10/20/2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 20, 2009
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member
Absent: Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 15, 2009
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of September 15, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-8)
1. Case: FLD2009-08025 – 490 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mary G. Realty, Inc; North Beach Wine & Spirits, Inc.
Agent: Katherine Cole, Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP. (911 Chestnut
Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-461-1818).
Location: 0.40 acre located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Ave. and Baymont St.
Atlas Page: 267A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from restaurant to alcoholic
beverage sales 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 height, structure
setbacks, or building as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Alcoholic Beverage Sales.
Community Development 2009-10-20 1
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20.
Member Dane moved to approve Case FLD2009-08025 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2007-06024 – 1200 Rogers Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: John H. Meek, Jr.
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2836; fax: 727-446-8036).
Location: 0.154 acre located on the east side of Missouri Avenue at the northeast
corner of Rogers Street and Missouri Avenue.
Atlas Page: 296B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Off Street Parking Lot.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibits: Staff Letter FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20 and Staff Report FLD2007-06024
2009-10-20.
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Planner III Scott Kurleman said Findings of Facts 6 contained
a typo; the project will provide public parking, not beach parking. That Findings of Fact will be
amended In the Development Order.
Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Case FLD2007-06024
based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at
today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report and
Findings of Facts, with an amendment to Fact 6 that replaces the reference to beach parking
with a reference to public parking. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: TA2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code
of Ordinances
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances to
implement EAR-Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, to bring consistency between
the Countywide Plan Rules and the Community Development Code, to increase the maximum
Community Development 2009-10-20 2
height from 36 inches to 48 inches for non-opaque fences in waterfront yards, and to address
other minor editorial changes.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.
It was recommended that North Ward School be added to the City’s list of historic
structures. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said staff is working with the Pinellas
County School Board regarding the historic preservation of North Ward School and hopes the
School Board will apply for its historic designation.
Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Case TA2009-03006 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 and recommend that application be made to designate North Ward School a historic
structure. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2009-07001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Improvements
Element consistent with the City’s FY2009/10 CIP Budget and the reference to the School
District’s Five-Year Work Program of FY2009/10 through 2013/14 as proposed for adoption by
the School Board on September 15, 2009.
Type of Amendment: Separate submittal to State DCA – exempt from large-scale submittal
process
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20.
See page 4 for motion to recommend approval.
5. Case: HIS2009-00001 – 401 Cleveland Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Agent: Ivan A. Rodriguez, Heisenbottle Architects, P.A. (2199 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Suite
400, Coral Gables, FL 33134; phone: 305-446-7799; fax: 305-446-9275).
Location: 0.065 acre located on the southeast corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 286B
Zoning: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Historic designation of 401 Cleveland Street (Parcel Number 16-29-15-20358-002-
0071) under the provisions of Section 4-607.F.
Existing Use: Office
Neighborhood Associations: Downtown Development Board, Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director.
Community Development 2009-10-20 3
See Exhibit: Staff Report HIS2009-00001 2009-10-20.
See below for motion to recommend approval.
6. Case: HIS2009-00002 – 405 Cleveland Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Agent: Ivan A. Rodriguez, Heisenbottle Architects, P.A. (2199 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Suite
400, Coral Gables, FL 33134; phone: 305-446-7799; fax: 305-446-9275).
Location: 0.1444 acre located on the south side of Cleveland Street approximately 50 feet
east of Osceola Avenue.
Atlas Page: 286B
Zoning: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Historic designation of 405 Cleveland Street (Parcel Number 16-29-15-20358-002-
0070), under the provisions of Section 4-607.F
Existing Use: Theater
Neighborhood Associations: Downtown Development Board, Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director.
See Exhibit: Staff Report HIS2009-00002 2009-10-20.
The City was thanked for saving this important historic structure.
See below for motion to recommend approval.
7. Case: LUZ2009-07002 – A Portion of 1980 Kings Highway Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Village LLC/City of Clearwater
Agent: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 2.21 acres located on the west side of Kings Highway approximately 112 feet
south of Woodlawn Terrace.
Atlas Page: 251B.
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Application from The City of Clearwater for Future Land Use Plan amendment
approval for a portion of one parcel located at 1980 Kings Highway (Parcel Number 03-29-15-
55548-000-0091), to add the Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature Overlay
categories to the existing Residential Medium (RM) land use.
Type of Amendment: Small scale.
Proposed Use: Vacant.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Cate Lee, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.
Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Cases CPA2009-07001,
HIS2009-00001, HIS2009-00002, and LUZ2009-07002 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. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2009-10-20 4
E. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-08024 – 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: U. S. 19 Group, LLC; Linda P. Windham.
Agent: Kelly Puttonen, Rent First Realty Inc. (P.O. Box 272670, Tampa, FL 33688-2670;
phone: 813-629-0255).
Location: 1.58 acres located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19 North approximately
3,100 feet north of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and U.S. Highway 19 North.
Atlas Page: 243B.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from retail sales and
services to animal grooming and boarding within the Commercial (C) District within an existing
18,022 square-foot shopping center with 82 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the
building height, structure setbacks or building, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Animal Grooming and Boarding.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20.
Member Behar moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Kurleman said this item was pulled from the Consent Agenda upon receipt of Angelo
and Julia Battel’s letter, opposing dog boarding at this location. Mr. Kurleman said he spoke to
the Battels and advised them that the application is only for grooming, not boarding. The
Battels, who are out of town, retracted their opposition but lacked the means to rescind their
written opposition prior to today’s meeting.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-08024 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2009-00006 – 2325 Stag Run Blvd
Owner/Appellant: Gerald Mitchell (2325 Stag Run Blvd, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone:
727-724-6453).
Location: 0.234 acre located on the southeast side of Stag Run Boulevard, approximately
670 feet southwest of Wetherington Road.
Atlas Page: 272A.
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: An appeal from a Level One (Tree Removal Permit) denial decision pursuant to
Community Development Code Section 4-501.A.4, that a request to remove one laurel oak tree
Community Development 2009-10-20 5
in conjunction with the construction of a swimming pool and deck does not meet the removal
criteria set forth in Community Development Code Section 3-1205 B.2.a.
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Associations: Coachman Ridge Homeowners and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Richard J. Albee, Land Resource Specialist.
See Exhibit: Staff Report APP2009-00006 2009-10-20.
Member Coates moved to accept Rick Albee as an expert witness in the fields of tree
protection in relation to construction, tree appraisal, inventory/assessments, regulate erosion
and sediment control ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Land Resource Specialist Richard J. Albee said homeowner Gerald Mitchell had
submitted the tree removal and pool permit applications together. Mr. Albee presented a copy
of the plan, noting the tree is 18 feet from the proposed pool decking and 29 feet from the
proposed pool. The subject tree is 33 inches in diameter and approximately 30 years old. The
Laurel Oak, a protected species with a life span of 50 to 70 years, is healthy, shows no sign of
disease, and poses no hazard. After reviewing the plans and health of the tree, he determined
that the tree would not affect the construction of the pool nor meet Code criteria for removal and
denied the tree removal request. He said removing the tree to construct the pool is not justified.
Property owner Gerald Mitchell said his research indicates that Laurel Oaks become
dangerous when they reach the latter part of their life span. He expressed concern that the large
tree is a safety hazard. He said he was not concerned about the Laurel Oak in his front yard as it
leans away from his house and is farther away. He said neighbors had been granted permission
to remove Laurel Oaks. He said he had purchased his house after reviewing the City’s website
and not finding anything indicating that he could not remove the tree when he installed a pool. He
said he was willing to replace the tree with a wind resistant species. He said he does not want to
cage the pool and tree debris will make it difficult to keep the pool clean. He said the tree will
block sunlight on the pool.
In response to a question, Mr. Mitchell said he also wants green space for his dogs. He
felt the Code is subjective regarding tree removal. He said the liability would be tremendous if the
tree falls.
Mr. Albee said Mr. Mitchell had never mentioned safety concerns. In response to
questions, Mr. Albee said he would have recommended the pool be moved to its logical location
next to the covered lanai and not issued a permit to remove the tree had the property owner
submitted an application proposing to locate the pool where the tree is. He reviewed research
that indicates the pool/deck should be at least 8 to 13 feet from the tree. He said the property
owner did not provide proof that the tree is diseased. The City had denied the previous home
owner’s 2006 application to remove the two oaks.
Discussion ensued with a suggestion that the property owner trim the tree as permitted
by Code. Board members discussed limits to their authority to overturn staff decisions. It was
stated that staff had not misconstrued nor incorrectly interpreted provisions of the development
code.
Community Development 2009-10-20 6
Member Behar moved to deny the appeal, Case APP2009-00006, and affirm 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 adopt the Staff's Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Holiday Luncheon
Administrative Analyst Sherry Watkins said the Holiday Luncheon is scheduled for
December 15, 2009, prior to the 1 :00 p.m. meeting. She will email board members with
restaurant suggestions and requested that members email her with their top choices.
Consensus was to support Community Pride as the board's holiday charity.
G. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1 :57 p.m.
~~
Chai
Community Development Board
Community Development 2009-10-20
7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-08025
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner: Mary G. Realty, Inc.
Applicant: Katherine E. Cole, Esq.
Address: 490 Mandalay Avenue, Suites 5 & 6
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a change of use from restaurant
to alcoholic beverage sales 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 height, structure setbacks or
building 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:Restaurant
Proposed Use: Alcoholic Beverage Sales
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations
SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings; and
ZONING AND USES: Retail Sales and Services
East: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services; and
Restaurants
West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.40-acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont
Street, which is within the “Destination Resort” District of Beach by Design. The site is currently
developed with a 6,254 square foot shopping center that is divided into five tenant spaces, as well as a 26-
space off-street parking area. It is noted that both the building and the off-street parking area are
nonconforming with regard to the minimum required setbacks; however the site does currently meet all
other development standards.
Development Proposal:
On August 3, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the
subject property. The application proposes to establish an alcoholic beverage sales use within an existing
440 square foot tenant space where there is presently a restaurant use.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
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, one retail sales and services use, one nightclub 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 Café 1 – 4 Restaurant 2,922.34 43.83
North Beach Wine & Spirits 5 - 6 Alcoholic Beverage Sales 440 2.20
Gelato Bello 7 Restaurant 745 11.17
Havana Exclusive Cigars 8 - 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
75.55 (76)
TOTAL:
PROPOSED
71.15 (72)
TOTAL:
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 alcoholic beverage sales uses
are required to provide five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (restaurant uses are required
15/1,000), the proposed change of use for the 440 square foot tenant space would decrease this
nonconformity by 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 (55) 10% = 5.500 50% = 27.500 100% = 55.00 50% = 27.500 100% = 55.00
1
Restaurant (7.33) 10% = 0.733 50% = 3.665 100% = 7.33 50% = 3.665 100% = 7.33
2
Retail (2.20)5% = 0.110 70% = 1.540 90% = 1.980 100% = 2.20 70% = .80
Totals:
6.674 37.866 68.86 38.401 66.62
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.
2
The shared parking table does not specifically identify a category for the alcoholic beverage use. As such, the retail category is used for
alcoholic beverage sales due to their similar hours of operation impacts on off-street parking.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
Based upon the above table, the subject property would require a minimum of 69 off-street parking spaces
with the proposed change of use to establish the alcoholic beverage sales. However, as it was previously
noted, only 26 off-street parking spaces presently exist on the subject property and no additional off-street
parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not
be possible given the existing on-site improvements. As such, the demand for off-street parking should
not be as intense as it would be for a restaurant and will not likely result in an intensification from the
existing restaurant 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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
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:
1
Standard Existing / Proposed ConsistentInconsistent
F.A.R. 1.0 0.62 X
I.S.R. 0.95 0.90 X
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 square feet 17,457 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet Mandalay Avenue: 180 feet X
Baymont Street: 100 feet
Maximum Building Height 25 – 50 feet 12 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 feet North: 14.9 feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to pavement)
East: 51.7 feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to pavement)
Side: 10 feet South: 4.2 feet (to building) X
4.2 feet (to pavement)
Rear: 20 feet West: 3.1 feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to pavement)
2
Minimum Off-Street 69 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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
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 September 3, 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 restaurant to alcoholic beverage sales 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 decreased.
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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08025 2009-10-20
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 restaurant to
alcoholic beverage sales 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 height, structure setbacks or
building 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 this use (alcoholic beverage sales) 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;
2. That there be no on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages;
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 DRC\Mandalay 490 Wine And Spirits (T) 9-3-2009
DRC - SK\Staff Report-North Beach Wine And Spirits.Doc
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08025 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF LETTER FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
October 20, 2009
Ms. Renee Ruggiero
Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
PO Box 4948
Clearwater, FL 33758-4848
RE: FLD2007-06024 – 1200 Rogers Street
Time Extension Development Order
Dear Ms. Ruggiero:
APPROVED
On October 20, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) your request to
extend the time frame for the Development Order for the above referenced case.
Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit to construct the site improvements
on the parcel at 1200 Rogers Street shall be submitted by November 20, 2010. All required
initial
certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the
building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners.Should you be unable to
apply for a building permit to construct the improvements approved under the above referenced
case, you will need to re-apply for development approval in accordance with the requirements of
the Community Development Code.
Please be aware that the issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity
to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate
the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter
with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III at 727-
562-4553.
Sincerely,
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Inactive Or Finished Applications\Rogers 1200 - Meek Parking Lot (C) 2007.11 -
Approved - SK\Rogers St 1200 CDB Time Extension Development Order 10.20.09.Doc
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: November 20, 2007
Case Number: FLD2007-06024
Agenda Item: E3
Owner: John H. Meek, Jr
Applicant: John H. Meek, Jr
Representative: Northside Engineering Services, Incorporated
Address: 1200 Rogers Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST:
Flexible Development approval for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project to permit an off-street parking lot in the Commercial (C) District
with a reduction to the lot width along Missouri Avenue from 100 feet to
67 feet, a reduction to the lot width along Rogers Street from 100 feet to
84 feet, a reduction to the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to
6,728 square feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 10
feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to
10 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet
to five feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10
feet to zero feet (to pavement) under the provisions of Section 2-704.C.
and a reduction to the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10
feet, a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from five feet to zero
feet, and a reduction to the required interior landscaping from 10% to
4.39% under the provisions of a Comprehensive Landscape Program per
Section 3-1202.G.
EXISTING ZONING/
Commercial (C) District
LAND USE:
Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY SIZE:
0.154 acres
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use: Vacant Lot
Proposed Use:Off- Street Parking Lot
ADJACENT ZONING/
North: Commercial District; Office
LAND USES:
East: Commercial District; Office/Retail Sales and Services
South: Commercial District; Restaurant
West: Commercial District; Vehicle Service
CHARACTER OF THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY:
The immediate vicinity is an amalgamation of Commercial and Office
uses. Directly to the south is a McDonald’s restaurant, directly to the north
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
is an orthodontia office, directly to the west across Missouri Avenue is
Don Olson Tire and Auto Center and directly to the east is an office/retail
sales use owned by the applicant.
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.154 acres is located on the east side of Missouri Avenue at
the northeast corner of Rogers Street and Missouri Avenue. The site is an irregularly shaped corner lot
with approximate dimensions of 90 feet by 75 feet. The site is currently a vacant lot.
Development Proposal:
The proposal includes constructing a surface parking area for 13 vehicles. This
off-street parking area will be used by the neighboring site to the east which has business hours of 8 am to 5
pm Monday thru Friday. All ingress and egress to the parking lot will be from Rogers Street.
Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2-704.I. of the Community Development Code access to and from
the parking lot shall be based on the size and design of the lot and approved by the Community
Development Coordinator. Staff has determined that the requirement to have the two properties joined with
a Unity of Title satisfies the criteria. Section 2-704.I. additionally require that all outdoor lighting be
designed and located so that no light fixtures cast light directly onto adjacent land and that the parking lot is
screened with a wall or fence if it is adjacent to residentially used or zoned property. The proposed parking
lot has no lighting associated with it nor is it adjacent to residentially used or zoned property.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: The proposal includes a request for a reduction to the minimum lot area
from 10,000 square feet to 6,728 square feet, a reduction to the lot width along Missouri Avenue from 100
feet to 67 feet and a reduction to the lot width along Rogers Street from 100 feet to 84 feet. As the property
is currently three small vacant lots combined into one with a structure on the adjacent property to the east,
there is limited opportunity gain additional property to meet the criteria; thus the request.
Setbacks: The Community Development Code requires front setbacks of 25 feet and side setbacks of 10
feet as this is a corner lot. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 10
feet, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the side (north) setback
from 10 feet to five feet and a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet. The proposed
parking lot locates the pavement of the parking lot 10 feet to 14 feet from the front (west) property line, 10
feet from the front (south) property line and five feet from the side (north) property line. There will be a
zero setback on the side (east) property line. These proposed front and side setbacks exceed or are
consistent with the setbacks of most uses on adjacent and surrounding properties. The adjacent property to
the east will be removing two non-conforming back out parking spaces with this development proposal.
The proposed parking lot is compatible with the surrounding development and will provide needed parking.
With the removal of two non-conforming parking spaces that back into the rights-of-way, coupled with the
proposed front setbacks, the site will have an enhanced streetscape. A retention pond is proposed in the
southwest corner of the parking lot adjacent to the rights-of-way.
Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is required a
15 foot wide landscape buffer along Missouri Avenue, a 10 foot wide landscape buffer along Rogers Street,
a five foot landscape buffer on the north side and a five foot landscape buffer on the east side. Buffers are
to be planted with one (1) tree every 35' and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes a
reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Missouri Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet for approxi-
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
mately half the length with the remainder at 14 feet and a reduction to east landscape buffer from five feet
to zero feet (adjacent to the applicant owned structure). All other buffers meet code requirements.
Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Code requires the provision of 10 percent of the vehicular use area in interior
landscaping. The proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10 percent (456
sq. ft.) to 4.39 percent (206 sq. ft.) of the vehicular use area.
The landscape proposal includes a generous tiered landscape buffer on Missouri Avenue including
magnolias and over 100 shrubs. Additionally, two non-conforming parking spaces are being removed on
the adjacent property and converted to landscape islands. Four species of trees are being incorporated
including bald cypress, elm, magnolia and holly. The proposed landscaping will soften the parking lot
appearance.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Develop-
ment Code, 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
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall
be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principle N/A N/A
buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for
development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the land-
scape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscap-
ing otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for develop-
ment under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape
program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off N/A N/A
when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the
comprehensive landscape program will enhance the community charac-X
ter of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehen-
sive landscape program will have a beneficial impact on the value of X
property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for develop-
ment.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program is consistent with N/A N/A
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.
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this
site.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 for
the Commercial District of the Community Development Code:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
F.A.R.
Com(C): 0.55 N/A X
I.S.R. 0.68 X
Com(C): 0.95
1
Lot Area X
Com(C): 10,000 square feet 6,728 square feet
Lot Width
1
X
Com(C): 100 feet (Missouri Ave) 67 feet
1
X
Com(C): 100 feet (Rogers Street) 84 feet
Height Com(C): N/A N/A X
Setbacks
1
(Commercial) Front: 25 feet West 10 feet (to X
pavement)
1
Front: 25 feet South 10 feet (to X
pavement)
1
Side: 10 feet East 0 feet (to X
pavement)
1
Side: 10 feet North 5 feet (to X
pavement)
Parking Spaces Off-Street Parking (N/A) 13 parking spaces X
-
1
See the analysis above for discussion regarding setback reductions for further information.
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the
development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development
Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations
from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. X
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent X
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
development and improvement of surrounding properties. X
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the
proposed development X
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land
use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter X
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 stan-
dard, 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 redevelop-
ment 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 preserva-
tion of a working waterfront use.
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: X
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.
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following
table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use X
of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of X
persons 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject 0.154acres is located within the Commercial (C) District;
2. The site is currently vacant;
3. The proposal includes reductions to setbacks to pavement;
4. The proposal is to construct a 13-space parking lot;
5. The lot area is 6,728 square feet, which requires a reduction from the 10,000 square feet
required;
6. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development and will provide needed
public parking on the beach; and
7. There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and
2-704 for the Commercial District of the Community Development Code;
2. Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability
criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of the Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C.and I and the Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G.
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2007-06024 2009-10-20
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on
APPROVAL
October 4, 2007. The Planning Department recommends for the Flexible
Development application
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to permit an off-street
parking lot in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the lot width along Missouri Avenue from
100 feet to 67 feet, a reduction to the lot width along Rogers Street from 100 feet to 84 feet, a reduction to
the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 6,728 square feet, a reduction to the front (west) setback
from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and a reduction to
the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) under the provisions of Section 2-704.C. and
a reduction to the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the side (east)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the required interior landscaping from 10%
to 4.39% under the provisions of a Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G. with the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That a Unity of Title be completed and recorded for 1200 and 1204 Rogers Street prior to the
issuance any permits;
2. That landscaping at both 1200 Rogers and 1204 Rogers Street be installed per the proposal
submitted; and
3. That Planning Staff conduct a final inspection prior to the Certificate of Completion.
Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: _____________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
November 20, 2009
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Location Map
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Atlas Map
Application
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Rogers 1200 - Meek Parking Lot (C)- 11-20-07 CDB -
SK\Rogers 1200 Staff Report.doc
Staff Report – Community Development Board – November 20, 2007
Case FLD2007-06024 Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: TA2009-03006
Ordinance Number: 8070-09
Agenda Item: E-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TEXT AMENDMENT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances to implement the EAR-Based Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, to bring consistency between the Countywide
Plan Rules and the Community Development Code, to increase the
maximum height from 36 inches to 48 inches for non-opaque fences
on waterfront lots, to specify certain adjustments to the Zoning Atlas
to be made by the Community Development Coordinator, to decrease
the clearance required for awnings from nine to eight feet, to
eliminate sandwich board signs as signs permitted without a permit in
the Downtown District, and to address other minor editorial changes.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The proposed text amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances are associated with and are intended to ensure consistency with the 2008 EAR-Based
Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Department is recommending a total of 14 amendments to the Community
Development Code and 2 amendments to the Code of Ordinances.
Some of the amendments are to provide consistency with the EAR-based amendments to the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that were adopted on December 18, 2008. Others ensure
consistency with the Countywide Plan Rules. Some amendments present a change in current
policy or a new policy. Other amendments are editorial in nature or are refinements to existing
codes.
1
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
Please find below a summary of the proposed amendments organized by Code Article. Attached
is Ordinance No. 8070-09 which includes all of the specific amendments. Within the ordinance
document, text that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikethroughs
indicate deletions.
Article 1 - General Provisions
??
Map Adjustments
(Section 1-108 and Section 1-109 of Ordinance, Pages 2-3)
??
Future Land Use Plan Map Adjustments - The ordinance adds the criteria for
future land use map adjustments for the water/drainage feature, preservation, and
recreation/open space categories.
??
Zoning Atlas Adjustments - This ordinance adds subsection E to Section 1-109,
which allows minor zoning adjustments to be made by the Community
Development Coordinator based upon information demonstrating errors or
omissions, or based upon historical data.
Article 2 - Zoning Districts
??
Flexible standard development uses in IRT
(Pages 3-5 of Ordinance).
This amendment applies limitations to certain uses within the Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT) district consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules. This ordinance
amends IRT to provide size limitations for automobile service station, major vehicle service,
and retail sales and service uses and outdoor recreation/entertainment uses that are not part of
a master development plan within the Industrial Limited (IL) land use category to 5 acres. If
these uses exceed 5 acres, the property must be designated the appropriate future land use
categories that support these uses as primary uses.
Article 3 – Development Standards
??
Fence heights on waterfront lots
(Pages 5-6 of Ordinance). This amendment adds new
Subsection “c” to Subsection 3-804.B.1 to allow for non-opaque fences to be 48 inches
rather than 36 inches in height on waterfront lots as requested by City Council. This
amendment deletes Subsection 3-804.C and deletes existing graphics.
??
Fence heights in visibility triangle on waterfront lots
(Page 6 of Ordinance). This
amendment increases from 36 inches to 48 inches the maximum height for non-opaque
fences permitted within the sight visibility triangle for waterfront lots and replaces the
existing graphic. This amendment is consistent with the change outlined above.
2
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
??
Encroachments by awnings
(Pages 6-7 of Ordinance). This amendment decreases the
clearance from nine to eight feet for awnings encroaching into setbacks and rights-of-way
in the T, C and D Districts. This change reflects the typical clearance of many awnings.
??
Stormwater detention facilities
(Page 7 of Ordinance). This amendment requires, where
feasible, the use of low impact development techniques for stormwater management.
This amendment is associated with Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Policy F.2.1.10 that
specifies that the City will encourage the use of “Low Impact Development” techniques
for stormwater management, such as minimal land disturbance, the preservation of native
vegetation, and the minimization of impervious cover, through site plan and internal
review processes.
??
Landscaping
(Page 7 of Ordinance). This amendment adds “Florida-friendly” plant
materials to those that are to be utilized to satisfy minimum landscaping requirements.
This amendment implements Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Policy F.1.1.1 that states
that all new residential and non-residential development shall be required to provide a
specified amount of Florida friendly shade trees based on an established desired ratio of
pervious to impervious surface areas. Shade trees will serve to provide heat reduction,
noise abatement, buffering, replenishment of oxygen, and aesthetic beauty.
??
Signs
(Pages 7-8 of Ordinance). This amendment deletes sandwich board signs from the
list of signs permitted without a permit as the provision was superseded in the Downtown
Plan and by Ordinance No. 7997-08.
??
Reclaimed Water in Subdivisions
(Page 8 of Ordinance). This amendment requires
developers of new subdivisions to provide internal reclaimed water systems when
reclaimed water will be available within seven years from the issuance of the
development order. This amendment implements Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Policy D.5.5.8 which requires this to occur.
Article 4 – Development Review and Other Procedures
Historic Designation
??(Page 8 of Ordinance). This amendment allows the City in
addition to property owners to initiate an application for historic designation.
Application and Procedures
??(Page 9 of Ordinance). This amendment is an editorial
correction for development approval fees required by Section 4-202(F) rather than as
currently incorrectly listed as Section 4-202(E).
Article 8 – Definitions and Rules of Construction
Definitions
??(Page 9 of Ordinance). This amendment provides a new definition of Coastal
Storm Area which incorporates and replaces the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area
and is consistent with the changes made in the EAR-based Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
3
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
CODE OF ORDINANCES
Chapter 24, Article III
Wellhead Protection – Permit—Required and Permit Requirements
??(Pages 9-10 of
Ordinance). These amendments modify the requirements for a wellhead protection
permit and a protection-containment plan, including an increase in the distance from 500
feet to 1,000 feet from a well for potential expansion/change of an existing use with
contaminating materials. These two amendments are associated withClearwater
Comprehensive Plan PolicyD.5.7.3 that requires the City of Clearwater to continue to
protect groundwater quality by enforcing the Wellhead Protection Ordinance within the
area as specified in the plan as well as the guidelines and criteria for protection of potable
water wellfields.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for
reviewing text amendments. Code 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:
A.3. GOAL - THE CITY OF CLEARWATER SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL
DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES MEET THE
SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND AESTHETIC NEEDS OF THE
CITY THROUGH CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Policy A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent
with the density and intensity standards and other standards contained in
the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria
and standards for nomenclature, continuum of plan classifications and
categories, use and locational characteristics, map delineation, other
standards, and special rules.
The proposed amendments include the addition of language allowing plan map boundary
adjustments for Water/Drainage Feature, Preservation and Recreation/Open Space
categories to be made by the Community Development Coordinator provided such map
adjustments are consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules, upon a finding of
appropriateness that such adjustment is minimal in extent and effect. Also, included is an
amendment that allows adjustments to the City’s Zoning Atlas to be made by the
4
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
Community Development Coordinator based upon information demonstrating errors or
omissions or based upon historical data. These adjustments will be consistent with the
Countywide Future Land Use Map and Countywide Rules.
Policy F.2.1.10 The City will encourage the use of “Low Impact Development” techniques
for stormwater management, such as minimal land disturbance, the
preservation of native vegetation, and the minimization of impervious
cover, through site plan and internal review processes.
The proposed amendment to Section 3-914 adds a requirement for low impact development
techniques for stormwater management.
Policy F.1.1.1 Require all new residential and non-residential development to provide a
specified amount of Florida friendly shade trees based on an established
desired ratio of pervious to impervious surface areas. Shade trees will serve
to provide heat reduction, noise abatement, buffering, replenishment of
oxygen, and aesthetic beauty.
The proposed amendment to Section 3-1202 includes language to include required plant
materials that are considered to be Florida-friendly.
Policy D.5.5.8 When new subdivisions are being developed and/or redevelopment occurs,
at locations where reclaimed water will be available within seven (7) years,
the developer shall provide internal reclaimed water systems that are
constructed to City specifications.
The proposed amendment to Section 3-1910 requires the developers of new subdivisions to
provide internal reclaimed water systems for locations where reclaimed water will be
available within seven (7) years.
The amendments provide processes and procedures to ensure that the Community Development
Code is consistent with the above goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan. Many of the amendments implement the EAR-based Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
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 include a broad range of regulations providing for limitations on
uses, to standards and procedures. For example, proposed amendment (#7) to Section 3-914
creates standards for development techniques for stormwater management, while the amendment
(#11) to Section 4-607 changes the way historic sites are nominated for designation. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes
of the Code.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
5
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2009-03006 2009-10-20
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and further
the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of the Community Development
Code and the Code of Ordinances. The amendments further those development goals established
in the Code. Existing provisions of the Community Development Code and Code of Ordinances
will be amended to better reflect City development patterns, improve internal processes and to
meet the requirements of Florida Statutes by adopting code provisions that are consistent with
the EAR-based amendments.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of Ordinance No.
8070-09 that amends the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: ____________________________________
Sandra E. Herman, Planner III
ATTACHMENT:
??Ordinance No. 8070-09
6
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report TA2009-03006 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
ORDINANCE NO. 8088-09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY AS
ADOPTED ON MAY 18, 2000, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED,
AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, MAKING
CORRECTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE
UPDATED SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER’S
FY2009/10 THROUGH FY2014/15 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM BUDGET ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2009, AND
UPDATING THE REFERENCE IN POLICY I.1.1.2 TO THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT’S FIVE-YEAR WORK PROGRAM FOR FY2009/10
THROUGH 2013/14 AS ADOPTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD ON
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of Florida empowers and requires the City Council of the City of Clearwater to plan
for the future development and growth of the City, and to adopt and periodically amend the
Comprehensive Plan, including elements and portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a Comprehensive Plan on May 18, 2000 by
Ordinance Number 6522-00, subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, certain amendments are statutorily required, and others are advisable in
order to harmonize the Comprehensive Plan with state law and good planning practice; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City have been prepared in
accordance with the applicable requirements of law, after conducting the appropriate planning
analysis, and public participation through public hearings, opportunity for written comments, open
discussion and the consideration of public and official comments; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Board, serving as the designated Local
Planning Agency for the City, has held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and has
recommended adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, per provisions of Florida Statutes Chapter 163, it is necessary to annually
adopt an ordinance amending and updating the Capital Improvements Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to maintain a financially feasible minimum 5-year schedule of capital
improvements consistent with the plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary, desirable and proper to adopt the
amendments to the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect
changing conditions; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. Amendments to the text of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted.
Page 1
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
Section 2. If any section, provision, clause, phrase, or application of this Ordinance
shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remaining provisions shall be deemed severable therefrom and shall remain in full force and
effect.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective when the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance, or the
Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendments to be in
compliance, in accordance with Section 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3189 or
163.3189 F.S., as amended.
PASSED ON FIRST READING _____________________
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL _____________________
READING AND ADOPTED
___________________________
Frank Hibbard
Mayor-Councilmember
Approved as to form: Attest:
____________________________ ____________________________
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Cynthia E. Goudeau
Assistant City Attorney City Clerk
Page 2
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
Page 3
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
ORDINANCE 8088-09
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT 1 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT SUMMARY
Amend Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary of the Plan on Page I-1 as follows:
Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary:
The following summarizes several of the current capital improvement projects and funding
sources proposed for public facilities supported in the other Comprehensive Plan Elements
and as specified in the City’s six-year schedule of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that
is updated and adopted annually by the City Council:
??
The $2.5 million Bayshore Boulevard Realignment Project is planned in FY2012/13. This
project will eliminate a dangerous curve just north of Drew Street on heavily traveled
Bayshore Boulevard. Funding is Penny for Pinellas III. The $1.25 million Druid Road
Improvements project is planned in 2008/09 for the completion of the Druid Road Trail section
of the Pinellas Trail from Glen Oaks Park to the Memorial Causeway Bridge. Improvements
include landscaping, sidewalks and bike paths. Funding is Penny for Pinellas.
??
The City’s Streets and Sidewalks Program is currently budgeted for $15.283472 million on the
six-year CIP schedule with a funding source of road millage.
??
The City proposes a total of $43.845 48.44 million of improvements within the City’s
Stormwater Infrastructure Program over the six-year CIP period. The funding sources for this
project are the Stormwater Fund and a future bond issue.
??
The $1.602 1.552 million Commercial Container Acquisition CIP project is planned through
Solid Waste funds.
??
The $19.627 21.066 million Reclaimed Water Distribution System CIP project is being funded
through: $863,400 from FY ’09 Bond Issue, $17.112 13.841 million from future bond issue,
$0.986 million 4.833 from Sewer Revenue, and $1.529 million from Utility Renewal and
Replacement.
AMENDMENT 2 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
Amend Policy I.1.1.2 of Objective I.1.1 of Goal I.1. on page I-2 as follows:
*****
I.1.1.2 The City shall be permitted to amend the Schedule of Capital Improvements two times
during any calendar year and as allowed for emergencies, developments of regional impact
and certain small-scale development activities pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3187. The
annual update of the plan is hereby incorporated by reference and is located following policy
I.1.7.6 as the FY2009/10 Annual Update to the Capital Improvements Element. The schedule of
capital improvements included in the Clearwater FY2008/09 Capital Improvement Program
Budget is incorporated as Schedule I-A of this Capital Improvements Element.
*****
Page 1
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
AMENDMENT 3 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
Amend Policy I.1.7.6 of Objective I.1.7 of Goal I.1 on page I-12 as follows:
*****
I.1.7.6 The City hereby adopts by reference the School District’s Five-Year Work
Program for FY 2009/10 FY 2008/09 through 2013/14 2012/13, as adopted by
the School Board on September 15, 2009 9, 2008.
AMENDMENT 4 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
Remove CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT SCHEDULE I-A
PROGRAM FY2008/09
commencingon page I-12 and including Schedule I-A Pages 1-49
following page I-12, and replace as follows:
FY2009/10 ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
The intent of this annual update is to evaluate capacity and demand for concurrency-related
public facilities (solid waste, potable water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, parks and roads), to
determine that LOS standards are being met and that they will service approved and planned
development over a 5-year period.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program Budget FY2009/10 is used as the basis for this update.
It ensures that future public facility needs will be met based upon existing, approved, and planned
development that will require public services in the 5-year planning horizon. It summarizes the
timing, location and funding of capital improvement program construction projects to meet future
public facilities demand.
PROJECTIONS
The following tables provide the capacity and demand for each of the City’s respective public
facilities projected over the next 5 years. There are no projected deficiencies.
Report is based on 2008 population: 110,831
Projected 2018 population (Future Land Use Element): 120,028
SOLID WASTE:
Current Capacity: 7.12 lbs per capita per day
Current Demand: 5.19 lbs per capita per day
Fiscal Year Projected Demand Projected Capacity at End of Surplus
(lbs per capita per day) FY (lbs per capita per day) (Deficit)
2009/10 5.19 7.12 1.93
2010/11 5.19 7.12 1.93
2011/12 5.19 7.12 1.93
2012/13 5.19 7.12 1.93
Page 2
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
2013/14 5.19 7.12 1.93
Totals 5.19 7.12 1.93
(2013/14)
Solid Waste LOS Standard: 7.12 lbs per capita per day
Current capacity*:
Total Solid Waste capacity (in tons): 143,906
Pounds of Solid Waste per capita per day: 7.12
Current demand:
Total Solid Waste Generated by the City in 2008 (in tons): 104,898
Current Pounds of Solid Waste per capita per day: 5.19
*The current capacity is based on the City’s LOS standard. Capacity is actually greater since the City’s
Solid Waste Department is able to dispose of all waste produced within the city, as it works with Pinellas
County on waste disposal. Garbage is taken to the Pinellas County Waste to Energy Plant where most
is incinerated. Any material that is not incinerated is “land filled”. The most recent projections take the
life of the land fill to the years 2085 to 2090.
POTABLE WATER:
Current Capacity: 25 MGD
Current Demand: 12.2 MGD
Fiscal Year Projected Demand Projected Capacity at End Surplus (Deficit)
(max.) of FY (min.)
2009/10 12.0 MGD 25.0 MGD 13.0 MGD
2010/11 12.1 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.9 MGD
2011/12 12.1 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.9 MGD
2012/13 12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
2013/14 12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
Totals 12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
(2013/14)
MGD = million gallons per day; Projections as per the City’s Water Master Plan
Potable Water LOS Standard: 120 gallons per capita per day
Current capacity:
Total Potable Water Available per day in gallons: 25,000,000 (25.0 MGD)
Gallons available per capita per day: 225.56
Current demand:
Total Potable Water Consumption per day in gallons: 12,000,000 (12.0 MGD)
Gallons consumed per capita per day: 108.27
STORM WATER:
Current Capacity: 10-year LOS standard
Current Demand: 10-year LOS standard
Fiscal Year Projected Demand Projected Capacity at End of Surplus (Deficit)
FY
2009/10 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
Page 3
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
2010/11 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
2011/12 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
2012/13 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
2013/14 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
Totals 10-Year LOS (Min) 10-Year LOS (Min) N/A*
(2013/14)
Stormwater LOS Standard:
Design storm:
10-year storm frequency for all new street development using the rational design method
Current Capacity: 10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
Current Demand: 10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
Total: 10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
*Stormwater management is reviewed on a permit-by-permit basis. The City only approves if a proposed
development meets the LOS standards for stormwater management facilities listed above.
SANITARY SEWER:
Current Capacity: 257 gallons per capita per day
Current Demand: 127 gallons per capita per day
Fiscal Year Projected Demand Projected Capacity at End Surplus (Deficit)
(max.) of FY (min.)
2009/10 14.1 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.4 MGD
2010/11 14.2 MGD 28.5 MGD14.3 MGD
2011/12 14.2 MGD 28.5 MGD14.3 MGD
2012/13 14.3 MGD 28.5 MGD14.2 MGD
2013/14 14.3 MGD 28.5 MGD14.2 MGD
Totals 14.3 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.2 MGD
(2013/14)
MGD = million gallons per day; Projections as per the City’s Water Pollution Control (WPC) Master Plan
Sanitary Sewer LOS Standard: 127 gallons per capita per day
Current Capacity (in gallons): 28,500,000
Gallons available per capita per day 257.14
Current Demand: 14,100,000
Gallons available per capita per day 127.22
PARKLAND:
Current Capacity: 13.31 acres per 1,000 people
Current Demand: 4 acres per 1,000 people
Fiscal Year Projected Demand Projected Capacity at End Surplus (Deficit)
(max.) of FY (min.)
2009/10 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
2010/11 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
2011/12 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
2012/13 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
2013/14 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
Totals 4 per 1,000 13.31 per 1,000 9.31 per 1,000
Parkland LOS Standard: 4 acres per 1,000 people
Page 4
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
Current capacity (Parkland Acres As of 05/13/09): 1,475 acres @ 13.31 per 1,000 people
Current demand: 440 acres @ 4 per 1,000 people
Total (Acres / Per Thousand People): 1,475 acres @ 13.31 per 1,000 people
Page 5
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
ROADS:
Add the following table
[Remainder of page is intentially left blank]
Page 6
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
FY2009/10 Capital Improvement Program Budgeted Expenditures and Revenues:
Add the following table
Page 7
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10
Budgeted
Revenues
GENERAL SOURCES:2009/10
General Operating Revenue1,470,990
General Revenue/County Coop635,310
Road Millage2,090,670
Penny for Pinellas6,225,000
Transportation Impact Fee290,000
Local Option Gas Tax1,720,000
Special Development Fund950,000
Special Program Fund30,000
Grants - Other Agencies2,900,000
Donations900,000
SELF SUPPORTING FUNDS:
Marine Revenue50,000
Downtown Boat Slips Revenue15,000
Aviation Revenue10,000
Parking Revenue260,000
Utility System:
Water Impact Fees250,000
Sewer Impact Fees500,000
Utility R & R3,050,490
Stormwater Utility Revenue5,652,800
Gas Revenue5,340,000
Solid Waste Revenue350,000
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
Garage Revenue119,400
Administrative Services Revenue150,000
BORROWING - SELF SUPPORTING FUNDS:
Lease Purchase - Water42,540
Lease Purchase - Stormwater300,000
Lease Purchase - Solid Waste170,000
Lease Purchase - Recycling220,000
Bond Issue - Water & Sewer15,665,240
BORROWING - INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
Lease Purchase - Garage2,312,300
Lease Purchase - Administrative Services400,000
TOTAL ALL FUNDING SOURCES:$52,069,740
Page 8
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
Add the following table
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10
Budgeted
Expenditures
FUNCTION:2009/10
Police Protection150,000
Fire Protection678,490
Major Street Maintenance3,645,670
Intersections435,000
Parking250,000
Misc Engineering35,000
Parks Development5,837,500
Marine Facilities4,315,000
Airpark Facilities10,000
Libraries635,310
Garage2,716,700
Maintenance of Buildings277,930
General Public City Building & Equipment950,000
Miscellaneous 640,000
Stormwater Utility5,945,000
Gas System 5,310,000
Solid Waste520,000
Utilities Miscellaneous26,000
Sewer System9,772,590
Water System9,699,550
Recycling220,000
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES$52,069,740
Page 9
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2009-07001 2009-10-20
Add the following table
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUNCTION
FY 2009-2010 THROUGH FY 2014-2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Schedule of Planned Expenditures
Function2009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/15 Total
Police Protection150,000150,000
Fire Protection678,4901,153,4001,089,4902,515,2704,244,8601,555,40011,236,910
New Street Construction2,500,0002,500,000
Major Street Maintenance3,645,6703,497,4304,057,4304,107,4304,107,4304,032,43023,447,820
Sidewalk and Bike Trails472,000472,000
Intersections435,000435,000435,000435,000435,000435,0002,610,000
Parking250,000225,000200,000200,000225,000225,0001,325,000
Miscellaneous Engineering35,0008,035,00035,00035,00035,00035,0008,210,000
Parks Development5,837,5004,622,500907,5001,147,5009,967,500982,50023,465,000
Marine Facilities4,315,000275,000413,000413,000413,000413,0006,242,000
Airpark Facilities10,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00060,000
Libraries635,310635,31010,635,310639,740665,310685,27013,896,250
Garage2,716,7002,798,2002,882,1502,968,6103,057,6703,149,41017,572,740
Maintenance of Buildings277,930299,8001,108,650420,560452,530379,5602,939,030
Gen Public City Bldg & Equip950,0007,000,0007,950,000
Miscellaneous 640,000640,000620,0005,420,000645,000645,0008,610,000
Stormwater Utility5,945,0008,800,0007,200,0007,100,0007,400,0007,400,00043,845,000
Gas System 5,310,0005,600,0005,800,0006,100,0005,900,0006,145,00034,855,000
Solid Waste520,000595,000755,000713,000735,000746,0004,064,000
Utilities Miscellaneous26,00030,00026,00026,00030,00026,000164,000
Sewer System9,772,5909,073,99012,108,3807,351,36011,776,59025,617,40075,700,310
Water System9,699,55012,913,12017,928,91018,125,34011,251,4106,917,79076,836,120
Recycling220,000290,000290,000386,000400,000410,0001,996,000
Total52,069,74059,928,75066,501,82060,613,81061,751,30067,281,760368,147,180
[Attach Schedule I-A here]
Remove the entire
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT SCHEDULE I-A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2008/09, Schedule I-A Pages 1-49
Page 10
Ordinance 8088-09
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT HIS2009-00001 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: HIS2009-00001
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Address: 401 Cleveland Street
Agenda Item: E-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION
REQUEST:
Historic designation of the Clearwater Evening Sun
Building (401 Cleveland Street)
PROPERTY SIZE:
2,808 square feet or 0.065 acres
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use: Office Building
Proposed Use: Indoor Recreation (Performing Arts Theater)
PLAN CATEGORY:
Central Business District (CBD)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Downtown (D)
EXISTING
North: Office and Vacant
SURROUNDING USES:
West: Mixed Use
South: Office
East: Indoor Recreation (Performing Arts Theater) and
Retail
ANALYSIS
Background
This historic designation application involves property known as the Clearwater Evening Sun
Building located on the southeast corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue in Downtown
Clearwater. The building was constructed in 1914 and housed one of Clearwater’s first
newspapers, the Clearwater Evening Sun, started by William B. Powell. Sometime in the early
1930’s the newspaper moved to another location and the property was occupied by a retail use
(dress shop) on the first floor and medical offices on the second floor. Over the years the
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00001 -Page 1 of 5
property has been used by a variety of retail and/or office uses. The most recent long-term tenant
that occupied the building is Pat Lokey, one of Clearwater’s fine women’s clothing stores.
Architecturally the building is an example of commercial Masonry Vernacular with beautiful
brick detailing and an interesting fenestration pattern of groups of four double-hung sash
windows on each floor. The building has had significant changes made to the exterior including
the application of stucco, brick and vertical wood siding as well as the addition of a balcony with
wrought iron railing and oversized clamshells awnings on the second floor. Most changes
appear to be reversible.
To further downtown redevelopment efforts the City of Clearwater entered into a partnership
with Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc. regarding the purchase, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of
this property. Ruth Eckerd Hall will manage and operate the Clearwater Evening Sun Building
in conjunction with the adjacent Capital Theater as a performing arts facility.
Standards for Designation [Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-607.F.2 and 3]
Consistency with Criteria for Evaluating Proposed Historic Properties
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable criteria for evaluating the proposed historic designation of the Clearwater Evening
Sun Building are as follows:
??
Whether the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad pattern of city, state or national history [CDC Section 4-407.F.2.a].
The Clearwater Evening Sun Building has contributed to the history of Clearwater in several
important ways. It has had a major influence on the social and community life of Clearwater
both through its key location on Cleveland Street, the City’s main street, and through its
important commercial tenants. Of particular significance is its original occupant, the
Clearwater Evening Sun, one of the City’s first newspapers. The building has also housed
several very prominent businesses with long tenancies including the Betty Lane Dress Shop
(almost 20 years) and most recently Pat Lokey (approximately 10 years).
??
Whether the property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history [CDC
Section 4-407.F.2.b].
The property proposed for designation was the home of the Clearwater Evening Sun founded
in 1914 by Willis B. Powell. Prior to that, Mr. Powell owned the Independent, a weekly
newspaper founded in 1906. In 1907 Mr. Powell changed the paper’s format and it became
St. Petersburg’s first daily newspaper, the Evening Independent. The newspaper’s editorials
and the owner’s political influences contributed to the separation of Pinellas County from
Hillsborough County in 1912 and the designation of Clearwater as the county seat in 1917.
David O. Batchelor bought the Clearwater Evening Sun in 1916 and operated it until he sold
it and the building in 1924. The property ultimately reverted back to Mr. Batchelor during
the Great Depression and remained in the Batchelor family until 1977.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00001 - Page 2 of 5
??
Whether the property posses distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction or the representation of the work of a master, or the possession of artistic values
[CDC Section 4-407.F.2.c].
After the fire of 1910 that destroyed all of the commercial wooden structures on the north
side of Cleveland Street in the block between Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues, all
structures had to be constructed of masonry or brick construction. The Clearwater Evening
Sun Building had to comply with this new requirement and is an outstanding example of
commercial Masonry Vernacular. The building is a two-story structure built of red brick
with decorative brickwork in horizontal and vertical patterns. Its fenestration is arranged in
groups of four double-hung sash windows on each floor. A total of five bays are located
along Osceola Avenue and one bay along Cleveland Street. The building also had a metal
canopy on the Cleveland Street façade supported by chains.
??
Whether the property yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history. [CDC Section 4-407.F.2.d].
There is no evidence that the Clearwater Evening Sun Building yields information important
in prehistory or history.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Clearwater Evening Sun Building is eligible for historic designation as the property is
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
Clearwater history, is associated with the lives of persons significant in Clearwater’s history and
possesses distinctive characteristics of a type, period and method of construction.
Classification of Property
Recommended Findings of Fact
Community Development Code Section 4-607.F.3 specifies that historic properties shall be
classified as exceptional, excellent, notable or of value as part of the scene depending on the
number of designation criteria met. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made
above, the Clearwater Evening Sun Building meets three out of the four designation criteria
including: association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of historic; association with the lives of persons significant in history; and association with
distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Clearwater Evening Sun Building is considered “excellent” as it meets the criteria
established in Community Development Code Section 4-607.F.a, b. and c.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00001 - Page 3 of 5
IMPACT OF PROPOSED DESGINATION
The proposed historic designation of the Clearwater Evening Sun Building will further the
following policies of the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan:
Policy 4: Renovation, rehabilitation and reuse of historic resources are encouraged. Flexibility
through the site plan review process should be utilized so that historic resources may be
retained and reused.
Policy 5: The City shall pursue various strategies, incentives and planning tools that will assist in the
preservation of historic resources.
The historic designation of the Clearwater Evening Sun Building will further implementation of
Strategy 20 of the Plan which supports locating a performing arts theater in Downtown and
providing assistance, as needed, with land acquisition, land assembly, building rehabilitation and
parking facilities development to support the use.
The historic designation of this building will require any building improvements to be consistent
with the design guidelines established in the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan for the
rehabilitation of historic structures. These guidelines are modeled on the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is anticipated that the historic designation of the
Clearwater Evening Sun Building will strengthen the property’s eligibility to obtain historic
preservation grant/loan funding.
Applicable Objectives and Policies from the Future Land Use Element of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan in support of the historic designation of the Clearwater Evening Sun
Building area as follows:
Objective A.6.3 - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the
maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods
through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City’s Community
Development code.
Policy A.6.3.1 - The City Council shall consider designating historic properties and districts
within the City of Clearwater; designations shall be consistent with the standards for designation
found in the City’s Community Development Code. Procedures identified in the Community
Development Code should be amended to permit the City, in addition to property owners, to
initiate such designation.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The historic designation of the Clearwater Evening Sun Building has been requested by the City
of Clearwater. The building is an excellent example of commercial Masonry Vernacular and one
of the oldest commercial buildings in downtown. It was the home of one of Clearwater’s first
newspaper and is associated with Willis B. Powell and the Batchelor family both of whom are
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00001 - Page 4 of 5
both important to Clearwater’s history. The Clearwater Evening Sun Building is an historic
property that qualifies for the classification of “excellent.”
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following action on the
request:
APPROVAL
Recommend of the historic designation of 401 Cleveland Street, the
Clearwater Evening Sun Building with the classification of excellent.
Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning and
Development Director
Attachments:
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Resume
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00001 - Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT HIS2009-00002 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: HIS2009-00002
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Address: 405 Cleveland Street
Agenda Item: E-4
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION
REQUEST:
Historic designation of the Capitol Theatre (405 Cleveland
Street)
PROPERTY SIZE:
0.6272 square feet or 0.144 acres
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use: Indoor Recreation (Performing Arts Theater)
Proposed Use: Indoor Recreation (Performing Arts Theater)
PLAN CATEGORY:
Central Business District (CBD)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Downtown (D)
EXISTING
North: Office and Vacant
SURROUNDING USES:
West: Office and Mixed Use
South: Office
East: Retail
ANALYSIS
Background
This historic designation application involves property known as the Capitol Theatre located on
the south side of Cleveland Street, one property east of Osceola Avenue in Downtown
Clearwater. The theater opened in 1921 and was designed by local prominent architect Lester
Avery and owned by John S. Taylor, State Representative for Hillsborough County from 1905 –
1910. The theater was designed for silent movies as well as live performances and has been at
the heart of Clearwater’s cultural and entertainment scene for many years. In 1960 the Capitol
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 -Page 1 of 6
Theatre sustained significant damage from Hurricane Donna. Major building alterations
occurred at that time and its operation transitioned to a movie theater until closed in 1980. Since
that time the building has been used for a variety of purposes including local theater productions,
youth programs, a social dance center and most recently a church.
Architecturally the building is an excellent example of the ornate Mediterranean Revival style.
The original building façade was stucco with decorative details and expressed as two stories.
Across the front of the building was a flat canopy and above that were three arches with radiating
glass panes. There was an elaborate bell-shaped parapet in the center and on each side were
elements that appeared to be corner towers. There were many architectural details in these areas
of the façade that gave the building a very unique and interesting appearance. Significant
changes have been made to the building’s original appearance.
To further downtown redevelopment efforts the City of Clearwater entered into a partnership
with Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc. regarding the purchase, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of
the property. Ruth Eckerd Hall will manage and operate the Capitol Theatre, in conjunction with
the adjacent Clearwater Evening Sun Building as a performing arts facility. Ruth Eckerd Hall,
Inc. plans to restore the building to its original appearance. Plans include replacing the façade’s
architectural details and materials and replacing the 1940’s signage. The interior rehabilitation
will be based on typical theaters from this time period as no plans for the original interior can be
located.
Standards for Designation [Community Development Code Sections (CDC) 4-607.F.2 and
3]
Consistency with Criteria for Evaluating Proposed Historic Properties
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable criteria for evaluating the proposed historic designation of the Capitol Theatre are as
follows:
??
Whether the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad pattern of city, state or national history [CDC Section 4-407.F.2.a]
The Capitol Theatre’s contributions to the history of Clearwater are significant as it was the
cultural and entertainment center of the City and occupied a prime location on Clearwater’s
main street. Opening in 1921, the theater was equipped for live performances and silent
movies and was known to accommodate first run movies and traveling vaudeville acts.
During World War II the theater organized events called “Bank Night” whereby war bonds
were sold as part of cash prize lottery drawings enticing many people to attend the theater.
The Capitol Theatre sustained significant damage from Hurricane Donna in 1960 and the
repairs greatly changed the theater’s appearance. The building reopened as a movie theater
after the renovations and operated until 1980. In 1981 the Royalty Theater Company re-
established the property as a venue for the performing arts and changed the name to the
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 - Page 2 of 6
Royalty Theater. By 1995 the Royalty Theater was closed and the building was subsequently
used for a variety of purposes including youth programming, a social and sports dancing
center and lastly a church.
??
Whether the property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history [CDC
Section 4-407.F.2.b].
The property proposed for designation was built by John S. Taylor, a son of one of the area’s
earliest homesteaders. He served as State Representative for Hillsborough County from 1905
to 1910. Mr. Taylor was vocal in his support of the separation of Pinellas County from
Hillsborough County and lobbied the Florida Legislature to that end. His efforts were
successful and in 1911 Pinellas County was created. The Capitol Theatre remained in the
Taylor family estate until 1996.
??
Whether the property posses distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction or the representation of the work of a master, or the possession of artistic values
[CDC Section 4-407.F.2.c].
The Capitol Theatre is an excellent example of the elaborate Mediterranean Rival style.
The building was very unique to Cleveland Street due to its materials and the significant use
of architectural details. The building had a stucco front face with a flat canopy attached to
the main wall that effectively divided the façade into two stories. On the ground floor two
storefronts flanked the theater entry. Above the canopy the façade had three distinctive
sections. In the center above the canopy were three compass arches with radiating glass
panes and a wide stone molding. Above that was an elaborate bell-shaped parapet with a
Baroque inspired cusped molding. The top center portion of the parapet included a Roman
temple frame containing a plaque with “Capitol Theatre” inscribed on it. Above that at the
top center of the parapet was a Palladian styled triple arch applied on a projecting sill and
clamshell-shaped console. To either side of the center, the building plane projected which
gave the second floor above the storefronts the appearance of corner towers. This area was
defined by double-hung sash windows with stone surrounds and projecting sills. Above the
windows were shed roofs covered in green barrel tile roof flanked by corner pillars with
molded cornices.
The Capitol Theatre was designed by Lester Avery, a prominent area architect. Mr. Avery
designed several area buildings as well as the Harbor Oaks development, a National Register
Historic District. He also designed buildings in Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The theater was
constructed by John and Ivan Phillipoff who also built the Coachman Building in 1916 and
the Roebling Estate in Belleair. In addition to being a builder, Ivan Phillipoff served a
Deputy Tax Assessor for Pinellas County.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 - Page 3 of 6
??
Whether the property yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history [CDC Section 4-407.F.2.d].
There is no evidence that the Capitol Theatre yields information important in prehistory or
history.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Capitol Theatre is eligible for historic designation as the property is associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Clearwater history, is
associated with the lives of persons significant in Clearwater’s history and possesses distinctive
characteristics of a type, period and method of construction.
Classification of Property
Recommended Findings of Fact
Community Development Code Section 4-607.F.3 specifies that historic properties shall be
classified as exceptional, excellent, notable or of value as part of the scene depending on the
number of designation criteria met. Based on the finding of fact and conclusions of law made
above, the Capitol Theatre meets three out of the four designation criteria including: association
with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of historic; association
with the lives of persons significant in history; and association with distinctive characteristics of
a type, period or method of construction.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Capitol Theatre should be classified as “excellent” as it meets the criteria established
Community Development Code Section 4-607.F.a, b. and c.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED DESGINATION
The proposed historic designation of the Capitol Theatre will further the following policies of the
Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan:
Policy 4: Renovation, rehabilitation and reuse of historic resources are encouraged. Flexibility
through the site plan review process should be utilized so that historic resources may be
retained and reused.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 - Page 4 of 6
Policy 5: The City shall pursue various strategies, incentives and planning tools that will assist in the
preservation of historic resources.
The historic designation of the Capitol Theatre will further implement Strategy 20 of the Plan
which supports locating a performing arts theater in Downtown and providing assistance, as
needed, with land acquisition, land assembly, building rehabilitation and parking facilities
development to support the use.
The historic designation of this building will require any building improvements to be consistent
with the design guidelines established in the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan for the
rehabilitation of historic structures. These guidelines are modeled on the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is anticipated that the historic designation of the Capitol
Theatre will strengthen the property’s eligibility to obtain historic preservation grant/loan
funding.
Applicable Objectives and Policies from the Future Land Use Element of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan in support of the historic designation of the Capitol Theatre are as follows:
Objective A.6.3 - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the
maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods
through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City’s Community
Development code.
Policy A.6.3.1 - The City Council shall consider designating historic properties and districts
within the City of Clearwater; designations shall be consistent with the standards for designation
found in the City’s Community Development Code. Procedures identified in the Community
Development Code should be amended to permit the City, in addition to property owners, to
initiate such designation.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The historic designation of the Capitol Theatre has been requested by the City of Clearwater.
The building is an excellent example of the ornate Mediterranean Revival style and one of the
most significant buildings in downtown Clearwater. It served as the cultural heart of Clearwater
for many years and was one of the primary venues for motion pictures and live theater in the
area. It was designed by Lester Avery, a prominent area architect and owned by John S. Taylor,
son of one of the first homesteaders in the Clearwater area and influential figures in the creation
of a separate Pinellas County. The Capitol Theatre is a historic property that qualifies for the
classification of “excellent” pursuant to the Community Development Code.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following action on the
request:
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 - Page 5 of 6
APPROVAL
Recommend of the historic designation of 405 Cleveland Street, the
Clearwater Evening Sun Building with the classification of excellent.
Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning and
Development Director
Attachments:
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Resume
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case HIS2009-00002 - Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: LUZ2009-07002
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Village LLC/City of Clearwater
Address: A Portion of 1980 Kings Highway
Agenda Item: E-5
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
Future land use plan amendment from the Residential
Medium (RM) Classification to the
Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature
Overlay with existing Residential Medium (RM)
Classification.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
96,268 square feet or 2.21 acres
PORTION OF PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT:Transportation/Utility Overlay:
26,136 square feet or
0.60 acres mol
Drainage Feature Overlay:
7,840 square feet or
0.18 acres mol
Combined Transportation/Utility Overlay and
Drainage Feature Overlay, a portion of which is
included in both:
28,314 square feet or 0.65 acres mol
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Vacant
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category: Residential Medium (RM)
Proposed Category: Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature
Overlay with existing Residential Medium (RM)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 -Page 1 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
Proposed District: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
EXISTING
North: Vacant Residential, and Multi Family Residential
SURROUNDING USES:
West: Multi Family Residential
South: Place of Worship
East: Multi Family Residential, Single Family
Residential, and Vacant
ANALYSIS:
This future land use plan (FLUP) amendment application is related to a previous land use and
zoning amendment known as 1980 Kings Highway (LUZ2006-08004), which was requested by
the previous owner, New Zion Missionary Baptist Church. The request was to change from the
Institutional (INS) land use category to the Residential High (RH) category and to change the
zoning from the Institutional (I) District to High Density Residential (HDR) District. The
request was not approved as proposed, but a change to the Residential Medium (RM) future land
use plan category and Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning designation was granted. The
Pinellas Planning Council recommended approval of the change, with the condition that the
Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature Overlay categories be added to the southern
portion of the property to reflect the existing utility (Progress Energy) and drainage (City)
easements. The Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority
approved this recommendation on March 13, 2007. At the time of approval, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan did not include the two overlays; therefore, a Comprehensive Plan
amendment was necessary in order for the condition to be met. The amendment which added the
two overlays was part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based Comprehensive Plan
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which were adopted by the City Council in December,
2008 and approved by the Department of Community Affairs in February, 2009.
The current amendment involves the southerly portion of the property, comprising approximately
0.65 acres in area. This amendment is to add the Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage
Feature Overlay, along with the existing Residential Medium (RM) classification in order to
meet the condition of the previous future land use plan amendment as described above.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, this future land use plan amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-
603.F.1 and 2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 2 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
A.1.1 Objective - On an ongoing basis, natural resources and systems shall be protected through
the application of local, state, and regional regulations, mitigation and management plans,
and permitting procedures as well as through locally instituted land purchase programs
focusing on environmentally sensitive properties and significant open space areas.
A.2.2.8 Policy – All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent with the
density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas Planning
Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for nomenclature,
continuum of plan classifications and categories, use and locational characteristics, map
delineation, other standards, and special rules.
F.1.2 Objective - The City shall continue to protect floodplains, drainage ways, and all other
natural areas having functional hydrological characteristics.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Drainage Feature Overlay designation allows for the protection of a natural resource,
thereby meeting Objective A.1.1. In addition, these amendments are consistent with locational
characteristics, map delineation and special rules per Policy A.2.2.8. In particular, the
Transportation/Utility Overlay designation recognizes a significant powerline easement
consistent with the criteria in Policy A.2.2.8. Also, in accordance with Objective F.1.2 this
amendment provides additional protection of a functional hydrological characteristic through the
proposed Drainage Feature designation.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN RULES
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Drainage Feature Overlay special designation, as specified in
Section 2.3.3.9.1 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those water bodies and drainage features,
now committed to, or proposed to be recognized for, these respective functions based on their
physical characteristics and use. The purpose of the proposed Transportation/Utility designation,
as specified in Section 2.3.3.7.4 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the county
that are now used, or appropriate to be used, for transport and public/private utility services.
Other standards given in Section 2.3.3.7.4 of the Countywide Rules, state that where a utility
transmission line otherwise included in the Transportation/Utility category is located in an
easement as distinct from a right-of-way, the category shall be shown as an overlay,
superimposed over, and applicable in addition to, the otherwise applicable underlying category.
This amendment ensures that this condition is met.
The requested Drainage Feature Overlay is appropriate due to the location of the existing
drainage easement. The requested Transportation/Utility Overlay is appropriate due to the fact
that utility transmission line is in an easement distinct from a right-of-way. The use of the parcel
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 3 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
is consistent with the purpose of the Drainage Feature Overlay special designation and
Transportation/Utility Overlay category.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property is located on the west side of Kings Highway, between Woodlawn Terrace
and Sunset Point Road. The character of the neighborhood is primarily residential, although
there are also church and water/drainage feature uses in the area. To the north is multi-family
residential with future land use plan classifications of Residential High (RH) and Residential
Medium (RM) as well as High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium Density Residential
(MDR) zoning designations. The Residential High (RH) classification permits 30 dwelling units
per acre and the Residential Medium (RM) classification permits 15 dwelling units per acre. The
High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) designations primarily
permit residential uses.
To the south is a church with a future land use plan classification of Institutional (I) and an
Institutional (I) zoning designation. The Institutional (I) classification permits 12.5 dwelling
units per acre and a floor area ratio of 0.65. The Institutional (I) zoning designation primarily
permits hospitals, nursing homes, schools and places of worship.
To the east are single family residential and retention pond uses with future land use plan
classifications of Residential Urban (RU), Water/Drainage Feature, and Preservation (P) and a
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning designation. The Residential Urban (RU)
classification permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre, the Water/Drainage Feature classification
permits no density, and the Preservation (P) classification permits no density and a floor area
ratio of 0.10. The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning designation primarily
permits residential uses.
To the west is a multi-family use with a future land use plan classification of Residential Low
Medium (RLM) and a Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning designation. The Medium
Density Residential (MDR) designation permits 10 dwelling units per acre and primarily permits
residential uses.
The Transportation/Utility (T/U) Overlay and the Drainage Feature Overlay are located on the
southern portion of the property known as 1980 Kings Highway and are described so as to be
congruent with the Progress Energy utility easement and with the City drainage easement as
recorded. Therefore, the overlays as proposed are appropriately located. This request is
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 4 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
compatible with the surrounding area and will not unreasonably affect the use of the property in
the area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed future land use plan classification and zoning designation are in character with the
overall future land use plan categories in the area. The amendment is compatible with
surrounding uses and is consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and
neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The overall site is 2.21 acres and undeveloped, while the portion subject to this amendment is
approximately 0.65 acres (28,314 square feet) in area and is undeveloped vacant land. The
Residential Medium (RM) future land use designation permits 15 dwelling units per acre for
residential uses. The proposed Transportation/Utility (T/U) Overlay and the Drainage Feature
Overlay classifications do not alter the allowable densities. Along with the current easements,
the proposed overlays preclude development within the designated areas. The current Medium
Density Residential (MDR) zoning designation primarily permits residential use. No zoning
change is proposed.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined no additional traffic will be generated by
this plan amendment therefore there will be no degradation of the existing LOS to the adjacent
roads beyond the requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Further, there will be no
impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service since there is no change in use or increase
in development potential. Should the parcel be developed, it will be subject at that time to public
facility concurrency requirements and open space and recreation facilities impact fees. Mass
transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use overlay designations.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
This property is currently vacant. The portion of the property subject to the proposed Drainage
Feature Overlay designation is an integral part of the City’s Spring Branch Conveyance
Enhancements Project. This drainage easement connects the upstream water flow to the planned
retention pond to the south, allowing for improved flood prevention up and down stream and
improved water quality downstream. The proposed Drainage Feature Overlay is an integral part
in improving flood prevention and water quality in the Stevenson Creek Watershed.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 5 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. The intent of
applying the two overlay designations is to recognize the two easements that exist on the
property. The site is currently undeveloped. Any development would require compliance with
the City’s tree preservation and storm water management requirements.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the future land use plan from the Residential Medium (RM) classification to
the Transportation/Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature Overlay with existing Residential
Medium (RM) classification for the subject site is requested. The proposed site is undeveloped.
The request will meet the condition of the Pinellas Planning Council that the
Transportation/Utility (T/U) Overlay and Drainage Feature Overlay designations be added to the
portion of the property known as 1980 Kings Highway which contains the Progress Energy
utility easement and the City drainage easement. Residential uses primarily characterize the
surrounding area, although a place of worship is the use of one of the adjoining parcels. The
proposed future land use plan amendment is compatible with the existing area.
The proposed Transportation/Utility (T/U) Overlay and Drainage Feature Overlay with existing
Residential Medium (RM) future land use plan designations more closely reflect the actual use of
the parcel, since they contain existing utility and drainage easements. In addition, these
designations are consistent with the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, Countywide
Plan Rules, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not degrade public services below
acceptable levels, are compatible with the natural environment and are consistent with the
development regulations of the City.
Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.
Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
ACTION:
APPROVAL
Recommend of the future land use plan amendment from the Residential
Medium (RM) Classification to the Transportation Utility Overlay and Drainage Feature
Overlay with existing Residential Medium (RM) Classifications;
Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________
Cate Lee, Planner II
Attachments:
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 6 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009 - Case LUZ2009-07002 - Page 7 of 7
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1009 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2009-07002 2009-10-20.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-08024
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner: U.S. 19 Group, LLC
Applicant: Linda P. Windham
Address: 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North
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 animal grooming and boarding within the
Commercial (C) District within an existing 18,022 square foot shopping
center with 82 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building
height, structure setbacks or building, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Retail Sales/Services
Proposed Use: Animal Grooming and Boarding
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Nightclub
SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Office
West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.58 acre subject property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19 North approximately 3,100
feet north of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and U.S. Highway 19 North. The site is currently
developed with an 18,022 square foot shopping center that is divided into seven tenant spaces, as well as
an 82-space off-street parking area. It is noted that both the building and the off-street parking area are
nonconforming with regard to the minimum required setbacks; however the site does currently meet all
other development standards.
Development Proposal:
On August 3, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the
subject property. The application proposes to establish an animal grooming and boarding use within an
existing 720 square foot tenant space which is presently vacant.
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
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
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 82 off-street parking spaces and
is comprised of one restaurant, three retail sales and services uses and three vacant units. 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
Dogwater Café 1 Restaurant3,755 56.33
Carnicerna 2 Retail Sales 4,006 20.03
Touch of India 3 Retail Sales 4,470 22.35
Happy Pets 4 Animal Grooming720 2.88
Vacant 5 Retail Sales 2,221 11.10
Dominoes 6 Retail Sales 850 4.25
Vacant 7 Retail Sales 2,000 10.00
EXISTING
127.66 (128)
TOTAL:
PROPOSED
126.94 (127)
TOTAL:
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 128 spaces are needed
for those uses currently established on-site – 46 more than presently exist. As animal grooming and
boarding uses are required to provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (retail sales
uses are required 5/1,000), the proposed change of use for the 720 square foot tenant space would
decrease this nonconformity by one (1) less space.
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
Retail (67.73) 5% = 3.387 70% = 47.432 90% = 60.984 100% = 67.86 70% = 47.432
Restaurant (56.33) 10% = 5.633 50% = 28.165 100% = 56.33 50% = 28.165 100% = 56.33
1
Retail (2.88)5% = 0.144 70% = 2.016 90% = 2.592 100% = 2.88 70% = 2.016
Totals:
9.034 77.613 119.876 98.905 105.778
1
The shared parking table does not specifically identify a category for the animal grooming and boarding use. As such, the retail category
is used for animal grooming and boarding 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 120 off-street parking
spaces with the proposed change of use to establish the animal grooming and boarding use. However, as
it was previously noted, only 82 off-street parking spaces presently exist on the subject property and no
additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-
street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. As such, the demand for
off-street parking should not be as intense as it would be for a retail use and will not likely result in an
intensification from the existing retail use.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.U. parcels proposed for development as animal
grooming and boarding shall not be contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the
zoning atlas and the use shall not involve animal confinement facilities that are open to the outside. The
subject parcel is contiguous to Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning on both the west and south.
The intent of the restriction regarding the parcel not being contiguous to residentially zoned land is for
animal boarding which likely produces noise from animals being boarded for long periods of time. The
applicant is proposing neither animal boarding nor animal confinement facilities outside. As a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project the applicant seeks relief from the residential restriction.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the uses allowed
within the Commercial (C) District are subject to the standards and criteria set forth in this Section.
Among those criteria established for the review of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects is the
following:
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified
based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or
emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed
development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
??
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos,
??
balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
??
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
??
Building stepbacks; and
??
Distinctive roofs forms.
??
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and
appropriate distances between buildings.
As previously noted, the proposal does not contain any changes to either the existing shopping center
building or the off-street parking area, and while the proposal will meet some of the above criteria, it
cannot meet others without being required to modify the existing architectural elevations of the shopping
center. However, to require such changes simply to accommodate a proposed change of use for an
existing tenant space would be impractical and inappropriate.
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as
per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704:
1
Standard Proposed ConsistentInconsistent
Maximum FAR 0.55 0.26 X
Maximum ISR 0.90 0.86 X
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 68,722 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 229 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 25 feet East: 41 feet (to building) X
11 feet (to pavement)
Side: 10 feet South: 6 feet (to building) X
0 feet (to pavement)
Side: 10 feet North: 10 feet (to building) X
0 feet (to pavement)
Rear: 20 feet West: 11 feet (to building) X
4 feet (to pavement)
Maximum 25 feet 12 feet X
Building Height
2
Minimum 120 parking spaces 82 parking spaces X
Off-Street 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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
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 (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 – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
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 September 3, 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 1.58 acres subject property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19 North
approximately 3,100 feet north of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and U.S. Highway 19 North;
2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General
(CG) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. That the subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of an adequate
number of off-street parking spaces;
4. 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;
5. That the proposal consists only of a change of use from retail sales to animal grooming and boarding
within an existing shopping center building;
6. 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;
7. That the proposed animal grooming and boarding use will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming
setbacks for the shopping center building or the off-street parking area; and
8. That the subject property is developed with a total of 82 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 decreased.
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 2-701.1 and 2-704;
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 2-704.C; and
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08024 2009-10-20
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 animal grooming and boarding within the Commercial (C) District within an existing 18,022
square foot shopping center with 82 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building height,
structure setbacks or building, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That this use (animal grooming and boarding) be limited to this tenant space only;
2. That no animal boarding take place on this parcel; and
3. That no animal confinement facilities that are open to the outside be located on this parcel.
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\US Highway 19 N 25020 Happy Pets (C)
2009.Xx - 10-20-2009 CDB - SK\Staff Report-Happy Pets.Doc
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
FLD2009-08024 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00006 2009-10-20
CDB Meeting Date: October 20, 2009
Case Number: APP2009-00006
Agenda Item: F. 1.
Appellant/Owner: Gerald Mitchell
Address: 2325 Stag Run Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: An appeal from a Level One (Tree Removal Permit) denial
decision pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-
501.A.4, that a request to remove one laurel oak tree in
conjunction with the construction of a swimming pool and deck
does not meet the removal criteria set forth in Community
Development Code Section 3-1205 B.2.a.
CURRENT ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential Low (RL)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Detached Dwelling
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING ZONING
Detached Dwelling
AND USES:
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwelling
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwelling
West: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwelling
BACKGROUND:
The 0.234-acre subject property is located on the southeast side of Stag Run Boulevard,
approximately 670 feet southwest of Wetherington Road.
On August 20, 2009, a tree removal permit application was submitted with an application for a
building construction permit (BCP2009-08296) requesting approval to remove a laurel oak tree,
Quercus laurifolia, in conjunction with the construction of a swimming pool with decking at a
detached dwelling in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
APP2009-00006 – Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00006 2009-10-20
After review of the aforementioned application, inspection of the subject tree and consultation
with other department staff, the tree removal permit was denied on August 26, 2009, based upon
the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact:
1. That the request includes the removal of a laurel oak tree, Quercus laurifolia, in conjunction
with the construction of a swimming pool with decking;
2. That the laurel oak tree is not a prohibited species;
3. That the laurel oak tree does not appear to be structurally compromised or negatively
impacted from competition with other trees;
4. That the laurel oak tree does not appear to be diseased or suffering from an insect attack;
5. That the laurel oak tree does not appear to be in danger of falling;
6. That the laurel oak tree’s proximity to existing and proposed structures would not be
problematic for the tree; and
7. That the laurel oak tree does not interfere with any existing utility services.
Conclusions of Law:
1. That pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-1205.B.2.a, the laurel oak
tree does not meet the criteria for issuance of a tree removal permit as the condition and
location of the protected tree with respect to species, tree structure, competition, disease,
insect attack, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference
with utility services does not exist; and
2. That the proposed swimming pool with decking can be constructed without the removal of
the laurel oak tree.
An appeal from the above decision was filed by the property owner on September 15, 2009,
consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.A.
It is noted that on September 17, 2009, a building construction permit for the requested
swimming pool and decking portions of the application (BCP2009-08296) was issued and
picked-up by the pool contractor, Tri-County Pools of Clearwater, Florida.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-501.A.4, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the
authority to hear appeals from denials of any permit issued under the provisions of this 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
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
APP2009-00006 – Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00006 2009-10-20
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: __________________________________________
Richard J. Albee, Land Resource Specialist
ATTACHMENTS:
??Proposed Site Plan Received August 20, 2009
??Resume
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Appeals\Stag Run 2325 (LMDR) 2009.10 - RA\Stag Run Blvd 2325 Gerald Mitchell.docx
Community Development Board – October 20, 2009
APP2009-00006 – Page 3 of 3
"
#
~ 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 October 20, 2009
October 15 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 15, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-2)
1 Case: FLD200~-08024 - 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North.
Yes)( No
2. Case: FLD200~:98025 - 490 Mandalay
Yes I' No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-5):
1. Case: T A2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances
Yes No
2. Case: CP A2009-0700 I Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Yes No
3. Case: HIS2009-0000 1 - 401 Cleveland Street
Yes )( No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\10 October 20.200911 Cover MMO 10,20,2009,doc
,
4. Case: HIS2009-00002 - 405 Cleveland Street
Yes K No
5. Case: LUZ2009-07002 - A Portion of 1980 Kings Highway
Yes No ..x
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1 ):
1. Case: APP2o.Q9-00006 - 2325 Stag Run Blvd
Yes ~ No
"
('l!___......__~_~
kHgllalul to;
/
I
I
at
AVeL.-$:1N
Date:
lojvJ~ J
/ "
f!!.1 UUJ?:..J::7
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009IJO October 20, 20091J Cover MMO JO.20.2009.doc
; 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 October 20, 2009
October 15 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 15, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-2)
1 Case: FLD2009-08024 - 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North.
Yes No)(
2. Case: FLD2009-08025 - 490 Mandalay
Yes No)(
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS atems 1-5):
1. Case: T A2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances
Yes No X
2. Case: CP A2009-0700 1 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Yes No X
,
3. Case: HIS2009-0000 1 - 401 Cleveland Street
Yes No X.
,
S'\Planning Department\C D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009110 October 20,2009\1 Cover MMO 10. 20. 2009. doc
4. Case: HIS2009-00002 - 405 Cleveland Street
Yes No X
,
5. Case: LUZ2009-07002 - A Portion of 1980 Kings Highway
Yes No X.
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1 ):
1. Case: APP2009-00006 - 2325 Stag Run Blvd
Yes No X
,
I have conducted a personal investiJ?ation on the personal site visit to the followinJ? properties.
-~..~-
Or/fA. n Bar J<.Qr
PRINT NAME
Cl.!___....___~__
.:Hl;ualUJ t;
Date:
/0/11/0l
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009110 October 20,200911 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.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 October 20, 2009
October 15 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 15, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-2)
1 Case: FLD2009-01l024 - 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North.
Yes V No
2. Case: FLD2009-1l8025 - 490 Mandalay
Yes v' No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-5):
1. Case: T A2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances
Yes Nu .....
2. Case: CPA2009-0700l Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
~ No
3. Case: HIS2009-00r 1 - 401 Cleveland Street
Yes \ No
S'IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009110 October 20,2009\1 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc
4. Case: HIS2009-0 002 - 405 Cleveland Street
Yes No
5. Case: LUZ2009-07002 - A Portion of 1980 ro{ngs Highway
Yes No 7"
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1 ):
1. Case: APP2009-00006 - 2325 Stag RU: ,4
Yes No ~
C'l:___...~~.___
'::'lgua,ul t:,
erties.
I have condu
Date:
v.v.C>....
~JD9~ ~~'L-
PRINT NAME
S:\Plannlng DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\J0 October 20,200911 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc
~ Clearwater
(j
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 October 20, 2009
October 15 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 15,2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-2)
1 Case: FLD2009-08024 - 25020 U.S. Highwa): 19 North.
Yes No V
2. Case: FLD2009-08025 - 490 Mandalay
Yes No
i
.......1
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-5):
1. Case: T A2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances
Yes No
2. Case: CPA2009-07001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Yes No
3. Case: HIS2009-00001 - 401 Cleveland Street
Yes No
S.-\Planning DeparlmentlC D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\/0 October 20.2009\/ Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc
,
4. Case: HIS2009-00002 - 405 Cleveland Street
Yes No '......'
5. Case: LUZ2009-07002 - A Portion of 1 ~O Kings Highway
Yes No ~
CONSIDERA nON OF APPEAL (Item 1 ):
1. Case: AP;~0006 - 2325 Stag Run Blvd
Yes No
I have condu
Date: I Cj , I 7 ( (;
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\10 October 20,200911 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc
~ 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 October 20, 2009
October 15 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:-
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 15,2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-2)
1 Case: FLD20091...024 - 25020 U.S. Highway 19 North.
Yes No
2. Case: FLD200t(8025 - 490 Mandalay
Yes No
,
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-5):
1. Case: T A2009-03006 Amendments to the Community Development Code and the Code of
Ordinances 1\/
Yes No ~
2. Case: CPA2009-07001 Amendments to th~.ensive Plan
Yes No,
3. Case: HIS2009-~:1 - 401 Cleveland Street
Yes No
S.Wlanning DepartmentlC D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009110 October 20,2009\1 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc
4. Case: HIS2009-00002 - 405 Cleveland ~
Yes K No
5. Case: LUZ2009-07002 -- A Portion of 19~ HIghway
Yes No
CONSIDERA nON OF APPEAL (Item 1 ):
1. Case: APP2009-00006 - 2325 Stag RptlVd
Yes No
Date: /~~f;/o/>
C'I~___.4-___~__
~lg11alul t:;
F /L#d ~
PRINT NAME
L . ~7)~f:--
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D B\Agendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\JO October 20,2009\1 Cover MMO 10.20.2009.doc