existing shopping center has a total of 26 off-street parking spaces and is comprised of two restaurants, two retail sales and services uses, and one office. The following table depicts these existing uses, the standard off-street parking requirements, and the proposed use with a revised total off-street parking requirement. Required Off-Street Tenant Space Use Square Footage Parking Clear Sky Beachside Cafe 1 – 6 Restaurant 3,362.34 50.43 Gelato Bello 7 Restaurant 745 11.17 Retail Sales 733.33 3.66 Havana Exclusive Cigars 8 and 9 Nightclub 733.33 7.33 Key West Express 10 and 11 Retail Sales 973.33 4.86 Realty Resources 12 Office 440 1.76 EXISTING TOTAL:71.88 (72) PROPOSED TOTAL: 75.55 (76) As per the above, the shopping center as a whole is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of off-street parking. Based upon the standard off-street parking rates, a total of 76 spaces are needed for those uses currently established on-site – 50 more than presently exist. As nightclubs are required to provide 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (retail sales and services uses are only required 5/1,000), the proposed change of use for the 733 square foot tenant space would increase this nonconformity by an additional four (4) spaces. It is noted, however, that pursuant to CDC Section 3-1405, 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 off-street parking requirement for the proposal as per the above: WEEKDAY WEEKEND Use: Midnight 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 6 A.M. 4 P.M. Midnight 4 P.M. Midnight Office (1.76) 5% = 0.088 100% = 1.76 10% = 0.176 10% = 0.176 5% = 0.088 Retail (4.86) 5% = 0.243 70% = 3.402 90% = 4.374 100% = 4.86 70% = 3.402 Restaurant (61.6) 10% = 6.16 50% = 30.8 100% = 61.6 50% = 30.8 100% = 61.6 1 Restaurant (7.33) 10% = 0.733 50% = 3.665 100% = 7.33 50% = 3.665 100% = 7.33 Totals: 7.224 39.627 73.48 39.501 72.42 1 The shared parking table does not specifically identify a category for the nightclub use. As such, the restaurant category is used for nightclubs due to their similar hours of operation impacts on off-street parking. Based upon the above table, the subject property would require a minimum of 73 off-street parking spaces with the proposed change of use to establish the nightclub. However, as it was previously noted, only 26 off-street parking spaces presently exist on the subject property and no additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 2 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 As such, it is requested that the additional off-street parking requirements for the proposed nightclub be waived. It should be noted that the proposed nightclub is not intended to be a nightclub in the traditional sense, but instead more of a cigar bar. As such, the demand for off-street parking should not be as intense as it would be for a traditional nightclub and will not likely result in an intensification from the existing retail sales and services use. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803, the uses allowed within the Tourist (T) District are subject to the standards and criteria set forth in this Section. Among those criteria established for the review of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects is the following: 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: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, ?? balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. As previously noted, the proposal does not contain any changes to either the existing shopping center building or the off-street parking area, and while the proposal will meet some of the above criteria, it cannot meet others without being required to modify the existing architectural elevations of the shopping center. However, to require such changes simply to accommodate a proposed change of use for an existing tenant space would be impractical and inappropriate. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 3 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803: Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent 1 F.A.R. 1.0 0.62 X 1 I.S.R. 0.95 0.90 X 1 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 square 17,457 square feet X feet 1 Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet Mandalay Avenue: 180 feet X Baymont Street: 100 feet 1 Maximum Building Height 25 – 50 feet 12 feet X 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 feet North: 14.9 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) 1 East: 51.7 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) 1 Side: 10 feet South: 4.2 feet (to building) X 4.2 feet (to pavement) 1 Rear: 20 feet West: 3.1 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) 2 Minimum Off-Street 73 parking spaces 26 parking spaces X Parking (per shared parking table) 1 Figures reflect existing conditions on site that are not being altered or approved by the proposed application. 2 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 4 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X 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. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 1 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 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: Changes in horizontal building planes; ?? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, ?? pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ?? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ?? Building stepbacks; and ?? Distinctive roofs forms. ?? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. 1 See above discussion with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria. Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 5 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB). Findings of Fact. The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 0.4 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Destination Resort” district; 4. That the subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces; 5. That the subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the existing shopping center building and off-street parking area not meeting the minimum required setbacks; 6. That the proposal consists only of a change of use from retail sales and services to nightclub within an existing shopping center building; 7. That the proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height, as they presently exist; 8. That the proposed will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming setbacks for the shopping center building or the off-street parking area; and 9. That the subject property is developed with a total of 26 off-street parking spaces, which does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirement for the property as currently occupied, and with the proposed change of use this nonconformity would be increased. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Section 2-803.C; and 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from retail sales and services to nightclub within the Tourist (T) District within an existing 6,254 square foot shopping center with 26 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 2. That this use (cigar bar) be limited to this tenant space only, and that any desired relocation within this shopping center or enlargement of floor area shall require a new application for re-review by the CDB; 3. That on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages be limited to beer and wine (2-COP) and there be no package sales in sealed containers of liquor; 4. That there shall be no enticing alcoholic drink specials, such as, but not limited to, ladies night, sink or swim, or quarter beer night; 5. That there be no music played loud enough to impede low decibel conversation; and 6. That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Mandalay 0490 Havana Cigars (T) 2009.03 - Pending - RT\Staff Report 2009 03-17.doc Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 7 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 - 2009-03-17 Robert G. Tefft 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4539 robert.tefft@myclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Development Review Manager ?? City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida August 2008 to Present Manage and supervise five planners and two land resource specialists. Represent the department at Community Development Board and City Council meetings, and the City at meetings of Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority as well as other public bodies as needed. Planner III ?? City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to August 2008 Performed technical reviews and prepared of staff reports for various land development applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Made presentations to various City Boards and Committees. Planner II ?? City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Performed technical reviews and prepared of staff reports for various land development applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Assistant Planner | Planner | Senior Planner ?? City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to May 2005 Performed technical reviews and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional uses, rezonings, land use amendments, and text amendments. Performed reviews of building permit applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Made presentations to various City Boards. Provided in-depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. Provided information on land use applications, ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs/services to other professionals and the public. EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1999 ?? LICENSES & CERTIFICATES American Planning Association ?? Community Development Board – March 17, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 8 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 - 2009-03-17 CDB Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Case Number: LUZ2008-11003 Owner/Applicant: Morton Plant Hospital Association / Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator Address: 303 Pinellas Street; 323 Jeffords Street and 300 Pinellas Street; and an unaddressed parcel located east of 323 Jeffords Street on Reynolds Avenue Agenda Item: E-1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION REQUEST: (a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential/ Office General (R/OG) Classification to the Institutional (I) Classification. (b) Rezoning from the Office (O) District to the Institutional (I) District. SITE INFORMATION PROPERTY SIZE: 57,934 square feet or 1.33 acres (total) (1) 303 Pinellas Street: 23,958 square feet or 0.55 acres (including vacated right-of-way) (2) 323 Jeffords Street and 300 Pinellas Street: 27,442 square feet or 0.63 acres (including vacated rights- of-way) (3) Unaddressed parcel on Reynolds Avenue: 6,534 square feet or 0.15 acres PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Hospital Proposed Use: Hospital PLAN CATEGORY: Current Category: Residential/Office General (R/OG) Proposed Category: Institutional (I) ZONING DISTRICT: Current District: Office (O) Proposed District: Institutional (I) Community Development Board – March 17, 2008 - Case LUZ2008-11003 -Page 1 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc EXISTING North: Hospital SURROUNDING USES: West: Hospital South: Hospital East: Hospital ANALYSIS: This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves three parcels of land, comprising approximately 1.33 acres in area, located west of South Fort Harrison Avenue in the vicinity of Reynolds Avenue and Bay Avenue. The subject property is located within the Morton Plant Hospital Campus and is occupied by a 35,187 square foot hospital (Powell Cancer Pavilion), a parking lot for Morton Plant Hospital (main building), and a vacant, unimproved lot. It has an existing Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG) and a zoning designation of Office (O). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan classification of this property to the Institutional (I) classification and to rezone the parcels to the Institutional (I) District in order to make this property consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas designations of the remainder of the hospital campus. In 1995 the Morton Plant Hospital Association submitted an application to amend the Plan classification and zoning designation for a portion of this property to the I land use category and I zoning district. The City Commission passed Ordinance No. 5856-95 and 5857-95 on December 7, 1995. The City, however, did not transmit the ordinances to the Florida Department of Community Affairs nor to the Pinellas Planning Council for review. Therefore, the original ordinances are not considered legally effective, and must be rescinded. The amendment to the Future Land Use Plan classification and the accompanying rezoning must be reprocessed as well. The current application includes 0.43 acres more land than in the original application due to the vacation of portions of Pinellas Street, Sadler Street and Bay Avenue rights-of-way, which occurred in 1996 and 2000. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the Future Land Use Plan amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the density of the parcel, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required. I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4- 602.F.1 and Section 4-603.F.1 and 2] Recommended Findings of Fact Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below: A.2. Goal – A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development. A.2.1 Objective – Public institutions, such as hospitals, parks, utility facilities and government facilities shall be provided sufficient land area to accommodate identified public needs. Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 2 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc A.2.1.2 Policy – Growth of Morton Plant hospital shall continue to be consistent with the Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan. A.4.1.1 Policy – No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (roads, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. A.5.1.1 Policy – Identify Activity Centers: high intensity, high-density multi-use areas designated as appropriate for intensive growth and routinely provide service to a significant number of citizens of more than one county. Activity centers are proximate and accessible to interstate or major arterial roadways, and are composed of multiple destination points, landmarks and neighborhood centers and character features. B.1.4 Objective - The City shall specifically consider the existing and planned LOS the road network affected by a proposed development, when considering an amendment to the land use map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval. Recommended Conclusions of Law Amending the Future Land Use Plan classification and zoning designation on the subject parcels would result in a single land use and zoning designation across the Morton Plant Hospital Campus, consistent with the hospital’s master plan. Morton Plant Hospital is identified as an activity center on the Citywide Design Structure, which serves as a guide to support redevelopment. Staff analysis includes a review of the potential impact of this amendment on the levels of City services. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN Recommended Findings of Fact The purpose of the proposed Institutional (I) category, as specified in Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now used or appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource features. The I category is generally appropriate to those locations where educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are required to serve the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their relationship with surrounding uses and transportation access. The requested Future Land Use Plan category is appropriately located due to the parcels location within the Morton Plant Hospital campus, located on South Fort Harrison Avenue. Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 3 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan. III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 and 3 and Section 4-603.F.3] Recommended Findings of Fact These parcels are internal to the Morton Plant Hospital campus and have Morton Plant property surrounding them to the north, south, east and west. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed Future Land Use Plan designation and rezoning are in character with the overall Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations in the area. They are compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood. IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.6 and Section 4- 603.F.4] Recommended Findings of Fact As stated earlier, the subject parcels are approximately 1.33 acres in total area. The westernmost and central parcels are presently paved parking for hospital buildings. The easternmost parcel is presently vacant, but a future hospital project is planned for it and the surrounding lots. Based on a maximum permitted development potential in the proposed Institutional (I) Future Land Use Plan category, including a floor area ratio bonus provision for hospital uses in the institutional classification, a floor area of 57,934 square feet could be potentially constructed on these parcels. Roadways The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of the proposed plan amendment is based on the Pinellas Planning Council’s (PPC) traffic generation guidelines. The PPC’s traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories and are included in the following table. Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 4 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC Current Existing Proposed Net New Ft. Harrison Avenue: Pinellas Street to Situation Plan Plan Trips 12 Category Category Jeffords Street Maximum Daily Added Potential TripsN/A227223(-4) 3 Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential TripsN/A22220 Volume of Ft. Harrison Avenue between Pinellas 18,02218,24918,245(-4) Street and Jeffords Street LOS of Ft. Harrison Avenue between Pinellas F F F F Street and Jeffords Street N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service 1 = Based on PPC calculations of 170 trips per acre per day for the Residential/Office General Future Land Use Category. 2 = Based on PPC calculations of 167 trips per acre per day for the Institutional Future Land Use Category. 3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095. The Countywide Plan Rules Source: Based on the 2008 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service Report, the segment of Ft. Harrison Avenue from Pinellas Street to Jeffords Street has a LOS of F. The proposed amendment does not increase the overall volume of PM peak hour trips, so the LOS will not degrade further. The Engineering Department’s corridor improvement plan includes plans for intersection improvements within this segment of roadway. Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning district has been analyzed for the number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip th Generation 8 Edition. Net Change of PM Net Change Average Daily Peak of PM Peak Daily PM Trips Uses Square Footage Trips Trips Average Rate Trips Trips Maximum Existing O District/ Development Potential R/OG FLUP Medical/Dental 2 Office Building 28,967 sf 1047 1047 4.45 129 129 Maximum Development Proposed I District / I FLUP Potential 3 Hospital57,934 sf 956 (-91) 1.46 85 (-44) th 1 = Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 720 th 2 = Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 610 The existing use for the subject property, parking for the surrounding hospital and medical buildings, does not generate trips. The traffic analysis above compares the expected traffic generated by the maximum medical/dental office building use and the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed I District and I Future Land Use Plan category. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the proposed Future Land Use Plan category could generate up to 85 more PM Peak Hour trips onto Ft. Harrison Avenue than Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 5 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc the existing parking lots. While the proposed I land use plan category could generate more PM Peak Hour trips than the existing use, the maximum PM Peak trips generated by the proposed use would be 44 fewer PM Peak trips than could be generated under the existing category of Residential/Office General (R/OG). This analysis looks at scenarios. Any proposed development is reviewed by the Engineering Department, which determines if a Traffic Impact study is required to determine possible mitigation for a particular project. The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not permit roadways to operate below an LOS of D at the PM peak hour. In the event that the site is redeveloped, transportation concurrency must be met and mitigation may be required. Mass Transit The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is located directly between two existing transit routes along Jeffords Street (north) and Ft. Harrison Avenue (east). Water The current Future Land Use Plan category could use up to 2,900 gallons per day. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, water demand could approach approximately 5,800 gallons per day. The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has confirmed, however, that the increase will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for water. Wastewater The current Future Land Use Plan category could produce up to 2,300 gallons per day. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, sewer demand could approach approximately 4,600 gallons per day. The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has confirmed that the proposed land use will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for wastewater. Solid Waste Assuming a maximum medical/dental office use, the current Future Land Use Plan category could result in the production of 66.63 tons of solid waste per year. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, the development of a hospital could generate 72.42 tons of solid waste . per yearThe proposed Future Land Use Plan amendment will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for solid waste disposal. Recreation and Open Space The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will not impact the LOS of recreational acreage or facilities due to available capacity. Should the site be redeveloped, Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. This will be determined as part of the development review process. Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 6 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc Recommended Conclusions of Law Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan amendment will not result in additional degradation of the existing LOS to the adjacent roads. Further, there is a minimal impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service as each has adequate capacity to handle the maximum potential increase in demand generated by this proposed amendment. Open space and recreation facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan category. V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.] Recommended of Findings of Fact No wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. These parcels are primarily parking for the associated hospital buildings and have trees located in interior landscape islands and perimeter buffers. Prior to development of the subject property, the stormwater management system will be required to meet all City and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria. Water quantity and quality will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Conclusions of Law Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. Any redevelopment would require compliance with the City’s tree preservation and storm water management requirements. VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.] Recommended Findings of Fact The location of the proposed Institutional (I) District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of the subject parcels, which are generally rectangular. The proposed I District is compatible with the surrounding institutional uses. The location of the proposed I District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into the appropriate zoning district. The I zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent I zoning districts located to the immediate north, south, east and west. Recommended Conclusions of Law The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 7 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from the R/OG classification to the I classification for the subject site and rezoning from the O to the I District is requested. The proposed site is developed primarily as parking for the Morton Plant Hospital campus. The request makes the Future Land Use Plan classification and zoning designation for these parcels consistent with the surrounding property. As indicated earlier, this request was approved in 1995 but due to an error in processing, was not legally effective at the time. These amendments would complete the process. Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: ACTION: APPROVAL Recommend of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential/Office General to Institutional Classification and rezoning request from the Office designation to the Institutional designation Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________ Lauren Matzke, Planner III Attachments: Resume Application Location Map Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Future Land Use Plan Map Zoning Map Existing Surrounding Land Use Map Site Photographs Community Development Board – February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 8 of 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2008-11003 2009-03-17.doc ~ Clearwater u Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: DATE: Agenda Items for March 17, 2009 March 11, 2009 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 20, 2009 A. Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. / Case: FLD2009-02005 - 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9 Yes no 2. Case: FLD20~2008 - 904 McMullen Booth Road Yes 7~ - no 3. Case: FLD2009-0 1 00 1 - 431 Mandalay Avenue vi Yes no B. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1): 1. ~se: LUZ2008-11003 - 303 Pinellas Street; 323 Jeffords Street and 300 Pinellas Street; and an unaddr sed parcel located east of 323 Jeffords Street on Reynolds Avenue Yes no 2. Case: T A2009-02005 - Amendments to the Community Development Code DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. l"l"me Extension - FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 - 635 Mandalay Avenue. V-- Yes no /0~dtvo~j PRINT NAME r~,-t~JA " Date: ~ / 17!?e} Signature: S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBl2009\03 March 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 03.17.2009.doc LL o >- I- o Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager , COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: DATE: Agenda Items for March 17,2009 March 11, 2009 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 20, 2009 1. ase: FLD2009-02005 - 490 Mandalay A venue, Suites 8 & 9 Yes no 2. ~~, FLD2009-02008 - 904 MoMull,u Booth Rood ~7 no 3. / ~~~e: FLD2009-0100l-43l Mandalay Avenue Yes no B. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1): 1. Case: LUZ2008-11003 - 303 Pine lias Street; 323 Jeffords Street and 300 Pine II as Street; and an una~ed parcel located east of 323 Jeffords Street on Reynolds A venue I Yes no 2. Case: T A2009-02005 - Amendments to the Community Development Code DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1): 1. TiprE Extension - FLD2006-09053/TDR2006-09031 - 635 Mandalay Avenue. ~ Yes no f1t.Aw~ t.., J:>~ Co PRINT NAME Date: :?//d~ Signature: s: \Planning DepartmentlC D B\Agendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\03 March 17, 200911 Cover MMO 03. 17.2009.doc