The URL can be used to link to this page

04/21/2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 21, 2009 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice Chair Jordan Behar Board Member Frank L. Dame Board Member Doreen DiPolito Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Brian A. Barker Board Member Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member Also Present: Morris Massey Attorney for the Board 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. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR: Member Coates moved to reappoint Nicholas Fritsch as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. Member Behar moved to reappoint Thomas Coates as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: March 17, 2009 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of March 17, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. Community Development 2009-04-21 1 E. CONTINUED ITEM: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2009-02005 – 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9 Level Two Application (Continued from the meeting of March 17, 2009) 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 & Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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. Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the request. Applicant Lisset Diego said she wished to modify the use to attract more customers. She said many patrons live in nearby residences and are guests at nearby hotels. Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that the shopping center already has a restaurant and insufficient parking, the area has significant evening congestion, and introducing beer and wine service would exacerbate parking problems. Comments were made that these types of amenities are needed in this high density district, new hotels will provide additional parking and foot traffic, 200 parking spaces are nearby, and a restaurant close by was allowed to expand; all businesses need to be treated fairly. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-02005 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Behar, DiPolito, Adelson, and Barker, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Dame voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Community Development 2009-04-21 2 F. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1) 1. Case: APP2009-00001 – 1850 McMullen-Booth Road Owner: Countryside Christian Center. Appellant: Pastor Glen Gammon. Agent: Michael J. Gaylor, P.E., Gaylor Engineering (21764 S.R. 54, Lutz, FL 33549; phone: 813-949-5599; fax: 813-949-0818). Location: 19.969 acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 1,280 feet north of State Road 590. Atlas Page: 265A. Zoning: Institutional (I) and Office (O) Districts. Request: An appeal from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) denial decision pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-501.A.3, that a requested basketball court within an existing grass off-street parking area is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as set forth in Community Development Code Section 3-913.A.6; the standards for Off-Street Parking Spaces as set forth in Community Development Code Sections 3-1404.B and C; and the standards for Conformance to Uniform Traffic Control Devices as set forth in Community Development Code Section 3-1410.A. Existing Use: Place of Worship. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition; and Oak Forest. Presenter: Matt Jackson, Planner II. In his April 16, 2009 letter, applicant representative Michael Gaylor requested a continuance to May 19, 2009. Member Coates moved to continue Case APP2009-00001 to May 19, 2009. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Community Development 2009-04-21 3 G. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1 – 7) 1. Case: FLD2009-02002 – 2650 and 2680 Landmark Drive Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Heritage United Methodist Church at Countryside, Inc. Representative: John Eveland, P.E., Hamilton Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (311 N. Newport Avenue, Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33606; phone: 813-250-3535; fax: 813-250- 3636; email: JohnE@hamiltones.com). Location: 8.63 acres located at the southwest corner of Landmark Drive and SR 580. Atlas Page: 222B. Zoning: Institutional (I) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing place of worship in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 12.71 acres, a lot width along Landmark Drive (east) of 738 feet and along State Road 580 (north) of 375 feet, a front (east) setback of 28.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of 39.3 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 35.5 feet (to existing building) and 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement), a side (south) setback of 44 feet (to proposed building) and 18 feet (to proposed pavement), a rear (west) setback of 28 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a building height of 38 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 404 parking spaces (on- and off-site), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1204.A; and a reduction to the front buffer along Landmark Drive from 15 to 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the north buffer from five to zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement) and a reduction to the west buffer from 12 to 10 feet (to parking spaces), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Redevelopment of an existing place of worship. Neighborhood Associations: Misty Springs Condominiums; Northwood West Homeowners Association; Winding Wood; Cypress Bend; and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 See page 8 for motion of approval. Community Development 2009-04-21 4 2. Case: FLD2009-02003 – 600 S. Missouri Avenue Pulled from Consent Agenda Owner: Ruth B. Marks Trustee, c/o Dunkin’ Brands. Applicant: Norberto Silva Botelho. Representative: Joseph Oliveri, Oliveri Architects (32707 US Highway 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-781-7525; fax: 727-781-6623; email: jlo@oliveriarchitects.com). Location: 0.527 acre (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way) located at the southwest corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street. Atlas Page: 296A. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the upgrading and expansion of an existing restaurant with a lot area of 22,977 square-feet (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a lot width of 132 feet along S. Missouri Avenue (east) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way) and 170 feet along Turner Street (north) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a front (east) setback of 12 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback of zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a side (west) setback of 5.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 4.75 feet (to pavement), a building height of 11 feet (to flat roof deck) and 25 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.M; and a reduction to the landscape buffer along S. Missouri Avenue (east) from 15 to 12 feet, a reduction to the landscape buffer along Turner Street (north) from 10 to zero feet, a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from five to 4.75 feet, a reduction to required interior landscape area from 10 to five percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the foundation landscape area along the east side of the building from five to 4.25 feet and along the north side of the building from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Upgrading and expansion of an existing restaurant (Dunkin’ Donuts). Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. Member DiPolito declared a conflict of interest. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 Member Behar moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to questions, Planner III Wayne Wells said the project is subject to Council approving vacation of the right-of-way. The City will retain an easement for City utilities. Should utility work be necessary, the applicant would be responsible for replacing landscaping. Staff feels this is the best solution; otherwise part of the site would be rendered unusable. It was suggested that staff consider a Code provision to permit designating parking spaces for compact cars as more residents are purchasing them. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-02003 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. Members Coates, Behar, Dame, Adelson, and Barker, Acting Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Community Development 2009-04-21 5 3. Case: FLD2009-02004 – 1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: James P. Gills III and Joyce P. Gills Representative: Behar Design Associates (103 Rogers Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-488-9490; email: istvan@behardesign.com). Location: 2.50 acres located on the west side of Mandalay Point Road approximately 850 feet north of the intersection of Mandalay Point Road and Eldorado Avenue. Atlas Page: 227A. Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) and Open Space/Recreation (OSR) Districts. Request: Flexible Development approval for a new single family detached dwelling within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with a lot area of 108,700 square-feet, (72,722 square- feet Open Space/Recreation (OSR) and 36,178 square-feet LDR), a lot width of 242 feet, a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-104.D. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. Member Behar declared a conflict of interest. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2008-02004 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, and Barker, and Acting Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member Behar abstained. 4. Case: FLD2009-03010 – 22 North Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Anna Tsafatinos Representative: Piero Caramella (1631 Jasmine Way, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-906-7602; email: pierocarmello@yahoo.com). Location: 0.10 acre located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 180 feet north of Cleveland Street. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning: Downtown (D) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Downtown (D) District within an existing building with zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 903.C. Proposed Use: Restaurant. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 Community Development 2009-04-21 6 See page 8 for motion of approval. 5. Case: FLD2008-04009 – 351 South Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Michael Preston Applicant: Frenchy’s South Beach, Inc. Representative: Janet Baustert (419 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-449-2729). Location: 0.15 acre located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 60 feet north of Fifth Street. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 228 square-foot building addition and a minor deck expansion for an existing restaurant within the Tourist (T) District with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building/pavement), a side (north) setback of 15.91 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), and a rear (east) setback of 42 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); a building height of 22 feet; and 5 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along South Gulfview Boulevard from five to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. Member DiPolito declared a conflict of interest. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2008-04009 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. Members Coates, Behar, Dame, Adelson, and Barker, and Acting Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. 6. Level Three Application Case: TA2009-01001 Amendments to the Community Development Code Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater. Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code implementing school concurrency. Existing Uses: N/A. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21 Community Development 2009-04-21 7 Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2009-02002 and FLD2009-03010 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed, and to recommend approval of Case TA2009- 01001 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. 7. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: TA2009-01003 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater. Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances related to sidewalk cafes. Existing Uses: N/A. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Cate Lee, Planner II. See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-01003 2009-04-21 In response to questions, Planning Director Michael Delk said outdoor cafés could have tableside service. He reviewed the City Council approved Economic Development study to generate a café society, which identified suitable locations for outdoor cafés and recommended that walkways abut building façades. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said Ordinance language allows alcohol to be served at outdoor cafés by providing an exception to the prohibition of open containers outside. It was stated other cities require barriers when alcohol is served at outdoor cafés; semi-permanent barriers could be mounted. Considerable support was expressed for outdoor cafés. Disagreement was stated regarding locating seating by the street due to conflicts with access to parked vehicles, the necessity for wait staff to cross sidewalk traffic, and that typical outdoor café seating abuts building façades. Concerns were expressed that outdoor seating would create increased demand for public restrooms, that four-foot wide walkways would be too narrow and not meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and vehicles drive over bump-outs, making outdoor seating there dangerous. Suggestions were made to locate walkways next to parked vehicles and to limit traffic on Cleveland Street to pedestrians. Member Dame moved to recommend denial of Case TA2009-01003 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: that the four-foot corridor is inadequate as related to ADA and other issues not covered in this application, the sidewalk is too narrow with possible interference from opening car doors, and the location of the corridor abutting the building façade is problematic and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application does not comply with City Code Section 3.909. There was no second. Mr. Delk said the corridor’s proposed width meets ADA requirements. It was suggested that the board recommend approval of the ordinance with revisions. Community Development 2009-04-21 8 Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case T A2009-01 001 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 the exception that the Board, while enjoying the spirit of the proposed ordinance, has problems with item 3.909(c)2, specifically the location of the path abutting the building fac;:ade on Cleveland Street and has questions about the required four-foot width of that path. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. H. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m. ~db~~ ~ Community Development Board Community Development 2009-04-21 9 . .,. " FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME Behar Jordan MAILING ADDRESS 657 ta COUNTY Pinellas NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Clearwater Communit Develo ment Board THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY D COUNTY D OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: i of MY POSITION IS: CITY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee, It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112,3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completin~ the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss, Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the 'parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special lax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matterS. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 86 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 1 ..,..- .J. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. I, Jordan Behar DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST April 21 , hereby disclose that on ,20 -D.9..: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, _ / inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~ inured to the special gain or loss of Ilk Jf A-(, f)",~,~.J ~p C-( ~ , by whom I am retained; or Inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which FLD2009-02004 - 1160 Mandalay Point Road April 21 ,2009 Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOllOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 .,. r\ FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY: MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME DePolito Doreen MAILING ADDRESS 145 CITY COUNTY Pine lias NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Clearwater Communit Develo ment Board THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY o COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: it of c MY POSITION IS: o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED Cl ELECTIVE ~POINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold @n elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the 'parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prOhibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-In-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88. EFF. 112000 PAGE 1 .~ ;. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. I, Doreen DiPolito DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST April 21 , hereby disclose that on ,20 -.0.9..: (a) A ~asure came or will come before my agency which (check one) L inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or Inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , by , which FLD2008-04009- 351 S. Gulfview Boulevard LeV( I 2 A.fP {.' (c.- t/iD1.. cC- ~",-r!. ~AA..-~ I k. ,- rl'("~ s April 21 ,2009 Date Filed ,..... ) ( I k..%3-.'--~ Signature .'..'....."') , "" '. \;.,.....D 'OJ ~-.. '\C) '" . . .........J-.-..... NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 ~.. # FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME DePolito Doreen MAILING ADDRESS 145 CITY COUNTY Pine lias NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Clearwater Communit Develo ment Board THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: it of cl MY POSITION IS: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED o ELECTIVE o APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appOintive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completin9the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the . parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officers father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest In the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matterS. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 1 ."",. ) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after Ihe vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. I, Doreen DiPolito DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST April 21 , hereby disclose that on ,20 -'29..: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured 10 the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or , by Inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which FLD2009-02003-600 S. Missouri Avenue (.f"'IIi.... "1. ~ pU ctJ1'" "- ,..10 ,hc...r+ 0 S : I uc... ,~ tc (" 10 4tpl'~ April 21,2009 Dale Filed r", \~~~ Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 A ~ LL Clearwater 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: __ for April 21, 2009 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 17, 2009 CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1.Case: FLD2009-02005 - 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 8 & 9 (Continued from the meeting of March 17, 2009) Level Two Application LEVEL TWO APPICATIONS (Item 1-5) 1. Case: FL~9-02004 -1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road YES ~ NO Level Two Application 2. Cas~: ~2009-0301O - 22 North Fort Harrison Avenue YES V NO Level Two Application 3. Case: FJ.62008-04009 - 351 South Gulfview Boulevard YES V NO Level Two Application 4. ca~2009-02002 - 2650 and 2680 Landmark Drive YES NO Level Two Application 5. Case: ~009-02003 - 600 S. Missouri Avenue YES V' NO Level Two Application S:\Planning Depar/men/\C D BIAgendas DRC & CDB \ CDB \2009104 April 21, 2009\1 Cover MMO 04.21.2009.doc "*' ~ LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Items 1- 2): 1. Case: T A2009-0100l Amendments to the Community Development Code Level Three Application YES NO lI- 2. Case: T A2009-01003 Amendments Ordinances . YES NO JX to the Community Development Code and the Code of Level Three Application CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): Case: ~rOOOOl- 1850 McMullen Booth Road YES' NO Signature: / / I I q Date: '1 jut I'd ( P tzr;/fAkf. L. :9 ~~ PRINT NAME S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\04 April 21, 200911 Cover MMO 04.21.2009.doc EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 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 UPDATE: At its meeting of March 17, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) continued this item to its meeting of April 21, 2009, as there appeared to be an issue with surrounding property owners not receiving proper notice. Subsequent to this meeting, staff was able to review the notices that were sent out and confirmed that the individual to whom notice appeared not to have been given was actually given notice at a different address from that which is within 500 feet of the subject property, and that proper notice was given to all surrounding property owners. 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. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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. 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 Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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. 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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 feet 17,457 square feet X 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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: 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; Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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) 2009.04 - Pending - RT\Staff Report 2009 04-21.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02005 2009-04-21 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02005 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Number: FLD2009-02002 Agenda Item: E.4. Owner/Applicant: Heritage United Methodist Church at Countryside, Inc. Representative: John Eveland, P.E., Hamilton Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Address: 2650 and 2680 Landmark Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing place of worship in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 12.71 acres, a lot width along Landmark Drive (east) of 738 feet and along State Road 580 (north) of 375 feet, a front (east) setback of 28.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of 39.3 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 35.5 feet (to existing building) and 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement), a side (south) setback of 44 feet (to proposed building) and 18 feet (to proposed pavement), a rear (west) setback of 28 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a building height of 38 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 404 parking spaces (on- and off-site), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1204.A; and a reduction to the front buffer along Landmark Drive from 15 to 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the north buffer from five to zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement) and a reduction to the west buffer from 12 to 10 feet (to parking spaces), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Institutional (I) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Institutional (I) USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Place of Worship Proposed Use: Place of Worship EXISTING North: Institutional (I) and Low Medium Place of Worship and SURROUNDING ZONING Density Residential (LMDR) Districts Detached Dwellings AND USES: South: Institutional (I) District Public School East: Low Medium Density Residential Detached Dwellings (LMDR) District West: Institutional (I) and Low Medium Place of Worship and Density Residential (LMDR) Districts Detached Dwellings ANALYSIS: Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 8.63 acres is located at the southwest corner of Landmark Drive and SR 580. The site is L-shaped and is currently improved with a place of worship (Heritage United Methodist Church). The church sanctuary, offices, educational space and a majority of the existing paved parking are located on the northern portion of the site. A main drive from Landmark Drive exists between the northern and southern portions of the site providing access to the parking areas and buildings, as well as cross-access to the adjacent Northwood Presbyterian Church. There is a one-story educational building on the southern portion of the site, with paved parking on the north and east sides of the building. The Northwood Presbyterian Church exists to the north and west sides of the subject church. The Leila Davis Elementary School is located to the south of the subject property. Detached dwellings are otherwise located to the north across SR 580, to the east across Landmark Drive and to the west of the southern portion of the subject property. Development Proposal: The church has been master planning their campus for future improvements. The overall master plan is to relocate all buildings to the southern portion of the site, demolishing the existing buildings and placing additional parking on the northern portion of the site where existing buildings are now located. This application is for Phase 1 of these improvements on the southern portion of the site, which provides for the demolition of an existing one-story building and associated paved parking and constructing a new two-story educational building in the center portion and a fellowship hall on the western portion. New paved and grass parking spaces are planned on the west side of the fellowship hall. A temporary educational facility of modular construction is planned on the eastern portion, with this temporary structure intended to be removed once the new two-story educational building is completed. The location of the temporary educational facility will be the future location of a new sanctuary (to be approved in a future phase). Code provisions call for bringing all parking and landscaping into full compliance with Code requirements. This proposal includes retaining the existing improvements (buildings and pavement) on the northern portion of the site in their present locations. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 28.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of 39.3 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 35.5 feet (to existing building) and 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement), a side (south) setback of 44 feet (to proposed building) and 18 feet (to proposed pavement) and a rear (west) setback of 28 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure). Under a Comprehensive Landscape Program, the proposal also includes a reduction to the front buffer along Landmark Drive from 15 to 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the north buffer from five to zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement) and a reduction to the west buffer from 12 to 10 feet (to parking spaces). In fulfillment of the Comprehensive Landscape Program intent and in order to retain the northern parking lot at its present constructed setback location adjacent to Landmark Drive, the applicant will plant a hedge between the existing northern and middle driveways to screen the parking from view. The proposal is to remove the existing southern driveway. The existing middle drive divides the property into northern and southern portions and provides cross-access to the adjacent Northwood Presbyterian Church. This existing middle drive is located at a zero-foot side setback to the common property line with the Northwood Presbyterian Church. The proposal extends this main drive to the west at the same zero-foot setback to provide access to the new paved and grass parking area on the west side of the proposed fellowship hall. These new grass parking spaces will be at a 10-foot setback from the western property line. At this setback, the proposal includes a reduction by two feet of the perimeter landscape buffer at this location adjacent to detached dwellings. Additional trees are proposed, in conjunction with the required hedge, to aid in screening and buffering along this western property line. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 2 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 In conjunction with the existing Northwood Presbyterian Church and Leila Davis Elementary School, this church forms a large institutional land use area surrounded by subdivisions of detached dwellings. This developed character will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The proposed buildings are consistent with the character of the adjacent church and school, as well as the existing buildings to be retained on this property. The proposed redevelopment for Phase 1 improvements is otherwise impractical without deviations from the setback and landscape buffer requirements, given the existing location of parking lots and drive aisles. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Institutional (I) is 0.65. For the Phase 1 area (the southern portion of the site), there is 95,810 square feet of enclosed floor area proposed. The proposed FAR is 0.26, still way below the maximum allowable FAR. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1201.1, the maximum allowable ISR for properties with a designation of Institutional (I) is 0.85. For the Phase 1 area (the southern portion of the site), the proposed ISR is 0.58, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1203, the minimum lot area for places of worship is 20,000 square feet. The subject property is a total of 375,922 square feet (8.63 acres) in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for places of worship is 100 feet. The lot width of this site along Landmark Drive is 766 feet and along SR 580 is 350 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1203, the minimum front setback for places of worship can range between 15 – 25 feet, the minimum side setback is 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 15 – 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 28.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of 39.3 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 35.5 feet (to existing building) and 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement), a side (south) setback of 44 feet (to proposed building) and 18 feet (to proposed pavement) and a rear (west) setback of 28 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure). In accordance with CDC Sections 3-1202.A.3.a and 3-1401.B.3.a, based on the cost of the proposed improvements and the current building value according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, landscaping and parking for this property must be brought into full compliance with Code requirements, including required structure setbacks. This application is for Phase 1 construction of improvements on the southern portion of the site. The applicant at this point is retaining the existing buildings and parking in their existing configurations on the northern portion of the site. Their future plans are to relocate the sanctuary to the southern portion of the site close to Landmark Drive, demolish the existing northern buildings and add additional parking where the buildings will be demolished. Until then, the applicant is desirous to retain the existing parking lot in its present location at 9.24 feet from the front property line. Staff does not have an issue with this, so long as it is improved with a hedge for screening purposes. Any future expanded parking area and potential reconfiguration of this existing northern parking lot needs to consider the location and health of the existing extensive tree canopy. The site’s main drive (existing middle driveway) provides cross-access to the Northwood Presbyterian Church and its constructed location is at a zero-foot setback to the common property line between the two churches. Due to the costs involved and negotiations between the two churches, the applicant desires to retain this existing drive in its present location. The applicant is proposing to extend this existing main drive aisle, maintaining the zero-foot side setback, to a new paved and grass parking area on the west side of the proposed fellowship hall. From a traffic circulation standpoint, Staff does not object to this reduced setback, given its limited Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 3 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 extension length and its present zero-foot setback to the common property line, as well as the costs involved for limited benefit to both churches. It is noted that new parking spaces are proposed west of the fellowship hall. These are both paved and grass parking spaces. Places of worship are permitted a maximum of 85 percent of parking to be grass parking, so long as the drive aisles are paved. The rear (west) setback indicated with this application is to the paved drive aisle. The grass parking spaces are proposed to be located 10 feet from the west property line, which requires a reduction to the required perimeter buffer at this location (see discussion under Landscaping). Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1203, the maximum allowable height for places of worship is 50 feet. The educational building is proposed to be 37.5 feet in height to the midpoint of the main pitched roof, although the stair/elevator tower on the north side of the building is proposed at a height of 48 feet to the top of the tower. The fellowship hall is proposed at a height of 36 feet to the midpoint of the main pitched roof (this is a one-story building but appears to be two story in height, as it is volume height). The proposal is in compliance with Code requirements. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1203, the minimum required parking is a range between 0.5 – 1.0 parking spaces per two seats in the main sanctuary, or a range of 163 - 325 parking spaces (650 seats in the sanctuary). There are 170 existing parking spaces in the northern parking area not proposed to be revised at this time. There are a total of 70 parking spaces, both paved and grassed, proposed on the southern portion of the property. Between the existing northern parking area and the new parking proposed on the southern portion of the property, there will be a total of 240 parking spaces on- site. The church has an agreement with the Pinellas County School Board for church parking at the Leila Davis Elementary School adjacent to the south side of the church property. The total amount of on-site and off-site parking spaces exceeds the required amount of parking spaces. This parking agreement with the School Board runs through September 23, 2010, is not recorded in the public records and does not provide any notice to the City should it not be renewed (five year renewal periods upon approval by both the church and the School Board). Since this off-site parking provides required church parking, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new church educational facility this agreement with the School Board should be revised to provide notice to the City and it should be recorded in the public record. There exist three driveways for this property. Under this proposal, the northern and middle driveways are being retained, while the southern driveway is being removed. The existing middle driveway will be the main driveway for this property, and while it bifurcates the overall property into northern and southern portions, it also provides cross-access to the Northwood Presbyterian Church. This ingress and egress for the Northwood Presbyterian Church has been recorded in the public records as an easement. An existing cross-access driveway to the school to the south is being removed with this proposal. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment is to be screened so as to not be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. A mechanical equipment area is located between the proposed two-story educational facility and the fellowship hall. The mechanical area includes a wall to screen views from parishioners and adjacent properties. Based upon this, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, 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 on the southern portion of the site. Plans for this proposal indicate that new underground service will be provided, in conformance with this Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 Code requirement. Circumstances for the northern portion of the site, which is not presently proposed to be revised, will need to be revised for compliance with this undergrounding requirement when that phase of development is proposed. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, the perimeter buffers required are a minimum of 15 feet along Landmark Drive and SR 580, a minimum of five feet along the common property lines with Northwood Presbyterian Church and Leila Davis Elementary School and a minimum of 12 feet adjacent to the detached dwellings to the west. The interior landscape area requirement is 10 percent of the vehicular use area and the Code requires a minimum five-foot wide foundation planting area where buildings face roadways. The proposal includes a reduction to the front buffer along Landmark Drive from 15 to 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the north buffer from five to zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement) and a reduction to the west buffer from 12 to 10 feet (to parking spaces). In accordance with CDC Sections 3-1202.A.3.a and 3-1401.B.3.a, based on the cost of the proposed improvements and the current building value according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, landscaping and parking for this property must be brought into full compliance with Code requirements, including required structure setbacks. This application is for Phase 1 construction of improvements on the southern portion of the site. The applicant at this point is retaining the existing buildings and parking in their existing configurations on the northern portion of the site. Their future plans are to relocate the sanctuary to the southern portion of the site close to Landmark Drive, demolish the existing northern buildings and add additional parking where the buildings will be demolished. Until then, the applicant is desirous to retain the existing parking lot in its present location. Staff does not have an issue with this, as the proposal includes screening this parking area with a hedge. There are existing trees within this existing buffer area. Future phasing for an expanded parking area and potential reconfiguration of this existing northern parking lot needs to consider the location and health of the existing extensive tree canopy that is located within interior landscape areas. The main drive (existing middle driveway) provides cross-access to the Northwood Presbyterian Church and its constructed location is a zero-foot setback to the common property line between the two churches. Due to the costs involved and negotiations between the two churches, the applicant desires to retain this existing drive in its present location. The applicant is also proposing to extend this existing main drive, maintaining the zero-foot side setback, to a new paved and grass parking area on the west side of the proposed fellowship hall. From a traffic circulation standpoint, Staff does not object to this reduced setback, given its limited extension length and its present zero-foot setback to the common property line, as well as the costs involved for limited benefit to both churches. Future phases will re-evaluate these existing circumstances in relation to Code requirements. The applicant is providing foundation landscaping along the east side of the temporary educational facility. It is noted that new parking spaces are proposed west of the fellowship hall. These are both paved and grass parking spaces. Places of worship are permitted a maximum of 85 percent of parking to be grass parking, so long as the drive aisles are paved. The rear (west) setback indicated with this application is to the paved drive aisle. The grass parking spaces are proposed to be located 10 feet from the west property line, which requires a reduction to the required perimeter buffer at this location. The applicant is proposing as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program to install the required hedging within this buffer, increasing the number of trees within this buffer for screening purposes. Tree sizes indicated within the Landscape Plan Plant Schedule will need to be revised to meet minimum Code requirements prior to the issuance of any permits. This proposal is Phase 1 of a master plan that the applicant has been working on to redevelop the overall site with new buildings and parking. The parking lot and existing buildings on the northern portion of the site are not proposed to be redeveloped at this time, and future phasing will need to be re-evaluated for any additional reductions or to maintain the northern parking lot in its current location. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 5 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 Solid Waste: Solid waste facilities exist on the south side of the main drive north of the existing building that will be demolished. The proposal includes a dumpster enclosure built to City standards in the southwest corner of the site. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: There is an existing freestanding signage located adjacent to SR 580. There is a more recently installed sign on the southern portion of the property on Landmark Drive. City records do not indicate a sign permit for this sign on Landmark Drive and a permit will be necessary. There is also a directional sign for Northwood Presbyterian Church on Landmark Drive at the main drive that provides cross-access to that church. Signage may need to be brought into compliance with Code provisions. 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 place of worship proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-1201.1 and 2-1203: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.65 0.26 (Phase 1 area only) X Impervious Surface 0.85 0.58 (Phase 1 area only) X Ratio Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 375,922 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width 100 feet East: 766 feet X North: 350 feet X Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet East: 28.6 feet (to existing X building); 9.24 feet (to existing pavement) North: 39.3 feet (to existing X building) 1 Side: 10 feet West: 35.5 feet (to existing X building); 10 feet (to existing pavement) 1 North: Zero feet (to existing X and proposed pavement) 1 South: 44 feet (to proposed X building); 18 feet (to proposed pavement) 1 Rear: 15 – 20 feet 28 feet (to proposed X pavement); 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure) Maximum 50 feet 37.5 feet (to midpoint of X Building Height pitched roof) 1 Minimum 0.5 – 1.0 parking spaces per 404 total parking spaces (on-X Off-Street Parking two seats site and off-site parking) (650 seats; 163 - 325 spaces) 1 See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-1204.A (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. 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 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: 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 sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 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 8.63 acres is located at the southwest corner of Landmark Drive and SR 580; 2. In conjunction with the existing Northwood Presbyterian Church and Leila Davis Elementary School, this church forms a large institutional land use area surrounded by subdivisions of detached dwellings; 3. The church has been master planning their campus for future improvements; 4. Phase 1 of these improvements on the southern portion of the site, providing for the demolition of an existing one-story building and associated paved parking and constructing a new two-story educational building in the center portion and a fellowship hall on the western portion, along with new paved and grass parking spaces on the west side of the fellowship hall; 5. There exist three driveways for this property. Under this proposal, the northern and middle driveways are being retained, while the southern driveway is being removed; 6. The existing middle driveway will be the main driveway for this property, which also provides cross- access to the Northwood Presbyterian Church; 7. The proposal includes setback reductions for the existing parking lot on the northern portion of the site and for the main drive from the common property line with the Northwood Presbyterian Church; 8. The church has an agreement with the Pinellas County School Board for required church parking at the Leila Davis Elementary School adjacently to the south of the church property; 9. On-site existing and proposed paved and grass parking spaces, as well as off-site parking spaces at Leila Davis Elementary School, provide required parking for this place of worship; 10. The proposal includes landscape buffer reductions for the existing parking lot on the northern portion of the site, for the main drive from the common property line with the Northwood Presbyterian Church, and for the detached dwellings to the west of this site; Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 11. The proposal includes the installation of a hedge within the existing buffer for screening of the parking lot on the northern portion of the site and enhanced landscape buffering adjacent to the detached dwellings to the west of this site; 12. Existing overhead utility lines on the southern portion of the site will be placed underground to serve the new proposed buildings, in conformance with Code requirements; and 13. There is 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 2-1201.1 and 2-1203 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-1204.A of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit the redevelopment of an existing place of worship in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 12.71 acres, a lot width along Landmark Drive (east) of 738 feet and along State Road 580 (north) of 375 feet, a front (east) setback of 28.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of 39.3 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 35.5 feet (to existing building) and 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement), a side (south) setback of 44 feet (to proposed building) and 18 feet (to proposed pavement), a rear (west) setback of 28 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23 feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a building height of 38 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 404 parking spaces (on- and off- site), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1204.A; and a reduction to the front buffer along Landmark Drive from 15 to 9.24 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the north buffer from five to zero feet (to existing and proposed pavement) and a reduction to the west buffer from 12 to 10 feet (to parking spaces), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this application be for Phase 1 improvements only on the southern portion of the site and that this approval does not waive full compliance with setbacks, parking, landscaping or underground utility requirements for the northern portion of the site. Full compliance shall be expected for this northern portion through the appropriate Code process in effect at such time when future construction of additional buildings and parking areas are desired; 2. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; 4. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the two-story educational facility, a new agreement with the Pinellas County School Board for off-site church parking on the adjacent Leila Davis Elementary School property be approved providing notice to the City in the event such agreement is not renewed and be recorded in the public record; 5. That the temporary educational facility be removed from the premises within 60 days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the two-story educational facility; Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 10 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02002 2009-04-21 6. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, tree sizes indicated on the Landscape Plan Plant Schedule be revised to meet the minimum Code requirements; 7. That a permit be obtained for the sign on Landmark Drive. All signage may be required to be brought into compliance with Code requirements; 8. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Environmental Engineering and Stormwater Engineering 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 ?? S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Landmark 2680 Heritage United Methodist Church (I) 2009.04 4.21.09 CDB - WW\Landmark 2680 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02002 – Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Numbers: FLD2009-02003 Agenda Item: E.5. Owner: Ruth B. Marks Trustee, c/o Dunkin’ Brands Applicant: Norberto Silva Botelho Representative: Joseph Oliveri, Oliveri Architects Address: 600 S. Missouri Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the upgrading and expansion of an existing restaurant with a lot area of 22,977 square feet (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a lot width of 132 feet along S. Missouri Avenue (east) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way) and 170 feet along Turner Street (north) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a front (east) setback of 12 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a side (west) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (south) setback of 4.75 feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 11 feet (to flat roof deck) and 25 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the landscape buffer along S. Missouri Avenue (east) from 15 to 12 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Turner Street (north) from 10 to zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from five to 4.75 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to required interior landscape area from 10 to five percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the foundation landscape area along the east side of the building from five to 4.25 feet and along the north side of the building from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT FUTURE Commercial General (CG) LAND USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Restaurant Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District Retail sales and services SURROUNDING South: Commercial (C) and High Density Vehicle rental/display and ZONING AND USES: Residential (HDR) Districts Attached dwellings East: Commercial (C) District Retail sales and services West: Commercial (C) District Vacant and Offices ANALYSIS: Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 Site Location and Existing Conditions: The site is currently 0.4807 acres in size, is located at the southwest corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street and is improved with a single-story, 2,079 square-foot restaurant (Dunkin’ Donuts). The site is legally described as a number of platted lots, where a Declaration of Unity of Title will be required to be recorded tying all lots together as one lot for development purposes. There exists to the north retail sales and vehicle rental (limousine) establishments. A vehicle rental establishment is located to the south. To the southwest is a multi-floor attached dwelling complex. A vacant, 50-foot wide lot is adjacent to the west of this property, with offices to the west of this vacant lot. Across S. Missouri Avenue are also retail sale and service establishments. A McDonald’s restaurant is located at the northeast corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street. Development Proposal: Dunkin’ Donuts has existed at this site for approximately 20 years in the present building and site configuration. The proposal is to update the interior and exterior of the building, bringing it into compliance with current Building Codes and Dunkin’ standards. In accordance with Community Development Code (CDC) Sections 3-1202.A.3.a and 3-1401.b.3.a, based on the cost of the proposed improvements and the current building value according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, landscaping and parking for this property must be brought into full compliance with Code requirements. A major issue discovered through the review of this application revealed that the location of the existing northern property line places at least five parking spaces and all landscaping along Turner Street within the public right-of-way. In order to retain these existing parking spaces and landscaping, the applicant has submitted an application to vacate a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way (an approximate 12-foot area for the site frontage along Turner Street). After vacation of this portion of the Turner Street right-of- way, the site will be 0.527 acres in size. Any approval of this application will need to contain a condition that such approval is subject to the vacation of this portion of the Turner Street right-of-way. Easements will need to be retained for existing above ground and underground utilities and for the existing public sidewalk that will now be on private property. The proposal increases the building floor area by 196 square feet to a total of 2,275 square feet. Approximately 30 square feet will be added to the lobby area and the balance of the additional floor area will be for the replacement of the existing cooler/freezer at the rear of the building with a larger cooler/freezer. In order to accommodate the lobby addition and meet handicap accessibility requirements, excess pavement in front of the building will be removed for a wider sidewalk. To accommodate the larger cooler/freezer at the rear of the building, one parking space and an unhealthy tree in the landscape island at the rear of the building will be removed. The parking lot is proposed to remain in its present location and configuration, with the exception of the removal of the one parking space at the rear of the building. As such, the proposal includes reductions to required setbacks and landscape buffers. Additionally, the proposal includes reductions to interior landscape area and foundation landscape area requirements. Bringing this site into full compliance with Code requirements for parking lot setbacks and landscape buffers would render this site dysfunctional. The site is landscaped today, and although some landscaping has died, new landscaping will be planted to fill in the gaps to comply with Code requirements. Additional trees will be planted to correct deficiencies to current tree standards. These existing conditions, along with the requested setback reductions, are consistent with reduced setbacks on properties in the surrounding area, or exceed those on similar nonresidential properties. Given the existing site circumstances, the upgrading of this site is impractical without deviations from the development standards for restaurants in the Commercial District. With the potential exception of the vacant 50-foot wide lot to the west, redevelopment of the subject parcel will not impede the normal and Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, as most surrounding properties are fully developed and have equal or less landscaping and setback compliance. The site contains a functioning Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant and the proposal will accommodate the requested redevelopment of this existing economic contributor. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. The existing site is 20,940 square feet of lot area and the existing building has 2,079 square feet of floor area. The existing FAR is 0.10. The land area will expand to 22,977 square feet upon the vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way and the renovated building will be 2,275 square feet of floor area. The proposed FAR is 0.09, still way below the maximum allowable FAR. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR for properties with a designation of CG is 0.95. The existing site is 20,940 square feet of lot area and the ISR is 0.80. The land area will expand to 22,977 upon the vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of- way and the proposed ISR will be 0.75, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum lot area for restaurants can range between 3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The existing site is 20,940 square feet of lot area and it will expand to 22,977 upon the vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can range between 35 – 100 feet. The lot width of this site S. Missouri Avenue will be 132 feet (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way) and the lot width along Turner Street will be 170 feet (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of- way). The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum front setback for restaurants can range between 15 – 25 feet and the minimum side setback can range between zero – 10 feet (structures on corner lots must meet front setbacks along rights-of-way and meet side setbacks adjacent to the other property lines). The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 12 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a side (west) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing pavement) and a side (south) setback of 4.75 feet (to existing pavement). The proposal’s front (east along S. Missouri Avenue) and side setbacks (south and west) to pavement exist and are not proposed to be modified under this application. In accordance with CDC Sections 3-1202.A.3.a and 3-1401.b.3.a, and due to the present location of the northern property line, bringing the site into full compliance with parking lot setbacks and landscaping requirements would eliminate approximately eight of the existing 26 parking spaces. In order to retain these parking spaces and the landscaping that presently exists within the Turner Street right-of-way, the applicant is requesting to vacate a 12-foot wide portion of the Turner Street right-of-way. With this vacation request, the existing improvements would retain its “status quo” condition. These existing conditions, along with the requested setback reductions, are consistent with reduced, or exceed those on similar nonresidential properties, setbacks on properties in the surrounding area. Properties across Turner Street to the north and properties on the east and west sides of S. Missouri Avenue have no landscaping, or have the same width of landscape area as the subject property along the street frontages and adjacent to abutting properties. Bringing this site into full compliance with Code requirements for parking lot setbacks and landscape buffers would render this site dysfunctional. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the maximum allowable height for restaurants can range between 25 – 50 feet. The existing building is 11 feet in height to the flat roof, well below the Code maximum. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 3 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for the renovated restaurant building is a range between 7 – 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, or a range of 16 - 34 parking spaces. Currently there exist 26 parking spaces, but the number of parking spaces will be reduced to 25 spaces with this proposal (one space at the rear of the building is being removed to accommodate a larger cooler/freezer addition). There are presently 18 seats in the building. Remodeling of the building will not expand seating. According to the applicant, when the drive-thru lane was added in the early 1990’s, dine-in business accounted for 50 percent of the volume and the other 50 percent was attributed to drive-thru business. The applicant indicates that the drive-thru business has expanded to 65 –70 percent. As such, the proposed number of parking spaces has accommodated the existing business and is anticipated to accommodate the proposed condition of a slightly larger building with one fewer parking space than what presently exists. Given these circumstances, the proposed reduction to the required number of parking spaces is justified. The existing driveways on S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street are proposed to remain in their current locations and configurations under this proposal. Sidewalks exist along the site frontages along S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street. To comply with handicap accessibility Code requirements, the proposal will provide an accessible path to the sidewalk along Turner Street. Due to the location of these existing sidewalks and the proposed vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way, easements will be required where these public sidewalks will be on private property. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. All mechanical equipment will be located on top of the flat roof of the building. The building parapets will screen views of such mechanical equipment, although it is unclear of such screening on the west side of the building. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, building plans will need to show compliance with required screening of rooftop mechanical equipment by parapets or other screening material. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways on, and the street intersection at, S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. Existing directional signage within the visibility triangles do not comply with this restriction. These directional signs are proposed to be replaced and their height will comply with this requirement. Landscaping will need to comply with this requirement. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Existing overhead service for this property is from a service pole located on the east side of the driveway on Turner Street. The proposal includes undergrounding all on-site electric and communication lines from this service pole to the building and for on-site lighting in conformance with this Code requirement. Electric panels and boxes on the outside of the building must be painted the same color as the building. Landscaping: The existing site is currently landscaped with perimeter shrubbery and trees. Due to CDC Section 3-1202.A.3.a, the cost of the proposed improvements and the current building value according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, landscaping for this property must be brought into full compliance with Code requirements. Existing landscaping along Turner Street is located within the road right-of-way. The applicant has applied to vacate a 12-foot wide portion of the Turner Street right-of-way in order to retain the existing landscaping along this street. To fully comply with perimeter landscape buffer requirements, the site would need to provide a 15-foot wide buffer along S. Missouri Avenue, a 10- foot wide buffer along Turner Street and a five-foot wide buffer along the south and west sides of the property. Additionally, a minimum five-foot wide foundation planting area would need to be provided Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 4 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 along the east and north sides of the building and a minimum of 10 percent of the vehicular use area would need to be provided in interior landscaping. The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along S. Missouri Avenue (east) from 15 to 12 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Turner Street (north) from 10 to zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from five to 4.75 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to required interior landscape area from 10 to five percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the foundation landscape area along the east side of the building from five to 4.25 feet and along the north side of the building from five to zero feet. The existing 12-foot wide perimeter buffer along S. Missouri Avenue is greater than most properties within the surrounding area. The proposed vacation of the 12-foot wide portion of Turner Street will permit the existing buffer, with a general width of approximately 3.5 feet, to be retained in its existing location and configuration. The perimeter buffer width along the south property line at 4.75 feet is deficient by 0.25 feet. The perimeter buffer along the west property line is 5.5 feet in width, in compliance with the minimum five-foot width requirement. The proposal includes retaining the existing landscaping within these existing perimeter buffers and augmenting with new or additional shrubs and trees where currently deficient to Code requirements. The parking lot is proposed to remain in its current configuration, although one parking space and a portion of an interior landscape island at the rear of the building will be removed to construct a new cooler/freezer addition. Interior landscaping will remain basically at the same location and amount as it exists today, although the proposal is to upgrade these existing interior landscaped areas with new shrub and/or groundcover landscaping. The existing tree at the rear of the building will be removed, as it is of poor condition, and it will be replaced with two crape myrtle trees in compliance with the size limitations of the interior landscape island. With the construction of the new storefront on the east side of the building, the applicant is proposing a foundation landscape area of 4.25 feet in width (less than the required five-foot width). This foundation landscape area will be planted to comply with Code requirements. Providing the required foundation landscape area along the north side of the building would make the parking on this side of the building dysfunctional and would affect compliance with handicap accessibility requirements. The proposed landscaping meets the intent of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Solid Waste: There exists two dumpsters for this property, one in the dumpster enclosure and one for cardboard within a parking space. The proposal will upgrade the dumpster enclosure to current standards and the unenclosed dumpster will be removed. The exterior of the dumpster enclosure will need to have a stucco finish the same color as the building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: CDC Section 3-1806.B.3.a permits only one attached sign per business. The existing freestanding sign is nonconforming to Code requirements, as it is 20 feet tall (current Code maximum height is 14 feet). CDC Section 6-104.A requires nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance with current Code requirements when building permits are issued for the redevelopment of the principal building. Additionally, the criteria for restaurants in CDC Section 2-704.M.4 restrict the height of any freestanding sign to a maximum of six feet unless approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Along with the upgrade to the interior and exterior of the building, signage is proposed to be upgraded. Plans submitted indicate more than one proposed attached sign (only one attached sign permitted by CDC Section 3-1806.B.3.a). Any approval of this application should be conditioned on the freestanding sign being a maximum of six feet in height designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building, unless a taller sign is approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the redeveloped restaurant proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent 1 Floor Area Ratio 0.55 0.09 X 1 Impervious Surface 0.95 0.75 X Ratio 1 Minimum Lot Area 3,500 – 10,000 sq. ft. 22,977sq. ft. X 1 Minimum Lot Width 35 – 100 feet East: 132 feet X 1 North: 170 feet 2 Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet East: 12 feet X (to existing pavement) 2 North: zero feet X 1 (to existing sidewalk) 2 Side: Zero – 10 feet West: 5.5 feet X (to existing pavement) 2 South: 4.75 feet X (to existing pavement) Maximum Height 25 – 50feet 11 feet (to flat roof) X 2 Minimum 7 - 15 parking spaces per 1,000 25 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking square feet of floor area (16 - 34(10.989 spaces/1000 sf) spaces) 1 After vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way 2 See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 Consistent Inconsistent 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. 1 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 1 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 1 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 analysis in Staff Report. 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 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. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 Consistent Inconsistent 1 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. 1 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 1 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. 1 See analysis in Staff Report. 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 sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 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 current 0.4807 acres is located at the southwest corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Turner Street; 2. The site is currently improved with a single-story, 2,079 square-foot Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant; 3. The location of the existing northern property line places at least five parking spaces and all landscaping along Turner Street within the public right-of-way; 4. In order to retain these existing parking spaces and landscaping, the applicant proposes to vacate a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way (an approximate 12-foot area for the site frontage along Turner Street); 5. After vacation of this portion of the Turner Street right-of-way, the site will be 0.527 acres in size; 6. In accordance with CDC Sections 3-1202.A.3.a and 3-1401.b.3.a, based on the cost of the proposed improvements and the current building value according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, landscaping and parking for this property must be brought into full compliance with Code requirements; 7. The proposal increases the building floor area by 196 square feet to a total of 2,275 square feet, with 30 additional square feet for the lobby area and the balance of the additional floor area for an enlarged cooler/freezer at the rear of the building; 8. The number of seats will be unchanged with the proposed restaurant upgrades (18 seats); 9. To accommodate the proposed upgrading of the building and site, the request includes reductions to required setbacks, landscape buffers, interior landscape area and foundation landscape area requirements; 10. Required parking for this upgraded building is 34 spaces (at 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet), while the provided parking will be reduced from 26 to 25 spaces (at a ratio of 10.989 spaces per 1,000 square feet); 11. The proposed number of spaces will be adequate to serve the upgraded restaurant, as drive-thru business now accounts for 65 – 70 percent of the volume; 12. The proposal includes, in fulfillment of the Comprehensive Landscape Program intent, the planting of additional shrubs to fill in gaps in the existing buffer hedges, the planting of additional trees to meet Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 the perimeter buffer requirements and the planting of additional shrubs and groundcovers within interior landscape areas; 13. Bringing this site into full compliance with Code requirements for parking lot setbacks and landscape buffers would render this site dysfunctional; 14. The proposal includes undergrounding all on-site electric and communication lines from a service pole to the building and for on-site lighting; 15. The existing freestanding sign is nonconforming and proposed freestanding, attached and directional signage must be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; and 16. 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 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit the upgrading and expansion of an existing restaurant with a lot area of 22,977 square feet (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a lot width of 132 feet along S. Missouri Avenue (east) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way) and 170 feet along Turner Street (north) (after vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way), a front (east) setback of 12 feet (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback of zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a side (west) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (south) setback of 4.75 feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 11 feet (to flat roof deck) and 25 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the landscape buffer along S. Missouri Avenue (east) from 15 to 12 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Turner Street (north) from 10 to zero feet (to existing sidewalk), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from five to 4.75 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to required interior landscape area from 10 to five percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the foundation landscape area along the east side of the building from five to 4.25 feet and along the north side of the building from five to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this request be subject to the vacation of a portion of the Turner Street right-of-way by City Council, which shall include the retention of necessary easements for underground and above ground utilities and for the public sidewalks that will be on private property; 2. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; 4. That existing, nonconforming signage be brought into compliance with Code requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion and new signage be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. The freestanding sign shall not exceed a maximum of six feet in height, unless a taller sign is approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program, and it shall be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02003 2009-04-21 5. That directional signage and landscaping at the driveways and at the street intersection comply with visibility triangle requirements; 6. That all dumpsters be located within an approved enclosure and the exterior of the dumpster enclosure have a stucco finish the same color as the building; 7. That all on-site electric and communication lines from the existing service pole to the building and for on-site lighting be undergrounded and electric panels and boxes on the outside of the building be painted the same color as the building; 8. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, building plans show compliance with required screening of rooftop mechanical equipment by parapets or other screening material; 9. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the existing building square footage of 2,079 square feet be corrected on Sheet AS1; 10. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the newspaper rack by the building entry meet the requirements of CDC Section 3-909; and 11. That, prior to the issuance of any 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 ?? S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Missouri S 0600 Dunkin Donuts (C) 2009.04 4.21.09 CDB - WW\Missouri S 0600 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02003 – Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Numbers: FLD2009-02004 Agenda Item: E.1. Owner/Applicant: James P. Gills, III and Joyce P. Gills Representative: Behar Design Associates Address: 1154 - 1160 Mandalay Point Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a new single family detached dwelling within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with a lot area of 108,700 square feet, (74,445 square feet Open Space/Recreation (OSR) and 34,255 square feet LDR), a lot width of 242 feet, a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-104.D. CURRENT ZONING: Low Density Residential (LDR) District Open Space/ Recreation (OSR) District CURRENT FUTURE Residential Low (RL) LAND USE CATEGORY: Preservation (P) PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Vacant Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling EXISTING North: Low Density Residential (LDR) District SURROUNDING Single Family Detached Dwelling ZONING AND USES: South: Low Density Residential (LDR) District Single Family Detached Dwelling East: None Intracoastal Waterway West: None Gulf of Mexico Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.50 acres comprises two parcels and is located on the west side of Mandalay Point approximately 830 feet north of the intersection of Mandalay Point Road and Eldorado Avenue. Mandalay Point Road is a private gated area with 10 single-family residences and three vacant parcels. Mandalay Point is unique in that each lot fronts on both the Gulf of Mexico and the intracoastal-waterway. The community character in this area is one of large, residential, estate homes. The site contains land zoned both Low Density Residential (LDR) and Open Space/Recreation (OSR). Currently, the northern parcel, 1160 Mandalay Point Road, is vacant. Previously it contained a 4,336 square foot single-family detached dwelling that was constructed in 1951. The single-family dwelling on the southern parcel, 1154 Mandalay Point Road, has recently been demolished. To the west (approximately 325 feet) of the rear of the previous single-family dwellings is the Gulf of Mexico mean high water line, to the east (approximately 48 feet) of the front of the previous single-family dwellings is the intracoastal-waterway including the applicants docks and boat lifts, to both the south and north are single family detached dwellings. The previous single-family dwelling at 1160 Mandalay Point Road had a side (north) setback of 9.1 feet (to building) and a rear (west) setback of two feet (to covered porch) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Additionally, a wall, planter, shuffleboard court and terrazzo patio existed approximately 24 feet seaward of the CCCL. Development Proposal: Subsequent to the approval of FLD2008-08025, which included a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement) and five feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet to 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), the applicant purchased the adjacent parcel to the north. The additional 54,901 square feet in land area will allow the previously approved single-family dwelling unit to be shifted 10 feet to the south. This allows for a setback of 10 feet to the north (to building), thus providing a more desirable buffer for the adjacent parcel to the north. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a minor lot line adjustment that will result in the creation of a new 111 foot by 468 foot lot on the south side of the proposed residence subsequent to approval. The proposal calls for redeveloping the combined site with a 9,798 square foot (living area) single-family detached dwelling. Not included in the living area is a ground level 5,345 square foot garage. The development proposal also includes a swimming pool and lap pool. The new residence’s first floor will be constructed at 16.75 feet above sea level; thereby meeting current building and flood requirements. The proposed single-family dwelling will be built on a masonry pile/grade beam foundation with masonry, concrete and steel structures forming the shell of the walls, floor and roof above. The walls, openings and roof will be engineered to withstand category five hurricanes. The dwelling at ground level is comprised of rough cut stone and natural materials that form the base. The upper levels comprise cut and finished stone, stucco, smooth trim and a natural slate tile roof. Oversized gutters, downspouts and chimney caps will be made of copper to add character as the home ages. While this proposal meets the setback standards as available in a Level One Residential Infill Redevelopment Project, there is a request to modify the setback requirements from the CCCL. Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905 establishes within the city the CCCL as the line of reference from which setbacks shall be measured along the Gulf of Mexico for buildings and structures in order to protect the safety, economic, environmental, recreational and community appearance objectives of the city. It further states that any request to modify the setback requirements contained in CDC Section 3-905 shall be considered as an application for a Level Two approval as provided for in Article 4, Division 4; thus the processing of this application as a Level Two Residential Infill Redevelopment Project. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-101.1, the maximum F.A.R. for parcels with a future land use designation of Residential Low (RL) is 0.40. The site proposes a gross floor area of 15,637 square feet resulting in a F.A.R of 0.14. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable F.A.R. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-101.1, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.65. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.14, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-104, there is no applicable minimum lot area or lot width for Residential Infill Redevelopment Projects. The combined subject property is 108,700 square feet in area and has a width of 242 feet both of which are in excess of the typical requirements for the use. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-104, the development standards set forth for Residential Infill Redevelopment Projects are guidelines that may be varied based upon the flexibility criteria specified for Residential Infill Redevelopment Projects. Those development standards call for a front setback of 10-25 feet, side setbacks of 0-15 feet and a rear setback of 0-15 feet. The proposed detached dwelling will be set back 40 feet from the front (east) property line. However, it should be noted that a 24 foot wide ingress/egress easement for Mandalay Point Road exists within this setback area, and as measured from this easement, the dwelling will have a setback of 10.5 feet. Regarding the side setbacks, there is a request for reductions on the north side from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) and on the south side from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) from the modified lot line. This particular residential district (LDR) has large side setbacks (15 feet) whereas the other low intensity residential districts have side setbacks of only five feet. The previous single-family dwelling at 1160 Mandalay Point Road had side setbacks on the south and north of 4.5 feet and nine feet respectively. Additionally, this area has an established character of side setbacks in this range. This area is unique in the respect that all homes have unobstructed views of the Gulf of Mexico to the west and of the intracoastal waterway to the east therefore the community as a whole is not concerned with side setback reductions as a detriment. A reduction to the rear (west) setback of 15 feet from the CCCL to zero feet (to raised pool and building) has been requested also. The previous single-family dwelling at 1160 Mandalay Point Road covered patio was setback four feet from the CCCL and a wall, planter, shuffleboard court and terrazzo patio existed approximately 24 feet seaward (west) of the CCCL. Due to the overall depth of the property, approximately 450 feet, the rear setback of zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the CCCL will not be visually apparent or impact the views of any neighboring parcels. The CCCL is located approximately 110 feet west of the ingress/egress easement; thereby the parcel has approximately 340 feet of additional property west of the CCCL. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-104, the maximum building height for Residential Infill Redevelopment Projects is 30 feet. The proposed detached dwelling includes a request to increase the maximum building height from 30 feet to 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof). Parcels of this size and location lend themselves to estate size homes, which are large homes that typically require higher roofs to provide for adequate design and engineering of the roof support system. Additionally, there are several estate size homes located on Mandalay Point Road with roof heights greater than 30 feet. For example, the dwelling immediately to the north of the subject property has a height of 36.75 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof). Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-104, within the LDR District, off-street parking is to be provided at a rate of 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit. While the proposal proposes four parking spaces, the garage has an area of 5,345 square feet that can easily accommodate additional parking. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at driveway intersections with Mandalay Point Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposed site and landscape design meet this requirement. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The site plan for this proposal indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines for this project will be placed underground in conformance with this Code requirement. 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 development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-101.1 and 2-102: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.40 0.14 X I.S.R. 0.65 0.14 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 108,700 square feet X Minimum Lot Width N/A 242 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet East: 40 feet (to building) X 1 Side: 0 - 15 feet North: 10 feet (to building) X 1 South: 10 feet (to building) X 1 Rear: 0 - 15 feet West: Zero feet from CCCL X (to building/pool) 1 Maximum Building Height 30 feet 34 feet X Minimum Off-Street Parking 2 spaces 4+ spaces X 1 The development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the criteria set forth in CDC Section 2- 104.D Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-104.D (Residential Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards; 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district; X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses; X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 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 sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 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: Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02004 2009-04-21 1. The 2.50 acres is located approximately 830 feet north of the intersection of Mandalay Point Road and Eldorado Avenue; 2. The property is currently vacant; 3. The proposal is to redevelop the site with a new 9,798 square foot single-family detached dwelling; 4. The proposal includes a lot area of 108,700 square feet (74,445 square feet Open Space/Recreation (OSR) and 34,255 square feet LDR), a lot width of 242 feet, a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction the side (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof); and 5. 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 Maximum Development Potential Standards as per CDC Section 2-101.1; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Section 2-104; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-104.D; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application for a new single family detached dwelling within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with a lot area of 108,700 square feet, (74,445 square feet Open Space/Recreation (OSR) and 34,255 square feet LDR), a lot width of 242 feet, a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to raised pool and building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet 34 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-104.D., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That the final design and color of the proposed single family detached dwelling be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That a minor lot line adjustment be submitted and approved prior to submittal for a building permit; 3. That all permits from any regulatory agency be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permits; and 4. That the applicant obtains all necessary sanitary disposal and treatment permits prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III 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 Point 1154-1160 Gills (LDR) 2009.02 - 4.21.2009 - CDB - SK\Mandalay Point 1154 - 1160 - Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-02004 – Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Number: FLD2009-03010 Agenda Item: E. 2. Owner/Applicant: Anna Tsafatinos Representative: Piero Caramello Address: 22 North Fort Harrison Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Downtown (D) District within an existing building with zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-903.C. CURRENT ZONING: Downtown (D) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Central Business District (CBD) CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CHARACTER DISTRICT: Downtown Core PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Vacant Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North: Downtown (D) District Office SURROUNDING ZONING South: Downtown (D) District Office (Vacant) AND USES: East: Downtown (D) District Office West: Downtown (D) District Parking Lot ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.10-acre subject property is located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 180 feet north of Cleveland Street. The subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Downtown Core character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and consists of a vacant 5,188 square foot building and no off-street parking spaces. Development Proposal: On March 2, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal the existing building, a Spanish Mission style constructed in 1924, will be remodeled for a restaurant use with aesthetic façade improvements consistent with the Design Guidelines set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. It is noted that the proposed reduction in off-street parking is the basis for the submittal of the proposal as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Intensity: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.0 within the Downtown Core character district. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 1.24. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, those properties within the Downtown Core character district that are not along Cleveland Street shall have no maximum height restriction. The existing building measures approximately 25.5 feet from the average existing grade, and this height will not be modified with the proposal. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-903, within the D District, off-street parking for restaurant uses is required to be provided at a rate of five to 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, the existing building requires 26 – 78 parking spaces. However, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, the minimum off-street parking requirement is as determined by the Community Development Coordinator based upon the specific use and/or the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual standards. The subject property consists of no off-street parking spaces due to the building footprint occupying the majority of the parcel. As a result, a deviation to the minimum off-street parking requirement has been requested and the applicant has provided the following justification for this request: “A Parking Demand Study was prepared concerning the parcel at 22 North Fort Harrison Avenue in February, 2009. That study reviewed the available parking in Downtown and found 1,094 spaces available for their patrons. The total number of spaces was based on the Garden Avenue Garage with 250 spaces, the Station Square Garage with 100 spaces, the Coachman Parking lot with 261 spaces, the City Hall parking lot with 117 metered spaces and other metered spaces throughout Downtown of 366 spaces. This more than 14 times more than we need”. Staff concurs with the above findings that the proposed restaurant has ample parking spaces readily available for their patrons. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the property. CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Downtown Design Guidelines: The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown. A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were identified: Building Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines state buildings shall have a distinct “base,” “middle” and “cap.” The existing building has a distinct “base”, “middle” and “cap.” The first floor projects out from the second Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 thereby forming the “base.” At the transition from first to second floor, or “base” to “middle”, there is a traditional Spanish Mission style arch. The “cap” is formed by a cornice consisting of corbels and a mansard tile roof. The restoration depicted on the proposed architectural renderings result in a substantial upgrade to the building achieving consistency with this Guideline. Architecture: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that a variety of architectural styles exist within the Downtown and the Guidelines should not prescribe any one architectural style as being the most appropriate. Buildings in all six Downtown character districts represent a broad range of styles typical of trends of the th th late-19to mid-20 centuries. The proposed exterior renovations incorporate Spanish Mission style architecture typical of older Florida downtown districts. The subject building is one of the original structures that define the character of Downtown Clearwater thus complementing the fabric of the surrounding area. Façade Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines state all façades of a building should reflect a unified architectural treatment with an architecturally prominent entrance. The proposed primary façade architectural elevations provide a projecting cornice at the transition of the upper wall to the roofline, a terracotta tile mansard roof, a projecting base terminated by Mission Style relief at the transition to the middle, and corbels within the cornice thus providing articulation resulting in visual interest and variety on the primary façade. Additionally, the rear façade will be painted and black iron style lantern fixtures will be installed on both facades to provide night -time illumination. While some effort has been made to provide an architecturally prominent entrance, more emphasis is necessary. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that more architectural features be added to the entrance prior to issuance of any exterior building construction permits. Roof Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roof forms are one of the most highly visible components of a building. Not only do roofs provide a vital function but they contribute to and are integral to the overall building design through the use of distinctive, defined styles and decorative patterns and colors. The roof design of the subject building includes a terracotta tile mansard roof trimmed below with corbels thus resulting in a roof consistent with the style of the building. Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines state the number and type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The proposed building colors are appropriate for the architectural style of the building and consist of a medium terra cotta color, Ember Afternoon 106-4, for the base; a light terra cotta color, Casabella 102, for the raised stucco base, the banded stucco treatments, and window frames; and light brown color, Wenge AF-180, for all shutters, cap molding and corbels. Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be consistent with the following Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown (D) District. Objective 1 E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. Objective 2H: A variety of parking solutions for motorized and non-motorized vehicles shall be pursued to support redevelopment while maintaining ease of access and parking throughout the Downtown. Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown’s character and heritage. Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of character district in which it is located. Downtown Core Character District Policies: No Downtown Core District Policies are applicable to the development proposal: COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 2-903 and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 4.0 1.24 X Maximum Building Height None 25.5 feet X 1 Minimum Off-Street Parking 5 –15 parking spaces / 1000 0 parking spaces / 1000 X sq. ft. sq. ft. (26 - 78 parking spaces) (0 parking spaces) 1 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-903.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 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. 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 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 April 2, 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 0.10-acre subject property is located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 180 feet north of Cleveland Street; 2. That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the Downtown Core character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 4. That the proposed building must comply with all applicable Design Guidelines set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines as set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Core character district; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Section 2-903; 4. 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 2-903.C; and 5. 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. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Downtown (D) District within an existing building with zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 2-903.C. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for exterior renovation, a proposal be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department which provides architectural treatments to the primary entrance consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. That future change out of roof top mechanical equipment is integrated into the design of the building through the use of parapet walls, towers or other architectural elements; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; and 4. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations approved by the CDB. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ??Location Map ??Aerial Map ??Future Land Use Map ??Zoning Map ??Existing Surrounding Uses Map ??Photographs of Site and Vicinity S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Ft Harrison N 0022 Ristorante In Pizza (D) 2009.04 - CDB - SK\Ft Harrison Ave N 22 - Restaurant Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03010 2009-04-21 Robert G. Tefft 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4539 robert.tefft@myclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ?? Planner III City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to Present Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. ?? Planner II City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. ?? Senior Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 2003 to May 2005 Performed technical review of 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. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Make presentations to various City Boards. ?? Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida March 2001 to October 2003 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in-depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. ?? Assistant Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications. Performed reviews of building permit applications. 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2009-03010 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Number: FLD2008-04009 Agenda Item: E. 3. Owner: Michael Preston Applicant: Frenchy’s South Beach, Inc. Representative: Janet Baustert Address: 351 South Gulfview Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a 228 square foot building addition and a 1,033 square foot deck expansion for an existing restaurant within the Tourist (T) District with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building/pavement), a side (north) setback of 15.91 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), and a rear (east) setback of 42 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); a building height of 22 feet; and 5 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along South Gulfview Boulevard from five to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Restaurant Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Restaurant SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations ZONING AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations and Restaurant (vacant) West: Tourist (T) District Beach Walk / Clearwater Beach ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.15-acre subject property is located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 60 feet north of Fifth Street, which is within the “Beach Walk” District of Beach by Design. The site is currently developed with a two-story 2,071 square foot restaurant (Frenchy’s South Beach Café), as well as a nonconforming 6-space off-street parking area at the rear of the property. Development Proposal: Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 On April 1, 2008, an application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project was submitted and over the course of its review the scope of the application has changed more than once. Presently, the development proposal consists of the following: Construction of a 228 square foot restroom addition at the southeast corner of the existing building; ?? Extension of the existing wood deck adjacent to the aforementioned addition, including the ?? construction of a handicap accessible ramp; Extension of the existing 37-foot wide wood deck between one and two feet toward the front of the ?? property; and Re-stripe the existing, nonconforming six-space off-street parking area at the rear of the property to ?? provide for five conforming parking spaces. The proposed restroom addition will solve an existing problem for the restaurant in that customers are required to walk through the kitchen in order to access the existing restrooms. The new restrooms would be accessed via the proposed deck extension along the south property line while the existing restrooms would be converted into storage area for the kitchen. In order to accommodate the proposed addition, the existing handicap accessible parking space must be relocated. However, the existing off-street parking area is presently nonconforming with regard to insufficient drive aisle and parking space widths. With this proposal, the off-street parking area will be redesigned so that all parking spaces meet the minimum dimensional requirements. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable FAR within the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category is 1.0. As proposed, the development will have an FAR of 0.35, which meets the above requirement. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2.801.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the RFH Future Land Use Category is 0.95. As per the site data table, the proposal has an ISR of 0.95, which meets the above requirement. Minimum Lot Area / Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for restaurants ranges between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. The subject property is 6,603.14 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants may range between 50 and 100 feet. The lot width of this site along South Gulfview Boulevard is 60 feet. Based upon the above, the proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for restaurants ranges between 25 and 100 feet. The existing building height is 22 feet to the mid-point of its pitched roof. The height of the building addition is proposed at approximately 9.51 feet to its standing seam flat roof, which will match the existing standing seam pitched found on the balance of the building. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for restaurants may range between zero and 15 feet, the minimum side setback may range between zero and 10 feet and the minimum rear setback may range between 10 and 20 feet. The proposal consists of a front (west) setback of zero feet (to proposed deck expansion), a side (north) setback of 15.91 feet (to existing building) and five feet (to existing pavement), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to existing building/pavement), and a rear (east) setback of 42 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to proposed pavement). Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 The majority of the requested setbacks are for existing conditions on the property; however there are a few setbacks that pertain to new improvements on the property. The existing 37-foot wide, first floor wood deck at the west side (front) of the property is presently set back between one and two feet from the property line and will be brought forward to a zero-foot setback. While this does result in a loss of foundation landscaping (a deviation from the landscape requirements discussed later in this staff report), the result is a design that supports the established and desired character of the area. While there is already an existing wood deck at a zero-foot setback along the south property line, the proposal will add a small extension to this deck as well as a new handicap accessible ramp leading to the relocated handicap accessible parking space at the rear of the property. The proposal will also expand the existing building by 228 square feet to accommodate new restrooms for the restaurant. The restrooms will be set back five feet from the south property line and will be accessed by the aforementioned deck expansion. As mentioned previously in the discussion on building height, this addition has been designed so as to be cohesive with the existing architecture, and the design is consistent with the established character of the area. With regard to the existing off-street parking area at the rear (east side) of the property, there is presently a four-foot set back from the property line to the pavement. However, this existing parking area is presently nonconforming and in order to bring the parking up to Code requirements this setback will need to be eliminated. While pavement is being extended into the existing setback area, this is only to accommodate the required handicap accessible parking space and its associated access panel. The additional further encroachment into the existing setback area will only be done by turf block and wheel stops for the four standard parking spaces so as not to overly disturb the roots of the existing trees on the adjacent property. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum off-street parking requirement for restaurants may range between seven and 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), or between 16 and 34 parking spaces based upon the proposed addition. The existing restaurant is presently deficient with regard to its required parking as it has only six parking spaces. Further, these six parking spaces are nonconforming as they typically do not meet the minimum required width and are accessed via a drive aisle with an inadequate width. With this proposal this drive aisle and six existing nonconforming parking spaces will be replaced with a drive aisle and five parking spaces that will conform to dimensional requirements. While the off-street parking being provided, this proposal is well short of what would typically be required for a restaurant of this size, there is inadequate property available to provide additional parking to what already exists, and this proposal will substantially improve those existing parking spaces. Further, the proposed addition will not generate any further demand for parking, as it is not increasing the restaurant’s seating capacity, but instead providing for new restrooms that will not need to be accessed through the kitchen. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803, the uses allowed within the Tourist (T) District are subject to compliance with specific flexibility criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with these 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. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 Consistent Inconsistent 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. 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. Permitted Encroachments Into Setbacks and Over Street Rights-of-Way: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 908.A.1, building projections that are affixed solely to the building and not directly to the ground such as awnings shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of ten feet into the otherwise required setback and over street rights-of-way provided a clearance of nine feet over grade is maintained. In no case shall such projection be closer than five feet from the curb or the shoulder of the roadway. The development proposal includes the installation of a new awning along the front edge of the existing building. The awning appears to project approximately two feet from the building, which would result in an encroachment into the right-of-way for South Gulfview Boulevard. While it appears that this encroachment will comply with all of the above requirements, it is attached as a condition of approval that Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 prior to the issuance of any building permits, further details and dimensions for the proposed awning must be provided and must comply with the above referenced requirements. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be required for 100 percent of a building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. The existing building fronts on South Gulfview Boulevard and there is presently a setback of between one and two feet from the abutting property line where a small and nonconforming foundation planting area exists. The proposal seeks to eliminate this foundation planting area and replace it with an expanded wood deck. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent Architectural theme 1. : a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. Lighting: 2. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Community character: 3. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Property values 4. : The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Special area or scenic corridor plan: 5. The landscape treatment proposed in the X comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. The proposal has been found to be consistent with the above requirements, but specifically with regard to criterion 1.b, the size of the existing foundation landscape area makes it impossible to plant the accent trees or palms required by this provision and realistically there is inadequate room to plant the required shrubs/hedge material and maintain it in a manner that would result in vibrant and healthy plant material. At this point, it seems more beneficial to the overall appearance of the site to have no foundation landscaping rather than foundation landscaping that is poor in its appearance. Based upon the above, it seems appropriate to allow for the elimination of the existing foundation planting area along South Gulfview Boulevard. 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 development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803: Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.35 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.95 X 1 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 square feet 6,603.14 square feet X 1 Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet 60 feet X Maximum Building Height 25 – 100 feet 18 feet X 2 Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet West: Zero feet (to building) X 2 Side: 0 – 10 feet North: 15.91 feet (to building) X 5 feet (to pavement) 2 South: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) 2 Rear: 10 – 20 feet East: 42 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) 3 Minimum Off-Street 34 parking spaces 5 parking spaces X Parking (15 / 1,000 GFA) 1 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Lot Area / Width. 2 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks. 3 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking. 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 meetings of May 1 and August 7, 2008, 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 0.15-acre subject property is located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 60 feet north of Fifth Street; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 3. That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Beach Walk” district; 4. That the existing development is presently nonconforming with respect to both minimum setback and off-street parking requirements; and 5. That the proposal consists of a 228 square foot restroom addition for an existing restaurant as well as minor expansions to the existing wood deck and the reconfiguration of the off-street parking area to meet dimensional requirements. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 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; 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; and 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to permit a 228 square foot building addition and a 1,033 square foot deck expansion for an existing restaurant within the Tourist (T) District with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building/pavement), a side (north) setback of 15.91 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), and a rear (east) setback of 42 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); a building height of 22 feet; and 5 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along South Gulfview Boulevard from five to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 3. That the Legal Description set forth on the Cover Sheet be revised to reflect the correct property; 4. That the General Site Notes set forth on the Site, Grading and Drainage Plan be revised to reflect the correct architect of record (#3) and the correct total square footage and parking requirement (#17), as well as striking note #14 and #16; 5. That a prior permit (BCP1999-12578 or BCP2003-02560) be reactivated or a new permit be applied for so that the previously constructed restroom addition, deck and 267 square foot second floor addition as previously approved under FLS 00-01-01, may be inspected and completed; and 6. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations approved by the CDB. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 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\Gulfview S 0351 Frenchy's (T) 2009.04 - Pending - RT\Staff Report 2009 04-21.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-04009 2009-04-21 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 – April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Number: TA2009-01001 Ordinance Number: 8028-09 Agenda Item: F-1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance No. 8028-09 – school concurrency. INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2005, Florida Statutes were changed, requiring that a new Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) be added to the comprehensive plans for applicable communities, of which Clearwater is one. The change in the Statutes also necessitated revisions to the Interlocal Agreement between Pinellas County School Board, Pinellas County, the City of Clearwater and eleven other municipalities. Subsequently, the City adopted the required changes to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and entered into a new Interlocal Agreement. The proposed text amendments to the Community Development Code are associated with and are intended to ensure consistency with the PSFE amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement. Specifically, Ordinance No. 8028-09 proposes text amendments to implement school concurrency regulations, including definitions and a few minor editorial changes. ANALYSIS: The proposed text amendments to the Community Development Code are associated with and are intended to ensure consistency with the Public School Facilities Element amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The primary emphasis is on school concurrency to ensure that there is available capacity (school work space) for the students generated by a proposed residential development of 25 units or greater, and if not, to provide options to allow the developer to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school facilities. The proposed Ordinance No. 8028-09 includes each of the amendments. The amendments formalize the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies as well as provisions of the Interlocal Agreement related to Pinellas County school concurrency. 1 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 The ordinance is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as follows: (Pages 2 through 9 of Ordinance) Community Development Code: Article 4. Development Review and Other Procedures ?? Section 4-708. Recording of the final plat. The ordinance adds sidewalk requirements associated with a subdivision plat for improving the safety of students as they access public school facilities (consistent with Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Policy J.3.1.6). ?? Section 4-903. Standards for certificate of concurrency/capacity. This ordinance adds subsection 7 to Section 4-903 A., referring to the new public school facilities concurrency requirements of Section 4-905. This ordinance revises Section 4-903 B. to reflect the current Clearwater Comprehensive Plan policy I.1.3.3. ?? Section 4-905. Public School Facilities Concurrency. This ordinance proposes new Section 4-905 to implement school concurrency as per the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Public School Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan pursuant to state law. It includes purpose, intent and procedures. Community Development Code: Article 8. Definitions and Rules of Construction ?? This article concerns definitions that are associated with school concurrency so that the City is consistent with the terms set forth in the Interlocal Agreement. ?? There is an editorial change to the definitions breaking out the two separate definitions “level of service standard” and “living aboard (a boat)”. Previously these definitions were erroneously combined. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: 2 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 H.1.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan with plans of the School Board of Pinellas County and other local governments through participation in joint planning process and procedures. Policies H.1.2.1 The City of Clearwater shall implement the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement in coordination with the School District and the other local governments that are signatories to the Agreement (the partner local governments). H.1.2.2 In fulfillment of Section 8 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, the City of Clearwater shall continue its participation on the Pinellas Schools Collaborative, which shall meet at least once a year to evaluate implementation of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement and school concurrency, and propose amendments for improvement if deemed necessary. H.1.2.3 The City of Clearwater, the School District, and the partner local governments shall coordinate annually in preparing a staff report on the effectiveness of school concurrency that will be presented at the annual meeting of the Pinellas Schools Collaborative, with the annual School Capacity and Level of Service Report forming the basis for the staff report. H.1.2.4 The City of Clearwater, the School District, and the partner local governments shall coordinate in amending the Public School Facilities Element according to the procedures in Section 10 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, to ensure that the Public School Facilities Element within the local government comprehensive plans remains coordinated and consistent with one another and with the plans of the School Board. H.1.2.5 The City of Clearwater, through the implementation of its concurrency management system and the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, shall coordinate and share information with the School District and the Pinellas County Planning Department to determine whether there is available public school capacity to support the anticipated students from residential site plans and final residential subdivision approvals. H.1.2.6 The City of Clearwater, its partner local governments, and the School District shall cooperate in establishing a procedural manual for implementation of school concurrency. This manual and any subsequent changes to the manual will be developed by the School 3 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 Planning Workgroup and approved by the Pinellas Schools Collaborative. H.1.2.7 The City of Clearwater shall coordinate with the School Board of Pinellas County to implement the public educational facilities siting requirements of Chapter 163 and Chapter 1013, F.S., as stipulated in Section 4 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement on April 24, 2007. H.1.2.8 The City recognizes State legislation regarding continued State funding for schools which are designated as historic and shall continue to coordinate with the appropriate State and Federal agencies to ensure the continued preservation of South Ward School, a National Register building. I.1.7 Objective - The City, in coordination with the School District, shall ensure that the capacity of public schools is sufficient to support the anticipated students from residential site plans and final residential subdivision approvals consistent with the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools. Policies: I.1.7.1 The City shall utilize the following level-of-service standard for public school facilities, which shall be applied consistently district-wide by the School District and by the local governments within Pinellas County that signed the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement (the partner local governments). District-wide level-of-service standard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level- of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. I.1.7.2 Amendments to the adopted level of service shall be accomplished using the procedure contained in Section 10 of the Public School Facilities Interlocal Agreement. I.1.7.3 The School Capacity and Level of Service Report, prepared by the School District, approved by the School Board, and delivered to the th City no later than November 30 of each year, and as adjusted throughout the year based on the official student enrollment count of the fall semester and the estimated number of vested students, shall be utilized by the City as the basis for assessing the existing level of service conditions and the available capacity within each Concurrency Service Area. 4 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 st I.1.7.4 By December 1 of each year, the City shall adopt by reference the School District’s Five-Year Work Program to ensure the level of service standard is achieved and maintained during the period covered by the five-year schedule within the Capital Improvements Element. I.1.7.5 The School Board, in coordination with the partner local governments, will use the procedure in Section 3(a) of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement to annually update the District’s Five-Year Work Program to maintain a financially-feasible capital improvements program that is able to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standard within the period covered by the five-year schedule. I.1.7.6 The City hereby adopts by reference the School District’s Five-Year Work Program for FY 2008/09 through 2012/13, as adopted by the School Board on September 9, 2008. J.1GOAL – THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND BECAUSE OF A SHARED COMMITMENT TO EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, ALL STUDENTS OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HIGH STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH THE AVAILABILITY OF HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. J.1.2 Objective – The City, through implementation of its concurrency management system for public school facilities, and in coordination with the School District, shall ensure that there is available public school capacity to support the anticipated students from residential site plans and final residential subdivision approvals (“Residential Approvals”) consistent with the adopted level-of-service standard for public school concurrency throughout the five years covered by the Five-Year Work Program, as amended, and the period of the long-range planning program contained in the Public School Facilities Element. Policies J.1.2.1 The City hereby adopts, consistent with Section 11 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, the following level-of-service standard, which shall be applied consistently district-wide by all partner local governments within Pinellas County and by the School District. District-wide level-of-service standard: Student enrollment plus vested students divided by Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) School 5 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 Capacity plus additional capacity does not exceed 100 percent. This level-of-service standard shall apply to each type of public school facility. J.1.2.4 School concurrency shall be measured and applied on the basis of Concurrency Service Areas, as established by the School Board and as documented in the data and analysis support section of the Public School Facilities Element. J.1.2.5 The School Board shall maximize school capacity through program adjustments and/or through adjustments to Concurrency Service Area boundaries, consistent with Section 12 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, to ensure that each Concurrency Service Area will, in the aggregate, operate at the adopted level-of-service standard throughout the five-year period covered by the Five-Year Work Program, as amended. J.1.2.7 Consistent with Sections 1002.33(1) and 1002.33(2), F.S., the City and the School District shall recognize charter schools as public school facilities. Such facilities shall serve to expand the school capacity of the School District and are a potential option for mitigating the impact that new Residential Approvals may have on public school facilities. J.1.2.8 The City, its partner local governments, and the School District shall utilize the uniform, district-wide procedure in Section 13 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement to implement school concurrency within their respective jurisdictions. J.1.2.10 In order to facilitate the accurate annual assessment of projected public school facility capacity, the City shall, throughout the year, notify the Pinellas County Planning Department of development permits, including certificates of occupancy issued for new dwelling units and expired school concurrency Residential Approvals, that affect the availability of school capacity, consistent with Section 13 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, so that an estimate of the number of vested students can be maintained for school concurrency purposes. J.1.2.11 A school concurrency Residential Approval shall be valid for purposes of the issuance of development orders or permits not to exceed a period of 24 months from the date of issuance. J.1.2.12 In accordance with Section 13 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, if the School District determines that there is not Available Capacity within an affected Concurrency Service Area to accommodate the estimated number of students that would be generated by a proposed Residential Approval and maintain the adopted level-of-service 6 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 standard, then the School District shall consider whether there is Available Capacity in the contiguous Concurrency Service Area(s). J.1.2.13 If the School District determines that, in the aggregate, there is Available Capacity in the affected Concurrency Service Area and in the contiguous Concurrency Service Area(s) to accommodate the estimated number of students from the proposed Residential Approval, then an adequate level of service would be provided and the Residential Approval shall be issued a School Concurrency Approval by the City. J.1.2.14 If the School District determines that, in the aggregate, there is not Available Capacity within an affected Concurrency Service Area and the adjacent Concurrency Service Area(s) to accommodate the estimated number of students from the proposed Residential Approval, a proposed Residential Approval will not proceed without execution of a legally binding development mitigation agreement between the applicant, the School Board, and the City designed to mitigate the impacts anticipated to be caused by the proposed Residential Approval on public school facilities, consistent with Section 163.3180, F.S., and Section 13 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement. The applicant and the School Board shall attempt to negotiate a development mitigation agreement. If the applicant and the School Board are unable to agree on an acceptable form of mitigation, the City may utilize the conflict resolution provision in Section 14 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement to attempt to resolve the impasse. J.1.2.15 A development mitigation agreement shall include the applicant’s commitment to continue to renew the development agreement until the mitigation is completed as determined by the School Board or as determined through the conflict resolution procedures provided for in Section 14 of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement, if applicable. J.1.2.16 Acceptable forms of proportionate share mitigation that may be allowed by the School Board and the standards that determine the appropriate use of any mitigation funds required by the School District are identified in Section 13 h. of the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement. J.1.2.17 The City and the School District shall utilize student generation rates developed by the School District for purposes of calculating the anticipated number of public school students that would be generated by Residential Approvals and for developing student enrollment projections. The amendments provide for joint planning processes and procedures that ensure that the Community Development Code is consistent with the above goals, objectives and policies of the Public School Facilities Element as well as the Interlocal Agreement. The procedures implement 7 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA 2009-01001 2009-04-21 the policies which require that public school capacity is sufficient to support anticipated students resulting from subdivision approvals. The ordinance also underscores Clearwater’s commitment to providing the opportunity for high student achievement as articulated in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments will further the purposes of the Community Development Code as set forth in Section 1-103, as follows: ?? Provide for adequate light, air and privacy; secure safety from fire, flood and other damage; prevent overcrowding of the land and undue congestion of population; and improve the quality of life for the citizens of the city (CDC Section 1-103.E.1). ?? 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 (CDC Section 1-103.E.2). The proposed amendments will protect the social stability of the city and improve the quality of life for its citizens by establishing standards that ensure that there is adequate capacity in school facilities to address demand for facilities generated by proposed residential developments. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. The amendments further those development goals established in the Code, and existing Community Development Code provisions are amended to better reflect City development patterns and improve internal processes. Based upon the above, the Planning APPROVAL Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8028-09 that amends the Community Development Code. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: ____________________________________ Sandra E. Herman, Planner III ATTACHMENT: ??Ordinance No. 8028-09 8 S:\psulliva\Community Development\Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-01001 2009-04-21.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-01003 2009-04-21 CDB Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Case Number: TA2009-01003 Ordinance Number: 8042-09 Agenda Item: F2 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances – Ordinance No. 8042-09 INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND: The completion of the Cleveland Street improvements and the adoption of the “Cleveland Street Façade Design Analysis” by WilsonMiller, made the vision of a sidewalk café district, “Café Society”, possible. The Community Development Code currently addresses sidewalk cafes located on private property and those located within public right(s)-of-way under the same provisions, however outdoor dining located on private property functions differently than outdoor dining located within the public right-of-way. To respond to these differences, the Planning Department proposes these amendments. ANALYSIS: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code distinguish between outdoor cafes on private property and those located within the public rights-of-way, as well as establish the Cleveland Street Café District. The proposed amendments will streamline the review process as outlined below. In order to support the changes to the Community Development Code, necessary consistency modifications have been made to the Code of Ordinances as well. The basic changes to requirements for outdoor cafes on private property include: ?? Elimination of the specific outdoor café application process, as they will be approved through the applicable development review process (e.g., building construction permit, flexible standard development, flexible development); ?? Elimination of both the application fee and permit fee. The elimination of a separate application process for outdoor cafes on private property aids in building a stronger relationship between local business and City staff, since one staff member will be handling the entire review process. In addition, this saves staff time since staff will Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 TA2009-01003 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-01003 2009-04-21 already be familiar with the functionality of the site. In light of the current economic situation, the elimination of the fees may be perceived as an effort on part of the City to alleviate unnecessary financial burden on businesses. The basic changes to requirements for outdoor cafes located within public right(s)-of-way include: ?? Reducing and relocating application submittal requirements to Section 4-202, which addresses applications for development approval; ?? Editing language and adding definitions to achieve clarity and succinctness; ?? Establishing the Cleveland Street Café District, including new provisions that apply only to those Outdoor Cafes located on Cleveland Street between Myrtle Avenue and Osceola Avenue; ?? Continuing to allow outdoor cafes in the Downtown Plan Area and Clearwater Beach; ?? Reducing fees by substituting a one-time permit for the current application fee and annual permit fee. The relocation of application submittal requirements to the section where all other application requirements are found is logical and makes navigation of the Code easier for the layperson. Throughout the ordinance, language was eliminated or edited to increase readability and comprehension. As stated previously, the reduction in fees will most likely be welcome in light of current economic times and seen as an effort on part of the City to support and offer encouragement to local businesses in the Downtown and Clearwater Beach. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goal, Objective, and Policies which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments: Goal A.6 The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 TA2009-01003 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-01003 2009-04-21 Objective A.6.6 Tourism is a substantial element of the City’s economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. Policy A.6.1.6 Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of economic opportunity, the creation of jobs and training opportunities as well as the maintenance of existing industries through establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce, Tourist Development Council and other economic development organizations and agencies. Policy A.6.8.1 Build active, attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of mass transit. Findings The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for several reasons. Use of the public right-of-way by private enterprise encourages infill development due to the addition of more seating, which increases the earning potential of an eating establishment and makes it likelier for a business to be established and thrive. Increased seating capacity at an eating establishment also expands economic opportunities by creating jobs, as more space for patrons means more staff is needed to serve said patrons. An important element in generating tourism is creating an inviting public realm. Outdoor cafes enrich the public realm by activating street life and providing a greater number and diversity of street furniture. Outdoor cafes, by their very nature, are at a human scale and encourage walking. 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 will further the purposes of the Community Development Code in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103: ?? Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment (CDC Section 1-103.B.1). ?? Strengthening the City’s economy and increasing its tax base as a whole (CDC Section 1- 103.B.3). ?? 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 (CDC Section 1-103.E.2). Findings These amendments are consistent with the Community Development Code because they enhance property values by encouraging creative redevelopment through the use of public rights-of-way Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 TA2009-01003 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-01003 2009-04-21 as outdoor cafes. Outdoor cafes provide expanded capacity for eating establishments, increasing the viability of the business, which strengthens the City’s economy. The standards established by these amendments protect and enhance community character through the orderly and beneficial development of land. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances are consistent with and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning APPROVAL Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8042-09 that amends the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________ Cate Lee, Planner II ATTACHMENT: ??Ordinance No. 8042-09 S:\Planning Department\Community Development Code\2009 Code Amendments\TA2009-01003 - Sidewalk Cafe\Staff Reports\Ordinance No 8042-09 CDB Staff Report 2009 04-09.doc Community Development Board – April 21, 2009 TA2009-01003 – Page 4