07/21/2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 21, 2009
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch 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 Acting Board Member
Absent: Thomas Coates Vice-Chair
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 16, 2009
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of June 16, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously
D. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE (to August 18, 2009): (Items 1-2)
1. Case: APP2009-00002 – 1520 McMullen-Booth Road
Owner: Goral Tov, Ltd.
Appellant: Todd Pressman.
Agent: Todd Pressman (P.O. Box 6015, Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760;
fax: 1-888-977-1179).
Location: 20.169 acres located at the southwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and
State Road 590.
Atlas Page: 274A.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: An appeal from a Level One (Comprehensive Sign Program) approval decision
pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-502.A, that the requested additional
attached sign as a Comprehensive Sign Program is inconsistent with the Non-Residential
Attached Sign review principles as set forth in Community Development Code Sections 3-
1806.B.3.a.i and ii; and the Comprehensive Sign Program review principles as set forth in
Community Development Code Sections 3-1807.C.1.a and b.
Existing Use: Retail Sales and Services.
Community Development 2009-07-21 1
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Del Oro Groves Estates.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II.
The Applicant’s representative requested that Case: APP2009-00002 be continued to
August 18, 2009.
See below for motion to continue.
2. Level Three Application
Case: TA2009-01004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code to create a new Resort Attached
Dwellings use in the Tourist District, and to establish criteria addressing accessory uses for
overnight accommodations in the Commercial and Tourist Districts.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Planner III.
Staff requested that Case: TA2009-01004 be continued to August 18, 2009.
Member Behar moved to continue Cases APP2009-00002 and TA2009-01004 to August
18, 2009. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2009-03014 – 1105 Druid Road Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: J.A. Churchill, LLC
st
Agent: Randy Wedding, Wedding & Stephenson Architects, Inc. (300 1 Ave S, Suite 402,
St Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-821-6610; fax: 727-894-4216)
Location: 1.608 acres located at the southeast corner of Druid Road and S Myrtle Ave.
Atlas Page: 296A
Zoning: High Density Residential (HDR) District
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 112-bed assisted living facility in the High
Density Residential (HDR) District with a reduction to the minimum off-street parking
requirement from 71 spaces to 64 spaces, an increase to the building height from 30 feet to 53
feet (to flat roof), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a
reduction in front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction in side (east)
setback from 10 to three feet (to pavement) and a reduction in side (south) setback from 10 to
three feet (to pavement) as a Residential Infill Project, pursuant to Community Development
Code Section 2-504.F; and a reduction to a portion of the perimeter landscape buffer along the
east and south property lines from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Plan, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Assisted Living Facility (112-beds)
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and South Clearwater Citizens
for Progressive Action
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
Member Barker declared a conflict of interest.
Community Development 2009-07-21 2
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2009-03014 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Report, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Behar, Dame, DiPolito, and
Adelson, Acting Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Barker abstained.
Motion carried.
2. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: DVA2009-00001 – 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive
(Related to FLD2009-03013)
Owner/Applicant: Decade Companies Income Properties
Agent: Keith Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (701 Enterprise
Road East, Suite 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855;
email: keith@keithzayac.com)
Location: 0.72 acre located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and
southeast corners of Devon Drive/First Street
Atlas Page: 267A
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Decade Companies Income Properties (the property owner) and the City of
Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by
Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 108 rooms (150 rooms/acre on total
site, including the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately
1,500 square-feet (0.048 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 89
feet (to roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00001 – 2009-07-21
Planner III Wayne M. Wells said the CDB (Community Development Board) had approved
this request on May 19, 2009, however, the required notification sign had not been posted. To
meet Code requirements, this item has been brought forward for reconsideration. The CDB
approved the site plan in May.
Two people spoke in opposition to the project and one person spoke in support.
It was commented that the board had discussed this item previously and was required to
follow the Code.
Member DiPolito moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2009-00001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
Community Development 2009-07-21 3
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2009-00003 – 1850 McMullen-Booth Road
Owner: Countryside Christian Center
Appellant: Pastor Glen Gammon
Agent: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365)
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 decision made by an administrative official in the administration of
the Community Development Code that a revised parking plan submitted in response to action
previously taken by the Community Development Board (APP2009-00001) does not comply
with the provisions of the Code.
Existing Use: Place of Worship
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Oak Forest
Presenter: Michael Delk, Planning Director
See Exhibit: Staff Report APP2009-00003 – 2009-07-21.
Planning Director Michael Delk reviewed the history of the basketball court, which was
built without permits in the center of a parking lot at the Countryside Christian Center. On May
19, 2009, the CDB granted appeals related to three of the Conclusions of Law that were the
basis for the Community Development Coordinator’s decision to deny the revised site plan. The
CDB upheld staff’s denial of the site plan based on the basketball court’s location in a drive aisle
as required by off-street parking space availability standards of CDC (Community Development
Code) Section 3-1404.C.
Since then, the Countryside Christian Center submitted an updated site plan showing
additional parking spaces. Staff denied approval of the site plan based on previous reasons
that the basketball court had been constructed without permits and approval and its location is
inconsistent with the approved site plan. The church is appealing staff’s decision.
Applicant representative Katherine Cole said at the May meeting, CDB members had
stated that the drive aisle across the basketball court, used to access seven parking spaces,
needed to be unobstructed and could be removed if those spaces were relocated. She said
according to the dictionary definition of the word “obstructed,” the drive aisle is not obstructed in
any way.
Member Behar moved to accept Mike Gaylor as an expert witness in the field of
engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mike Gaylor, of Gaylor Engineering, said he had measured and counted onsite parking
spaces and determined that the site has 860 parking spaces, not including the basketball court
or seven adjacent spaces. The original site plan only identified 833 spaces. He said the
Community Development 2009-07-21 4
basketball court, constructed at grade, allows vehicles to drive across it and does not create an
obstruction.
Attorney Cole said the basketball court is important to the school's curriculum. She said
while some neighbors objected to the court, other neighbors supported it. She said this appeal
should be granted as it meets Code requirements. She said parking is not allowed near the
basketball court during school recess. She said relocating the court would be too expensive
and result in fewer parking spaces.
In response to questions, Mr. Delk said had the Countryside Christian Center submitted
a permit application prior to construction, he would have recommended locating the basketball
court differently and reconfiguring the drive aisle. The Engineering Department had no issues
with the site.
Concern was expressed that the basketball court is open to the public and safety could
be compromised if children play on the basketball court at the same time vehicles drive through
the parking lot. Attorney Cole said vehicles only use the parking lot during Wednesday night
and Sunday services. The parking lot only can be accessed from McMullen-Booth Road. She
said the church would add signage limiting play times. Mr. Gaylor said church staff uses golf
carts to police the lot when it is used for parking.
Discussion ensued with comments that the church had done what was necessary to
address board safety concerns, no obstruction exists, and the church will provide security.
Member Dames moved to grant the appeal, Case APP2009-00003, and reverse the
Staff's development order denying the application based on the evidence and testimony
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby make the
following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: the parking lot has 860 parking spaces
where 833 are required and the basketball court does not create an obstruction in the parking
lot and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code
Section 3-1404.C, subject to the following conditions: 1) signs shall be posted that limit when
the basketball court can be used and 2) church staff shall police the parking lot when it is used
for parking. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1 :52 p.m.
air
munity Development Board
Community Development 2009-07-21
5
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
elL
LAST
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
M
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
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
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or SUbsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, -6 r ; fA. n l3a.('eu-
, hereby disclose that on
~
~ u ~ ~) ,20 Q.j:
(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,
X inured to the special gain or loss Of--D € U. el .J.- A'5~e .
, 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
o..~ tLf?Li,~~ +0\
The. +\ (YY\
c-o f\.. -t: (tLC CLd.
loo0~
~
Roa..oL./ ~ClI IN ~ ) .ria . )
\)ev'.do~ a-p-pr~_
~~k ~lo~ ~J Deue( ~ A-s~o~./
UJ \ -th -\:::k.e.. CLfF c~ .J.. ?r-e pa.. roe oL
6-u-rv~.
t=" 1- 1) 2.ooq - 036 I ~ - I} 0 6" 1XtM-cl
rle~', ble
J::v.... ~ ~ \ I d-O 0 '1
/---::;> - .~.-::/'
~~~~~~ -
Signature
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
CDB Meeting Date: July 21, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-03014
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owner: J.A. Churchill, LLC
Applicant: Wedding & Stephenson Architects, Inc.
Representative: Randy Wedding
Address: 1105 Druid Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a 112-bed assisted living
facility in the High Density Residential (HDR) District with a
reduction to the minimum off-street parking requirement from 71
spaces to 64 spaces, an increase to the building height from 30 feet
to 53 feet (to flat roof), a reduction to the front (north) setback from
25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction in front (west) setback
from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction in side (east)
setback from 10 to three feet (to pavement) and a reduction in side
(south) setback from 10 to three feet (to pavement) as a Residential
Infill Project, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 2-
504.F; and a reduction to a portion of the perimeter landscape buffer
along the east and south property lines from 10 feet to zero feet (to
pavement) as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, pursuant to
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: High Density Residential (HDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential High (RH)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Vacant
Proposed Use: Assisted Living Facility
EXISTING North: High Density Residential (HDR) District
SURROUNDING Attached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South: High Density Residential (HDR) District
Attached Dwellings
East: High Density Residential (HDR) District
Attached Dwellings
West: Office (O) District
Funeral Home and Detached Dwellings
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.613 acres is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue and Druid Road. The site has 265.16 feet of frontage on both Druid Road and Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue and is currently vacant.
Development Proposal:
On March 5, 2009 an application for a Residential Infill Project was submitted to develop the site
with a 108-unit assisted living facility in a five-story building. The building is designed as an
“L” shape located in the southeast corner of the property with two wings extending north and
west. Units range from one-bedroom Alzheimer’s units with 228 square feet of living area to
one-bedroom assisted living units with 555 square feet of living area. There are between 19 and
32 units per floor. The facility includes a kitchen, dining facilities, lounge, snack room, bar,
mechanical room, laundry facilities, locker room, offices, nurse’s stations, and activity room.
The request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested height increase,
parking and setback reductions. The proposal includes reduction to the required 71 off-street
parking spaces to 64 spaces, an increase to the building height from 30 feet to 53 feet (to flat
roof), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction in
front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction in side (east) setback from
10 to three feet (to pavement) and a reduction in side (south) setback from 10 to three feet (to
pavement).
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Maximum Density: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-501.1, the maximum allowable density within
the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use category is 30 dwelling units per acre. As pursuant
to CDC Section 8-102 the allowable density for assisted living facilities is calculated at three
beds per dwelling unit. The subject property is 1.613 acres and therefore 145 beds are allowed.
As proposed, the development will have 112 beds, which meets the above requirement.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2.501.1, the maximum allowable ISR
within the RH Future Land Use Category is 0.85. As per the site data table, the proposal has an
ISR of 0.73, which meets the above requirement.
Minimum Lot Area / Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-503, the minimum lot area for assisted
living facilities is 15,000 square feet. The subject property is 70,304.70 square feet in area.
Pursuant to the same table, the minimum lot width for assisted living facilities is 150 feet. The
lot widths of this site along both Druid Road and Martin Luther King Avenue are 265.16 feet.
Based upon the above, the proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, the maximum allowable height for
Residential Infill Projects is 130 feet. The proposal includes an increase to the maximum
building height from 30 to 53 feet (to roof deck), providing for five floors of residential units.
As a Flexible Development use, the Code provides a building height range from 30 to 130 feet
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
for attached dwellings. The property to the north across Druid Road is developed with a 12-story
residential building. The property to the south and east is developed with an attached dwelling
complex of two-story buildings. The property farther to the southeast has been redeveloped as
the Renaissance Square attached dwelling complex (formerly the Sunshine Mall) with buildings
up to four and five stories in height. While the proposed height is greater than that of the existing
adjacent residential buildings to the east and south, the proposed height is less than the maximum
height that would otherwise be allowable for other uses in the zoning district and can be viewed
as transitioning the height between the building to the north and the buildings to the south and
east. The proposed building height will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, density and character
of adjacent properties. Flexibility in regard to building height is justified by the benefits of a
well-designed building that is compatible with the surrounding character.
Minimum Setbacks: As this property fronts two rights-of-way, the property has two front (north
and west) setbacks and two side (east and south) setbacks. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, the
minimum front setback for residential infill projects may range between 10 and 25 feet and the
minimum side setback may range between zero and 10 feet. The proposed building exceeds the
required front setback of 25 feet, being located 32 feet from the Druid Road front property line
and 45 feet from the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue front property line. The proposed building
also meets or exceeds the required side setback of 10 feet, being located 12 feet from the east
property line and 10 feet from the south property line. The proposal includes a front setback
reduction along Druid Road to 20 feet to the pavement of the parking area along the north side of
the property, and a front setback reduction along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to 15 feet to the
pavement of the parking area along the west side of the property. These setbacks to pavement
are common for new developments (whether residential or nonresidential). The other setback
reductions are for paved areas along the east and south property lines. These areas will be used
as clear access pathways as well as recreation areas for the residents. Locating this area between
the rear of the building and existing six foot wall along the property lines provides increased
privacy and security for the residents. This type of outdoor amenity is typical of assisted living
facilities.
The requested flexibility in regard to required setbacks are justified by the benefits of the
building exceeding required setbacks allowing for significant landscaped areas along the
roadways, enhancing the surrounding area. The development of this parcel may be viewed as
otherwise impractical without the requested deviations from the required setbacks, wherein all
setback reductions are to non-building structures. Additionally, the design of this project creates
an interesting building form and function which will enhance the character of the surrounding
area, and which breaks up the scale and massing of the building.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the development standards for
residential infill projects are guidelines that may be varied based upon the flexibility criteria
specified for residential infill projects. These development standards also set forth a minimum
off-street parking requirement of two spaces per unit. However, this requirement is not
consistent with the intended use as pursuant to CDC Section 8-102 where a dwelling unit is
defined as a building or portion of a building providing independent living facilities for one
family including provision for living, sleeping, and complete kitchen facilities. The proposed
units do not contain complete kitchen facilities and therefore do not provide independent living
facilities.
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
As the aforementioned provision is not consistent with the intended use, CDC Section 2-503 in
which the development standards for assisted living facilities set forth minimum off-street
parking requirement of one space per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area, was used to
establish the minimum off-street parking requirement. Under this provision, a minimum of 71
parking spaces are required. The applicant requested a reduction from 71 parking spaces to 64
spaces and provided a parking demand study, which was reviewed and approved by the Traffic
Operations Division that reflected 71 spaces would be excessive and that 64 spaces are adequate
given the study showed historically assisted living facilities generate far less traffic than that
which would require one parking space per two residents.
It is further noted that, pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum off-street parking
requirement for assisted living facilities within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
is one parking space per two residents. As 112 beds are proposed, this parking calculation would
result in 56 parking spaces required. While this provision is applicable in the MDR District, this
standard is more in-line with the development proposed as it is anticipated that a majority of the
residents will not be capable of operating a motor vehicle. In addition, the facility will house
approximately 20 Alzheimer’s patients that are unable to operate motor vehicles.
Based on the above, staff feels the 64 spaces to be provided will be adequate for the needs of the
facility and will be more beneficial to the community character.
Residential Infill Projects Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the uses allowed
within the High Density Residential (HDR) 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 2-504.F (Residential Infill Projects):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity; other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
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 lands uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
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 and off-street parking are X
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. Building
height, may only exceed 80 feet, however, if the parcel proposed for development
fronts on Clearwater Bay, Old Tampa Bay, or is only separated from Clearwater Bay
or Old Tampa Bay by a public open space.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where attached dwellings and like uses are
adjacent to arterial or collector rights-of-way, a 15-foot landscape buffer with one tree every 35
feet and 100 percent shrubs is required. The north and west buffers will contain the trees and
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
shrub material required by Code. In addition, 30 of the shade trees provided will have calipers
exceeding minimum requirements and 11 palm trees not required by Code will be provided. The
increase in tree size coupled with excess palms will provide increased shade for the parking lot
and building as well as provide additional visual buffering of the building from the adjacent
rights-of-way. Furthermore, the proposed landscape will have a beneficial impact on the
surrounding properties and will enhance the community character as the site is currently vacant
and the adjacent properties lack perimeter landscape buffering.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where adjacent to other attached dwellings and/or like
uses, a 10-foot perimeter landscape buffer is required. The proposal seeks a reduction in the tree
and shrub requirement for a portion of these buffers (south and east) to provide a paved area for
the residents of the facility. As previously discussed, locating this area to the rear of the
building, where there is an existing six-foot high wall along the property lines, provides
increased safety for the residents. This type of outdoor amenity with increased security is typical
of assisted living facilities.
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. : The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape X
treatment 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.
2. Architectural theme: The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape X
treatment 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:
3. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
Community character:
4. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
Property values
5. : The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program X
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:
6. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive N/A N/A
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 use and size of the proposed side (east and south) perimeter landscape
buffers makes it impossible to plant the shade trees and 100 percent shrubs required by code.
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
Small portions of the buffers lack shrubs and trees in order to provide clear recreation areas and
access paths. It is staff’s recommendation though that of the three magnolia trees proposed at the
northeast corner the center magnolia be shifted south approximately 45 feet in order to create a
more complete buffer and allow the future canopy of these trees to be more full.
As expressed above, the Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent
with all applicable criteria. Therefore, subject to the attached conditions of approval being
addressed, positive findings can be made with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Landscape
Program.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is one outstanding gate and overgrown vegetation Code
Enforcement issue 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 2-501.1 and 2-504:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 0.60 0.22 X
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.85 0.73 X
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 70,304.7 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width 150 feet 265.16 feet (along Druid Road) X
265.16 feet (along MLK Avenue) X
1
Maximum Building Height 30 feet 53 feet X
2
Minimum Setbacks Front: 25 feet North: 20 feet (to pavement) X
35 feet (to building) X
2
West: 15 feet (to pavement) X
45 feet (to building) X
2
Side: 10 feet South: 3 feet (to pavement) X
10 feet (to building) X
2
East: 3 feet (to pavement) X
12 feet (to building) X
3
Minimum Off-Street 71 parking spaces 64 parking spaces X
Parking (1 /1,000 GFA)
1
See above discussion with regard to Maximum Building Height.
2
See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks.
3
See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking.
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
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 May 07, 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 subject 1.613 acres are zoned High Density Residential (HDR) District and are
located at the southeast corner of Druid Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue;
2. That the site is currently vacant;
3. That based on current Land Use Category density limitations of 30 assisted living facility
dwelling units per acre, the subject site may be redeveloped with a maximum of 145 beds
(three beds per dwelling unit), which is 33 more than the proposal of 112 beds;
4. That the property to the north across Druid Road is developed with attached dwellings 12
stories in height, and the properties to the south and east are developed with attached
dwellings 2 stories in height;
5. That the property farther to the southeast has been redeveloped as the Renaissance Square
attached dwelling complex (formerly Sunshine Mall) with buildings up to four and five
stories in height;
6. That the building proposed is designed to be 53 feet in height, providing for five floors of
assisted living facility units;
7. That in the HDR District, required setbacks for a Residential Infill Project use are 10 – 25
feet front and 0 – 10 feet side;
8. That the proposed building meets required setbacks;
9. That the proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) setback along Druid Road from 25
feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback along Martin Luther
King Jr. Avenue from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
10. from 10 feet to three feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10
feet to three feet (to pavement); and
11. That this site requires 15-foot perimeter landscape buffers along arterial or collector rights-
of-way and 10-foot wide perimeter landscape buffers adjacent to attached dwellings or like
uses. The perimeter landscape buffers along the north and west property lines, which abut
collector rights-of-way, meet the requirement. This proposal includes reductions to the
perimeter buffers along the east and south property lines, which abut attached dwellings,
from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement).
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 Standards as per
Tables 2-501.1 and 2-504;
2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility
criteria for a Residential Infill Project as per CDC Section 2-504.F;
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 112-bed assisted living facility in the High Density
Residential (HDR) District with a reduction to the minimum off-street parking requirement from
71 spaces to 64 spaces, an increase to the building height from 30 feet to 53 feet (to flat roof), a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction in front
(west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction in side (east) setback from 10 to
three feet (to pavement) and a reduction in side (south) setback from 10 to three feet (to
pavement) as a Residential Infill Project, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 2-
504.F; and a reduction to a portion of the perimeter landscape buffer along the east and south
property lines from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) as part of a Comprehensive Landscape
Plan, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
2. That prior to issuance of any building permits, all solid waste conditions shall be addressed;
3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape plans shall be revised to
depict the relocation of the center magnolia tree of the three proposed at the northeast corner
of the property southward 45 feet;
4. That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed
underground;
5. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits;
6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans shall be revised to reflect a
parapet height of four feet.
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
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\Druid Road 1105 Assisted Living Facility (HDR) - 7.21.09
CDB - MJJ\Staff Report 2009 06-19.doc
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-03014 2009-07-21
Matthew Jackson
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
(727) 562-4836
matthew.jackson@myclearwater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Planner II
??
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida October 2008 to Present
Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance with land resource ordinances and
regulations related to community development. Landscape plan review including: conceptual, and
variance. Reviews and analyzes site plans and conducts field studies to determine the integrity of
development plans and their compatibility with surroundings. Interdepartmental and zoning
assistance. Respond as a City representative to citizens, City officials, and businesses concerning
ordinances and regulations. Make recommendations and presentations at staff level at various review
committees, boards, and meetings.
Planner I
??
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to December 2007
Project manager for various development applications such as plat, site plan, rezoning and variances.
In-depth government agency, in-house and client coordination to ensure that the projects maintained
submittal schedules stayed within budget constraints and attained approval. Schedule and lead
project kick-off meetings, ensure municipal project conditions were resolved, produce supporting
documents and make site visits as well. Research and prepare due diligence reports including subject
matter such as zoning, land uses, densities, available public utilities and land development costs.
Member of emergency mitigation committee formed to prepare and mitigate for natural or man-made
disasters affecting Calvin, Giordano and Associates and local municipalities.
Manager
??
Church Street Entertainment, Orlando, Florida September 1999 to February 2004
Supervised and managed daytime and nighttime operations of a bar and nightclub entertainment
complex including 100+ staff. Conducted hiring and training operations including security and
inventory control. Managed and reconciled nightly gross revenues as well as preparing and
delivering deposits. Assisted in taking inventory and preparing weekly inventory orders, marketing
and special events.
Linguist
??
US Army, Fort Campbell, KY October 1991 to October 1995
Maintain fluency in the Arabic language and knowledge of customs and culture as well as military
readiness for possible deployments or training operations. Co-managed intelligence gathering
operation in Haiti including coordination between multiple Special Forces units and civilian
authorities. Interpreter between U.S. and Egyptian soldiers during training exercises. Liaison
between Special Forces battalions to coordinate certification training.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 2007
??
Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Rollins College, 2004
??
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
FLD2009-03014 – Page 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00001 2009-07-21
CDB Meeting Date: July 21, 2009
Case Number: DVA2009-00001
Agenda Item: E.1.
Owner/Applicant: Decade Companies Income Properties
Representative: Keith Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc.
Address: 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development
Agreement between Decade Companies Income Properties (the property
owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units
from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE LAND Resort Facilities High (RFH)
USE CATEGORY:
BEACH BY DESIGN Small Motel
CHARACTER DISTRICT:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:22-room motel and vacant land (formerly a 16-unit
motel and a 15-unit motel)
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 108 rooms
(150 rooms/acre on total site, including the allocation of
72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and
approximately 1,500 square feet (0.048 FAR on total
site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 89
feet (to roof deck)
EXISTING North: Preservation (P) District City Marina
SURROUNDING ZONING South: Tourist (T) District Retail sales and Overnight
AND USES: accommodations
East: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations and City
parking lot
West: Tourist (T) District Temporary City parking lot
UPDATE:
This application was previously recommended for approval to City Council by the CDB at their May 19,
2009, meeting. It was later discovered that the required public notice signage was not placed on the
property. The required public notice has been provided for this meeting for rehearing of this application
prior to public hearing by City Council on August 6, 2009.
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
DVA2009-00001 – Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00001 2009-07-21
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners of Devon
Drive/First Street. The subject property is currently developed with a 22-unit motel (101 Coronado Drive)
and vacant land presently used for construction trailers for the Hyatt/Aqualea project (105 Coronado
Drive and 35 Devon Drive). The vacant parcels were previously developed with a 16-unit motel (105
Coronado Drive) and a 15-unit motel (35 Devon Drive).
Development Proposal:
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application (FLD2009-03013) to
permit an overnight accommodation use of a total of 108 rooms (150 rooms/acre on total site, including
the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately 1,500 square feet (0.048
FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel (meeting room and exercise room) at a height of 89
feet (to roof deck). All 108 units of the hotel and 94 parking spaces on four levels are proposed on the
northern portion of the site (north of Devon Drive). A surface parking lot for 18 spaces is proposed on
the southern portion of the site (south of Devon Drive).
Development Agreement:
The Development Agreement is a requirement for the allocation of hotel units from the Hotel Density
Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08 on July 17, 2008. A
total of 1,385 hotel rooms are available under the Hotel Density Reserve and this proposal requests the
allocation of 72 units from it. The City has established the Development Agreement format as a means to
facilitate the allocation of the units and to set forth appropriate provisions related to the development of
the property. The proposed Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10)
years, meets the criteria for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design
and includes the following main provisions:
Provides for the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve;
??
Requires the developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy in accordance with
??
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407;
Requires the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Density Reserve that is not
??
constructed;
For units allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve, prohibits the conversion of any hotel unit to a
??
residential use and requires the recording of a covenant restricting use of such hotel units to
overnight accommodation usage; and
Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the hotel will be closed
??
as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the
National Hurricane Center.
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent Development
Agreement.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment on
comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public facilities for
development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the economic cost of
development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development Agreement and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
DVA2009-00001 – Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00001 2009-07-21
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 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. That the 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners
of Devon Drive/First Street;
2. That the property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Future Land Use Plan category;
3. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of Beach by Design, the Design
Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Small Motel character district and
the criteria for allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the
following conclusions of law:
1. That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the construction of
on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal (FLD2009-03013);
2. That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606 of the
Community Development Code;
3. That the Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
4. That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of
Beach by Design and the Small Motel character district; and
5. That the Development Agreement complies with the criteria in Beach by Design for the allocation of
units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends the , and recommendation to
the City Council, of a Development Agreement between Decade Companies Income Properties (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density
Reserve under Beach by Design, for the property at 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
??
Location Map
??
Aerial Map
??
Future Land Use Map
??
Zoning Map
??
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\DVA2009-00001 - Coronado 0101 - Holiday Inn Express (T) -
6.18.09 CC; 7.21.09 CDB - WW\Coronado 0101 Dev. Agree. Staff Report for 7.21.09 CDB.doc
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
DVA2009-00001 – Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00003 2009-07-21
CDB Meeting Date: July 21, 2009
Case Number: APP2009-00003
Agenda Item: F. 1.
Owner: Countryside Christian Center
Appellant: Pastor Glen Gannon
Agent: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire
Address: 1850 McMullen Booth Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: An appeal from a decision made by an administrative official in
the administration of the Community Development Code that a
revised parking plan submitted in response to action previously
taken by the Community Development Board (APP2009-00001)
does not comply with the provisions of the Code.
CURRENT ZONING: Institutional (I) and Office (O) Districts
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Institutional (I) and Residential/Office Limited
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Place of Worship
Proposed Use: Place of Worship
BACKGROUND:
The 19.969-acre subject property is located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road,
approximately 1,280 feet north of State Road 590. The property consists of an existing place of
worship (Countryside Christian Center) and associated off-street parking.
On February 2, 2009, a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) application was submitted for,
among other items, the approval of a basketball court within an existing grass off-street parking
area. At its meeting of March 5, 2009, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the
application and found that the application was legally sufficient; however the DRC also made a
recommendation to the Community Development Coordinator that the portion of the application
pertaining to the proposed basketball court be denied. On March 13, 2009, a development order
was issued that denied that portion of the FLS application pertaining to the installation of the
basketball court within the existing grass off-street parking area based upon the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact:
1. That the 19.969 acre property is located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road
approximately 1,280 feet north of the intersection of State Road 590 and McMullen Booth
Road;
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
APP2009-00003 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00003 2009-07-21
2. That the subject property is located within the Institutional (I) and Office (O) Zoning
Districts and the Institutional (I), and Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Future Land Use
Plan categories;
3. That the request to amend the previously approved lighting plan with the addition of two 35-
foot light poles was removed from the application through request by the applicant and
removal of the two 35-foot light poles from the property;
4. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area with regard to the
request for 29 grass off-street parking spaces within the Institutional (I) zoned portion of the
property and 28 off-street parking spaces and setback reduction within the Office (O) zoned
portion of the property; and
5. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law:
1. The setback proposal complies with the Place of Worship criteria under the provisions of
CDC Section 2-1003.H;
2. The proposed basketball court does not comply with the noise General Applicability Criteria
under the provision of CDC Section 3-913.A.6;
3. The basketball court design does not comply with the off-street parking space striping
standards of CDC Section 3-1404.B;
4. The basketball court location in the center of a drive aisle and parking spaces does not
comply with the off-street parking space availability standards of CDC Section 3-1404.C;
and
5. The basketball court design does not comply with the uniform traffic control devices
standards of CDC Section 3-1410.A.
An appeal from the above decision was filed on March 23, 2009, and at its meeting of May 19,
2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) upheld the denial based upon the conclusion
of law that the basketball court location in the center of a drive aisle and parking spaces does not
comply with the off-street parking space availability standards of Community Development
Code (CDC) Section 3-1404.C, which states that “all required parking spaces, including
appropriate access thereto, shall remain unobstructed and available for use in accordance with
their purpose”.
A revised site plan was submitted on June 4, 2009, in an effort to address this remaining
conclusion of law and obtain an approval for the basketball court. The site plan proposed the
elimination of the six off-street parking spaces immediately adjacent the basketball court and to
replace them elsewhere on-site. This revised site plan was denied by the Planning Director on
June 8, 2009, on the basis that it still does not result in compliance with CDC Section 3-1404.C.
This decision was based upon the knowledge that while adjacent off-street parking spaces were
relocated elsewhere on-site, access across the drive aisle and access to the remaining off-street
parking spaces via said drive aisle would still be obstructed by the proposed basketball court,
which is in direct conflict with the requirement of CDC Section 3-1404.C and the findings made
by the CDB at its meeting of May 19, 2009.
An appeal from the above decision was filed on behalf of the property owner by Katherine E.
Cole, Esquire, of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP on June 12, 2009, consistent with
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
APP2009-00003 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00003 2009-07-21
the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.B. Pursuant to
CDC Section 4-501.A.2, the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from decisions made by an
administrative official in the administration of this development code.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.A, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation of
the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of CDC Section 4-206.D.5
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.B, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this
development code; and
2. The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
development code; and
3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Michael Delk, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
??
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Appeals\McMullen Booth 1850 Countryside Christian (I and O) 2009.07 - MD\Appeal Staff Report 2009 07-
21.docx
Community Development Board – July 21, 2009
APP2009-00003 – Page 3
; Clearwater
o
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July16,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16,2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-030 14 - 1105 Druid Road
Yes X No
I
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-0000l - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
FLD2009-030 13)
Yes )C No
.
2. Case: TA2009-0l004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: APP2009-00003 - 1850 McMullen Booth Road
Yes)t' No
,
2. Case: APP2009-00002 - 1520 McMullen Booth Road
B. Yes ~ No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\07 July 21.200911 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
Signature:
f l!4JAfZ--<} ~V;<?f'J
PRINT NAME
Date:
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
~
~ Clearwater
o
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie DougaII-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; !Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July 16, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16,2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-030 14 - 1105 Druid Road
Yes X No
/
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-00001 - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
FLD2009-030 13)
Yes
No
)(
/
2. Case: TA2009-01004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: APP2009-00003 -1850 MCM~n Booth Road
Yes No
/
2. Case: APP2009-00002 -1520 MC7n Booth Road
B. Yes No
S:\Planning Deparlmenl\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
f
..
I have conducted a
Signature:
Date: 7). t/tJf
~~k-er-
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,200911 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
>'
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July16,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16,2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FL~3014-1l05 Druid Road
Yes . No
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-00001 - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
FLD20Q.~-OJill3 )
Yes ~. No
- -
2. Case: TA2009-01004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. case~009-00003 - 1850 McMullen Booth Road
Yes No
J
2. Case: APP2009-00002 - 1520 M~ Booth Road
B. Yes No ,
s: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB12009107 July 21, 2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
erties.
<7, 17. o7~
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
,
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; !Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July16,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16,2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-030l4 -1105 Druid Road
Yes Y No
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-00001 - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
~~~2009-03013) No y
2. Case: T A2009-0 1 004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: APP2009-00003 - 1850 McMullen Booth Road
Yes '/--' No
2. Case: APP2009-00002 - 1520 M~ullen Booth Road
B. Yes No
.....
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,200911 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
Signature: Date:
P'~K- L - -D~Q
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
,
~ Clearwater
()
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; !Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July16,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16, 2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-030 14 - 1105 Druid Road
Yes No .~
rv
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-0000 1 - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
FLD2009-03013) "'~
Yes No /'J
2. Case: TA2009-01004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: APP2009-00003 - 1850 ~Ien Booth Road
Yes No
2. Case: APP2009-00002 - 1520 McM len Booth Road
B. Yes No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\07 July 21,200911 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
Signature: __
PRINT NAME
Date: ~ \~ \ t)'\
\ '
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009107 July 21, 200911 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
~ Clearwater
()
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 21, 2009
July16,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 16,2009
Level Two Application (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-0301' 4 - 1105 Druid Road
Yes ~ No
Level Three Applications (Item 1-2)
1. Case: DV A2009-00001 - 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive (Related to
FLD2009-03013) ./
Yes ~ No
2. Case: T A2009-0 1 004 Amendments to the Community Development Code
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Items 1 - 2):
1. Case: APP2009-00003 - 1850 MC~ Booth Road
Yes No ~
2. Case: APP2009-00002 - 1520 McMullen Booth Road
B. Yes NO_V
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc
..
erties.
Signature:
Date:
7-14 '- Of
/Vi~P;'S
PRINT NAME
r;~ ts~
S:IPlanning DeparlmenllC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\07 July 21,2009\1 Cover MMO 07.21.2009.doc