12/15/2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 15, 2009
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Absent: Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Jordan Behar Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Robert Tefft Development Review Manager
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: November17, 2009
Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of November 17, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1) – Continue to date uncertain
1. Case: DVA2008-00003 – 20 Kendall Street Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Panorama on Clearwater Beach, LLC and Evangeline P. Samarkos,
as Trustee of the Evangeline P. Samarkos Revocable Trust UAD 3/27/06, Michael A.
Samarkos and Victoria Harkey.oral Tov, Ltd.
Agent: Ed Hooper, Consus Group, LLC (P.O. Box 4268, Clearwater, FL 33758; phone:
727-458-4751; fax: 727-461-4942).
Location: 0.60 acre located between the south side of Avalon Street and the north side of
Kendall Street approximately 150 feet west of Mandalay Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Panorama on Clearwater Beach, LLC, Evangeline P. Samarkos - Trustee, Michael A.
Samarkos and Victoria Harkey (property owners) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve as per Beach by Design and Community
Development Code Section 4-606.
Community Development 2009-12-15 1
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 88 rooms (150 rooms/acre on total
site including the allocation of 58 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately
1,482 square-feet of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 72 feet (to roof deck) and
86.5 feet (to elevator equipment).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
In his December 7, 2009 memorandum, Planner III Scott Kurleman reported that the
applicant had requested that this case be continued to a date uncertain.
Member Barker moved to continue Case DVA2008-00003 to a date uncertain. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1) – Continue to January 5, 2010
1. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2009-00004 – 311 S. Gulfview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gulfview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to FLD2009-09032)
Owner/Applicant: L.O.M., Inc.
rd
Agent: Alex Azan, PE, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (14001 63 Way North,
Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 813-205-3615; email: alex@keithzayac.com).
Location: 0.99 acre located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive
approximately 200 feet south of Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between L.O.M. Inc. (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per Beach by Design
and Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services of 34,183 square-feet of floor area, a Restaurant of
6,887 square-feet of floor area and a Parking Garage of 349 parking spaces (including 48
accessory parking spaces for the Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses and 301
public parking spaces) (0.94 Floor Area Ratio) at a height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Staff requested that this case be continued to a special meeting on January 5, 2010.
Member Barker moved to continue Case DVA2009-00004 to the Special Community
Development Board meeting on January 5, 2010. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Community Development 2009-12-15 2
F. CONTINUED ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-08030 – 900 N. Osceola Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 CR 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone:
727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 5.10 acres (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged) located on the west
side of N. Osceola Avenue at the terminus of Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet
north of Seminole Street
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the Downtown (D)
District with a dockmaster building height of 17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the
provisions of Section 2-903.H.
Proposed Use: Marina.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Old Clearwater Bay
Neighborhood Association.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Member DiPolito 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 the CDB (Community Development Board) had approved Case
FLD2009-08030 on November 17, 2009, and requested staff to recommend Conditions of
Approval for board consideration.
Staff recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) That, prior to the issuance of any permits,
a vehicular access easement for emergency vehicle access to the southwest ingress/egress
area be provided for the life of the marina project and be obtained from the City of Clearwater;
2) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the final plat for PLT2004-00012 be approved by
City Council and recorded; 3) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a cross access
agreement be granted to Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1 from Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 2, to the
satisfaction of the owner of Lot 1 so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue only
and be recorded and a copy be provided to the City; 4) That, prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, all chain link fences be removed from the site; 5) That, prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, both emergency access points be gated with a knox box and signed
accordingly and only be accessed for emergency vehicles; 6) That, all pilings be removed or
completely screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-ways with landscaping as approved
by the Planning Department within one year from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 7)
That, should the pilings remain, they are made safe according to OSHA or other applicable
standards prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 8) That, prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the retaining wall on the north side be repaired to prevent any further
erosion; 9) That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all vehicular and golf cart
accesses be improved with an acceptable all weather paving material; 10) That, no fence other
than the proposed decorative wrought iron fence be installed along Osceola Avenue; 11) That,
prior to the issuance of any permits, all parking lot surfaces be redesigned to use interlocking
pavers, bricks or other similarly textured materials for parking lot accents only; 12) That, the
transition area guidelines in the Old Bay character district are complied with when a residential
Community Development 2009-12-15 3
component is proposed; 13) That, the ownership of the upland area of 3.55 acres and the
submerged area of 1.55 acres not be divided; 14) That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, there be a stipulation in all boat leases that the lease will expire 180 days after the
submission of a building permit for any residential component on the upland property or the site
will be reviewed as a mixed-use project; 15) That live aboard vessels be prohibited; 16) That
there be no fueling facilities, boat launching or dry storage of boats; 17) That the slips be limited
for private recreational boats, that there are no boat rentals, no jet ski rentals and that no
commercial boats conduct any business at the marina; 18) That covered boatlifts, roof
structures and vertical walls are not permitted; 19) That no servicing of boats or motors is
permitted other than necessary minor repairs and maintenance; 20) That the landscape be
installed per the approved landscape plan prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
21) That all signage be permitted separately and comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
22) That all fences be permitted separately and comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
23) That no additions or changes are permitted to the existing boat slips unless approved with
the necessary city, state, federal or other applicable entities; and 24) That the sanitary sewage
pump-out holding tank not be located over water.
Todd Pressman, representative for the applicant, said the applicant is willing to accept
17 conditions, disagrees with 4, and has questions regarding 3 others.
Condition of Approval, Item 1:
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Code requires applications to
identify legal primary and emergency access points. The Seminole boat ramp property is
owned by the City but has a proprietary function. Without an easement, the City has the right to
erect a fence along the subject property line. An implied easement would hinder future
development of a City facility; a corridor in perpetuity must be negotiated with the City and
Council. The Seminole Street right-of-way and plat stops at the entrance to the Seminole boat
ramp property. The City can restrict public access to City property.
Mr. Pressman said the applicant is proposing emergency vehicle egress, not pedestrian
access. He displayed aerial photographs from 1977 and 1984 showing the access point is
historical. Matt Sullivan, representing the applicant, said he could not find precedent for this
type of condition. He said the access point is adjacent to a public right-of-way and public
parking lot. He said the condition is not appropriate and cannot be satisfied. He said it puts the
project in limbo as his client does not have the power to grant an easement over property they
do not own. He said the Fire Department has a statutory right to access the subject property in
case of emergency.
In response to a question, staff said they did not have information regarding easements
approved for Antigua, the condominium/marina development previously planned for this site.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said this project proposes to provide emergency ingress from Osceola
Avenue; the parking lot needs to be reconfigured to meet emergency egress requirements.
Planning Director Michael Delk said approval of the subject easement is not a staff decision; the
City has expressed no interest in granting an easement over the Seminole dock property for
perpetuity. He said the applicants are asking the board to mitigate this requirement on their
behalf. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said if the CDB does not approve this condition, the
applicants will have to proceed at their own risk. In their November motion of approval, the CDB
Community Development 2009-12-15 4
had requested that a condition require the applicant to obtain an emergency easement on the
southern side of the property. Mr. Pressman said the easement is not necessary.
Support was expressed for the condition. It was commented that the Antigua site plan’s
north emergency easement will be required when the residential phase is constructed. It was
stated that the Antigua site plan featured the subject easement. Mr. Pressman said the Antigua
easement was for pedestrians too. It was felt that the CDB does not have the ability to settle
this issue.
Member Dame moved to exclude Condition of Approval, Item1. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, and Barker voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted
“Nay.” Motion carried.
Condition of Approval, Item 6:
Mr. Pressman said the blight reduction plan he had presented last month did not include
the removal of pilings. Development Review Manager Robert Tefft said staff had not seen the
landscape plan. It was stated that CDB had concurred with the applicant’s November proposal
to screen views of the pilings with landscaping.
Member Barker moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 6. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Condition of Approval, Item 13:
Mr. Pressman said this requirement is overbearing. Mr. Kurleman said the City’s goal is
for the site to have a residential component. Staff is concerned that residential development will
not occur if the property is divided. Ms. Grimes said the condition is consistent with the
application.
Member Barker moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 13. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Condition of Approval, Item 14:
Mr. Pressman said future options should be available to the applicant. It was stated the
condition provides boat owners the ability to move their property when the upland is developed.
Member Dame moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 14. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Condition of Approval, Item 2:
Applicant representative Mike Gaylord expressed concern that the condition not effect
critical easements for drainage. Ms. Grimes said the condition puts the applicant on notice that
they must go through the process if platting is required. Mr. Gaylord said the condition had
been met years ago. He expressed concern the condition poses a complication that could delay
the project.
Community Development 2009-12-15 5
Member Dame moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 2.as modified to read,
“That, prior to the issuance of any permits, if required, the final plat be approved by City Council
and recorded.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Condition of Approval, Item 3:
Mr. Sullivan said the applicant already has complied with Item 3 as a recorded easement
is in place. Ms. Grimes said there would be no harm in including the condition. It was noted the
applicant would be required to provide documentation.
Member DiPolito moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 3. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Condition of Approval, Item 9:
Mr. Gaylord said as an engineer, he would certify that crushed concrete would carry a 40
ton load as necessary for emergency vehicles. He said the project also plans to use crushed
concrete for the 8-foot wide golf cart path around the marina. He said the crushed concrete
would be replaced with asphalt or concrete when Phase 2 is constructed. He said he could find
no requirement indicating that crushed concrete is not an adequate surface. He said at the
DRC (Development Review Committee) meeting, the Fire and Engineering departments
expressed no concern regarding use of the material. Mr. Delk did not know if crushed concrete
had ever been used in the City.
Member DiPolito moved to include Condition of Approval, Item 9. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Dame moved that regarding Case FLD2009-08030, based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, the board
hereby adopts the Conditions of Approval as submitted by City staff except Item 1 will be
removed and Item 2 will be modified to read, “That, prior to the issuance of any permits, if
required, the final plat be approved by City Council and recorded.” The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2009-12-15 6
G. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2009-06019 – 1808 – 1820 Drew Street Level Two Application
Owner: 1808 Drew, LLC.
Applicant: Peter Marks, Manager of ECP Property Holdings, LLC.
Agent: Trevor Howard, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC (4805 Independence Pkwy, Suite
250B, Tampa, FL 33634; phone: 727-490-1784; fax: 727-490-1787; email:
trevor@howardcivilengineering.com).
Location: 0.77 acre located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane Road.
Atlas Page: 280A.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the reconstruction of an existing parking lot
serving retail sales and services and restaurant uses in the Commercial (C) District with a front
(south - Drew Street) setback of 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east - Tulane Road)
setback of 10.79 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 2.74 feet (to existing
pavement) and a side (north) setback of 6.47 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC)
Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street (south) from 15 feet
to 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74
feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape area required from 10% to 7%
of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the width of interior landscape islands from eight to
four feet (inside curbing), as a Comprehensive Landscaping Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Existing/Proposed Uses: Retail sales and services and Restaurant uses.
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15.
See page 9 for motion of approval.
2. PULLED From Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2009-09032 – 311 S. Gulfview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gulfview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to Case DVA2009-00004)
Owner/Applicant: L.O.M., Inc.
rd
Agent: Alex Azan, PE, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (14001 63 Way North,
Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 813-205-3615; email: alex@keithzayac.com).
Location: 0.99 acre located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive
approximately 200 feet south of Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 34,183
square-feet of floor area, a Restaurant of 6,887 square-feet of floor area and a Parking Garage
of 349 parking spaces (including 48 accessory parking spaces for the Retail Sales and Services
and Restaurant uses and 301 public parking spaces) with a lot area of 43,543 square-feet, a lot
width of 180 feet on S. Gulfview Blvd. (west) and 174 feet on Coronado Drive (east), a front
Community Development 2009-12-15 7
(west) setback of zero feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 1.4 feet (to building), a side
(north) setback of 0.2 feet (to building) and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk), a side (south) setback of zero
feet (to building), a building height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking deck) and 349 parking
spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; (2) a reduction to the required
foundation landscape area from five to four feet along the east side of the building and a
reduction to the required foundation landscape area from five to zero feet along the west side of
the building, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-
1202.G; and (3) Vacation of the east 35 feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard.
Proposed Uses: Retail Sales and Services of 34,183 square-feet of floor area, a Restaurant of
6,887 square-feet of floor area and a Parking Garage of 349 parking spaces (including 48
accessory parking spaces for the Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses and 301
public parking spaces) (0.94 Floor Area Ratio) at a height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15.
Member Barker moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Concern was expressed that parking requirements may be inadequate as they are
based on a traffic study conducted during a slow time at the beach. It was felt the City should
not provide spaces for building customers.
Mr. Delk said staff is comfortable with the results of the traffic study, which indicates that
most retail and restaurant patrons are coming to the beach anyway. Parking garage parking will
be for the public. The City would own the structure only if the owner defaults on the loan.
Alex Plisko, representative for the applicant, discussed how redevelopment plans for the
site had changed over time. He said the applicant is building the structure and will own it. He
said a wave wall will be constructed so that the restaurant and retail space can front Beach
Walk. He said Surf Style stores, which have significant sales, are not destinations and provide
little parking.
Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, reviewed traffic study methods, which
included 329 customer surveys.
Member Barker moved to approve Case FLD2009-09032 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2009-12-15 8
3. Case: FLD2009-10037 – 411 East Shore Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: 411 East, LLC.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 CR 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone:
727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 2.68 acres (0.39 acre upland and 2.29 acres submerged) on the east side of
East Shore Drive approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Causeway Boulevard
and East Shore Drive.
Atlas Page: 267A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval in the Tourist (T) District (1) to permit the construction
of a 4,000 square-foot, 31-slip dock as a marina facility with an increase to the maximum length
of the dock from 75 percent of the lot width (133.5 feet) to 178.65 percent of the lot width (318
feet) and reduction to the required side (south) setback from 17.8 feet to 10.6 feet, as
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code (CDC) Sections 2-803.C, 3-601 and 3-603; and (2) to permit a parking lot with a lot area
of 17,061 square-feet (upland), a lot width of 175 feet, a building height of 11.5 feet (to midpoint
of roof), a front (west) setback of 8.22 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to structure), a side
(north) setback of five feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of five feet (to pavement) and
10 feet (to building) a rear setback of 565 feet (to pavement from the submerged property line)
and 16 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions
of CDC Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Marina and Parking Lot.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2009-06019 and FLD2009-10037 on
today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application(s) and the
Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the
Staff Report(s), with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
H. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-10038 – 27001 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application
Owner: Bellwether Property FL, C/O Westfield Property.
Agent: Clay Montgomery, Atomic Tattoos (9041 Ulmerton Road, Largo, FL 33771; phone:
727-518-7189; fax: 727-518-7803; email: clay@atomictattoos.com).
Location: Tennant space 1073 of the Westfield Shopping Center located at the northeast
corner of US Highway 19 North and Countryside Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 221B.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use (tattoo parlor) in the
Commercial (C) District within an existing shopping center and no changes to the building
height, structure setbacks, parking or building, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.M.
Proposed Use: Problematic Use (Tattoo Parlor).
Community Development 2009-12-15 9
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15.
Member Dame moved to accept Matthew Jackson as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner II Matthew Jackson said this item was removed from the Consent Agenda after
staff received two letters of opposition. It was felt that staff had done its due diligence regarding
this application.
Member DiPolito moved to approve Case FLD2009-10038 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.
I. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:49 p.m.
~
~
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 2009-12-15
10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
CDB Meeting Date: December 15, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-06019
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owners: 1808 Drew, LLC
Applicant: Peter Marks, Manager of ECP Property Holdings, LLC
Representative: Trevor Howard, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC
Address: 1808 – 1820 Drew Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the reconstruction of an
existing parking lot serving retail sales and services and restaurant
uses in the Commercial (C) District with a front (south - Drew
Street) setback of 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east -
Tulane Road) setback of 10.79 feet (to existing pavement), a side
(west) setback of 2.74 feet (to existing pavement) and a side
(north) setback of 6.47 feet (to existing pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions
of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, and a
reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street (south) from
15 feet to 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the
perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74 feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape area required from
10% to 7% of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the width of
interior landscape islands from eight to four feet (inside curbing),
as a Comprehensive Landscaping Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail sales, Restaurant and Storage uses
Proposed Use: Retail sales, Restaurant and Storage uses
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District Attached dwellings
SURROUNDING South: Commercial (C) District Automobile repair and Retail
ZONING AND USES: sales
East: Commercial (C) District Retail sales and Offices
West: Commercial (C) District Retail sales
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.77 acres is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane Road. The subject
property is currently developed with two commercial buildings. The southern building is
designed for multiple tenants for retail sales and restaurant uses with a total floor area of 7,924
square feet. The northern building is a 2,750 square-foot, 10-garage door building for storage
uses. The site has 200 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 198 feet of frontage along Tulane
Road.
Properties adjacent to the north and west are zoned Commercial District, as well as the properties
across Drew Street and Tulane Road. The property directly to the north is developed with
attached dwellings (ownership of this parcel is by another entity controlled by the applicant for
the subject application). The property to the east across Tulane Road is developed with retail
and office uses (ownership of this parcel is also by another entity controlled by the applicant for
the subject application). The properties to the west are developed with retail sales uses.
Properties across Drew Street are developed with an automobile repair facility and retail sales
uses.
Development Proposal:
When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a strip
of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain, making the
parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional. It is the applicant’s proposal to redesign the
parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. The proposal
retains the driveways in their present locations; however, parking spaces have been reoriented in
their location and design. There are no proposed changes or expansions to the two existing
buildings. The advertised request has been confined to the proposed, modified parking lot south
of the main commercial building.
Besides making the parking lot functional, providing adequate parking for the existing and
proposed uses is paramount with this application. There are 32 existing parking spaces, with at
least 10 of those existing spaces nonfunctional due to inadequate drive aisle/backup area closest
to Drew Street. The proposal includes increasing provided parking to 37 spaces meeting Code
design standards. Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 45 parking spaces is required for
the existing or proposed uses (retail sales, restaurant and storage uses). A Parking Reduction
Study has been submitted, which concludes adequate parking will be provided under this
proposal.
In order provide a functional parking lot with the maximum number of parking spaces possible
designed to meet Code design standards, reductions to setback and landscape requirements are
required and requested. Pavement today exists to the Drew Street property line with no
landscaping to buffer the parking lot. The proposal provides sufficient setback and landscape
area along Drew Street to provide at least a continuous viburnum and holly hedge enhanced with
crape myrtle trees and juniper groundcover. The western portion of the site along Drew Street
meets the required perimeter buffer depth of 15 feet. The proposal provides the required
perimeter buffer along Tulane Road.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 2 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
Two design features of this proposal are important to its success. First, the applicant proposes to
place underground the existing overhead utility lines along Tulane Road. This makes a
significant visual improvement, not only for the subject property but for the parcels to the north
and east. Second, by placing these utilities underground, the construction of a Code compliant
dumpster enclosure on the attached dwelling parcel adjacently north serving both the commercial
tenants on the subject property and the residential tenants of the attached dwellings is made
possible. The placement of these utilities underground also allows the installation of shade trees
along Tulane Road that otherwise would not be possible.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55.
There presently exists a total floor area of 7,924 square feet (no expansion proposed) for a FAR
of 0.237, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable
I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall existing ISR is 0.86 and, after construction of the improvements, the
proposed ISR is 0.84, consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum lot area for retail
sales and restaurant uses can range between 3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The existing site is
33,420 square feet of lot area, which exceeds these Code provisions. Pursuant to this same
Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and restaurant uses can range between 35 – 100
feet. The site has 200 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 198 feet of frontage along Tulane
Road, which exceeds these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum front setback for retail sales
and restaurant uses can range between 15 – 25 feet (along Drew Street and Tulane Road), while
the minimum side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet (structures on corner lots must meet
front setbacks along rights-of-way and meet side setbacks adjacent to the other property lines).
The proposal includes reductions to the front (south - Drew Street) setback to 3.11 feet (to
existing pavement), to the front (east - Tulane Road) setback to 10.79 feet (to existing
pavement), to the side (west) setback to 2.74 feet (to existing pavement) and to the side (north)
setback to 6.47 feet (to existing pavement). It is noted that the northern building is a multi-use
storage building, which is not a use generally permitted in the Commercial (C) District, but
exists as a nonconforming use. There are no proposed changes to the location of this northern
building (setbacks) or how it is used.
When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a strip
of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain, making the
parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional. It is the applicant’s proposal to redesign the
parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. The proposal
retains the driveways in their present locations; however, parking spaces have been reoriented in
their location and design. The northern edge of the parking row adjacent to the building is not
changing in its location but is being redesigned from angled parking to a 90-degree orientation.
Parking spaces south of the main east/west drive aisle have been reoriented to face east and west.
The existing pavement setback for the parking spaces on the west side, presently located two-feet
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 3 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
from the west property line, is being increased to a 2.74-foot setback. Moving eastward, the
parking lot has been designed to meet the design standards of CDC Section 3-1402. The
proposed pavement setback adjacent to Tulane Road is proposed to be increased to 10.79 feet,
providing compliance with the landscape buffer requirement along Tulane Road. The setback to
pavement for the parking lot adjacent to Drew Street is being increased from the existing one-
foot to at least 3.11 feet. This proposed 3.11-foot setback is measured to the back out flair area
of the drive aisles, whereas the setback to the parking spaces is actually a minimum of six feet to
the south property line. The proposed setback is the minimum necessary to make the parking lot
functional, providing the maximum number of parking spaces necessary for the uses of the site,
where the proposal is not providing for a total redevelopment of all site improvements (including
new buildings). The proposed 3.11-foot setback will provide sufficient area to allow the
installation of a continuous hedge with accent trees to screen/buffer the views of the parking lot,
while still providing for a functional parking lot for the businesses on the subject property.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for
retail sales uses can range between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for
restaurants can range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Since storage uses are not a
permitted use in the Commercial District, the proposal uses the storage parking requirement of
1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet under the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District for
parking calculations. CDC Section 3-1405 requires two or more uses to calculate parking based
on a Shared Parking basis. When taking all three uses into account for this site and the Shared
Parking calculation, the required parking totals 45 parking spaces. The proposal includes 37
parking spaces. The proposal includes a reduction to required parking from 45 to 37 spaces. A
Parking Reduction Study (Study) has been submitted as part of the application material, which
has analyzed the parking demand against the proposed parking supply. Four parking spaces are
required for the storage uses at the northern end of the property. This storage building (10
overhead doors) appears to operate more like a self-storage facility where “tenants” park in front
of their unit when visiting the site. This storage building is accessed separately by their own
driveway on Tulane Road. The Study argues that the four spaces for the storage use actually
occurs within their drive access in front of their building and that the “tenants” do not park in the
parking lot being redeveloped, thereby reducing the demand for parking in the parking lot from
45 to 41 spaces, or a deficiency of only four spaces (37 spaces provided). Staff agrees with this
argument. The Study provides the required parking for the restaurant at 15 spaces per 1,000
square feet. Based on the use characteristics of the existing retail uses of the property, the Study
indicates a parking ratio of 3.21 spaces for the retail floor area is adequate. It is noted that the
restaurant floor area is proposed at 1,750 square feet, which is not a large restaurant. Staff agrees
with the conclusions of the Study. Reality is that the restaurant will most likely not operate at its
full capacity all day long and there will be adequate parking for the retail customers.
Driveways for this property will remain basically in the same location as they exist today. The
driveway on Drew Street and the northern driveway to the storage building on Tulane Road are
not being modified. The southern driveway on Tulane Road is being redesigned to meet City
standards. The existing sidewalk along the Drew Street site frontage is not proposed to be
modified. Tulane Road is a narrow right-of-way that does not provide any ability to construct a
sidewalk within the right-of-way and it dead ends at the attached dwellings parcel directly north
of the subject property. No sidewalk is proposed along Tulane Road.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 4 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Drew Street and Tulane Road, and the street intersection of Drew
Street/Tulane Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a
level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and
been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to
be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. There exist overhead utility lines along the west side of
Tulane Road. The proposal includes the undergrounding of these overhead utilities for aesthetic
purposes and to allow for the placement of a Code compliant dumpster enclosure directly north
of the subject property. Undergrounding these existing overhead utilities will significantly
improve not only the subject property but other adjacent properties and will provide for the
placement of shade trees on the east side of the existing building.
Landscaping: The purpose of this proposal is to redesign the parking lot to make the parking
functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. As such, Staff has confined this review to
primarily the Code requirements as it relates to the parking area. In addition to the discussion
herein regarding landscaping, see also the discussion above regarding minimum setbacks and
minimum off-street parking, as they are all interrelated. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, a
15-foot perimeter buffer is required along Drew Street and a 10-foot perimeter buffer is required
along Tulane Road. A five-foot perimeter buffer is required along the west and north portions of
the main parking lot. This proposal includes, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, a
reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street from 15 feet to 3.11 feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
interior landscape area required from 10% to 7% of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the
width of interior landscape islands from eight to four feet (inside curbing).
Based on the purpose of this proposal, it is Staff’s determination that landscaping improvements
are being achieved to the maximum extent possible. While the Code requirements for setbacks,
parking and landscaping are not being fully met, the proposal does provide a functional parking
lot that includes the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The perimeter buffer along
Drew Street is being met at least on both sides of the driveway and the required perimeter buffer
along Tulane Road is being provided. Otherwise, an adequate perimeter buffer is being provided
along Drew Street to adequately screen the parking lot. The applicant has provided the
maximum amount of interior landscape area possible with this proposal, given the site and Code
restraints. The width of the landscape islands is not optimal, but is workable given the design
constraints of the property. This proposal represents a significant improvement to the visual
appearance of this site with the landscaping proposed. The site will be planted with live oak,
little gem magnolia and crape myrtle trees, shrubs (Walter viburnum and dwarf yaupon holly) and
parson’s juniper ground cover.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 5 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
Solid Waste: The applicant proposes to construct a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the
parcel directly north of the subject property for use by the commercial tenants of the subject
property and the tenants of the attached dwellings of the parcel where the dumpster is proposed.
While this parcel to the north is owned by a different entity, it is controlled by the applicant for
this request. This represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions. Placement
of this dumpster enclosure is contingent upon the undergrounding of the existing overhead
utilities. Construction of the dumpster enclosure will need to occur prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for this project. An appropriate easement, agreement and/or
covenants/restrictions acceptable to the Solid Waste Department will also need to be recorded in
the public records prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion. The exterior of the trash
enclosure (material and color) will need to be acceptable to the Planning and Development
Department. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Signage: There exists a freestanding sign in the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of
Drew Street and Tulane Road. The proposal removes this existing freestanding sign and
includes a new freestanding sign in the southwest corner of the site. A Comprehensive Sign
Program (CSP2009-00013) was approved for this site November 4, 2009, for the one
freestanding sign and seven attached signs. A sign permit (SGN2009-11005) was issued
November 20, 2009, for the installation of the attached signage.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Enforcement case at 1810 Drew Street,
where the business must obtain a Business Tax Receipt (BIZ2009-01235). This Code
Enforcement case does not affect a decision on this application.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.55 7,924 square feet (FAR of X
0.237)
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.84 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Retail sales: 3,500 – 10,000 sf 33,420 sq. ft. X
Restaurant: 3,500 – 10,000 sf
Storage: N/A 1
Minimum Lot Width Retail sales: 35 – 100 feet Drew Street: 200 feet X
Restaurant: 35 – 100 feet Tulane Road: 198 feet
Storage: N/A 1
Minimum Setbacks Front: Retail sales: 15 – 25 Drew Street: 3.11 feet (to X 2
feet existing pavement)
Restaurant: 15 – 25 Tulane Road: 10.79 feet (to
feet existing pavement)
1
Storage: N/A
Side: Retail sales: 0 – 10 feet West: 2.74 feet (to existing X 2
Restaurant: 0 – 10 feet pavement)
1
Storage: N/A North: 6.47 feet (to existing
pavement)
Minimum Retail Sales: 4 – 5 spaces per 37 total parking spaces (45 X 2
Off-Street Parking 1,000 square feet spaces required per Shared
4
Parking calculation)
Restaurant: 7 – 15 spaces per
1,000 square feet
Storage: 1.5 spaces per 1,000
3
square feet
1 Storage is not a use permitted in the Commercial District and the existing use is a nonconforming use
2 See analysis in Staff Report
3 Parking requirement based on storage use in the IRT District (comparative purposes)
4 Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
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 1
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 1
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
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1
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 1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of July 2, September 3 and November 5, 2009, and deemed the development
proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),
based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 0.77 acres is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane Road;
2.The subject property is currently developed with two commercial buildings. The southern
building is designed for multiple tenants for retail sales and restaurant uses with a total floor
area of 7,924 square feet. The northern building is a 2,750 square-foot, 10-garage door
building for storage uses;
3.When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a
strip of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain,
making the parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional;
4.The proposal redesigns the parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and
restaurant uses, while providing adequate parking for these existing and proposed uses;
5.The proposal includes increasing provided parking to 37 spaces meeting Code design
standards, with the submitted Parking Reduction Study concluding that adequate parking will
be provided;
6.The proposal includes reductions to setback and landscape requirements;
7.The proposal includes the placement underground of the existing overhead utility lines along
Tulane Road;
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
8.The proposal includes the construction of a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the
attached dwelling parcel adjacently north serving both the commercial tenants on the subject
property and the residential tenants of the attached dwellings; and
9.The active Code Enforcement issue associated with this subject property does not affect the
development proposal.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit the reconstruction of an existing parking lot
serving retail sales and services and restaurant uses in the Commercial (C) District with a front
(south - Drew Street) setback of 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east - Tulane Road)
setback of 10.79 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 2.74 feet (to existing
pavement) and a side (north) setback of 6.47 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC)
Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street (south) from 15 feet
to 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74
feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape area required from 10% to 7%
of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the width of interior landscape islands from eight to
four feet (inside curbing), as a Comprehensive Landscaping Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declarations of Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records tying the two parcels together.In addition, prior to the issuance of any permit,
the owner shall request the two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas
County Property Appraiser’s Office;
2.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, existing overhead utility lines
along Tulane Road be undergrounded;
3.That construction of the dumpster enclosure on the parcel to the north of the subject property
be contingent on the following:
a.The undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines along Tulane Road;
b.Consent by the property owner of the parcel to the north to placement of such
dumpster enclosure on such property, as evidenced through a recorded agreement,
easement or other form acceptable to the City;
c.Obtaining a separate building permit for such construction, with completion of
this dumpster enclosure prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for
the parking lot improvements; and
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-06019 2009-12-15
d.The exterior material and color of the dumpster enclosure be acceptable to the
Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of the building
permit for such construction;
4.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the landscape plan be corrected for the number of
plant materials to be installed; and
5.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering and Traffic Engineering Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Drew 1808-1820 Parking Lot (C) 2009.xx - 12.15.09 CDB -
WW\Drew 1808-1820 Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 – Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
CDB Meeting Date: December 15, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-09032 (Related to DVA2009-00004)
Agenda Item: D.4. (Related to E.2.)
Owners/Applicant: L.O.M., Inc.
Representative: Alex Azan, PE, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc.
Address: 311 S. Gulfview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S. Gulfview
Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and
Services of 34,183 square feet of floor area, a Restaurant of 6,887
square feet of floor area and a Parking Garage of 349 parking
spaces (including 48 accessory parking spaces for the Retail Sales
and Services and Restaurant uses and 301 public parking spaces)
with a lot area of 43,543 square feet, a lot width of 180 feet on S.
Gulfview Blvd. (west) and 174 feet on Coronado Drive (east), a
front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), a front (east) setback
of 1.4 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 0.2 feet (to
building) and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk), a side (south) setback of zero
feet (to building), a building height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking
deck) and 349 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; (2) a reduction to the
required foundation landscape area from five to four feet along the
east side of the building and a reduction to the required foundation
landscape area from five to zero feet along the west side of the
building, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G; and (3) Vacation of the east
35 feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:Beach Walk
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail Sales and Services of 7,128 square feet of
floor area and a Restaurant of 6,058 square feet of
floor area
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services of 34,183 square feet of
floor area, a Restaurant of 6,887 square feet of floor
area and a Parking Garage of 349 parking spaces
(including 48 accessory parking spaces for the
Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses and
301 public parking spaces) (0.94 Floor Area Ratio)
at a height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking deck)
EXISTING North:Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING Mixed Use (Overnight accommodations and Attached
ZONING AND USES: dwellings) and Parking Garage
South:Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations
East: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations and Retail sales
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Clearwater Beach
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.99 acres is located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive approximately
200 feet south of Third Street. The main portion of the subject property (311 S. Gulfview
Boulevard [including 305, 309 and 315 S. Gulfview Boulevard]) is currently developed with a
retail sales use of 7,128 square feet of floor area (Surf Style) and a restaurant of 6,058 square feet
of floor area (Britt’s). The other portion of the subject property (320 Coronado Drive) is
developed with a detached dwelling.
The Aqualea/Hyatt mixed-use project (250 overnight accommodation units, 18 attached
dwellings and a parking garage for 400 parking spaces open to the public) is located directly
north of the subject property. Across Coronado Drive to the east is an existing 46-room motel
and 138-seat restaurant that is intended to be redeveloped into a 142-unit overnight
accommodation use (approved by the CDB on November 17, 2009 – 300 Hamden Drive,
FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002). Also across Coronado Drive are other accommodation and
commercial uses. Directly south of the subject property are overnight accommodation uses.
Beach Walk and Clearwater Beach are to the west of the subject property.
Development Proposal:
The City has been desirous of constructing additional parking to meet the needs of visitors to the
beach. City Council looked at various proposals/sites and decided to negotiate with this
applicant for the construction of parking open to the public on the subject property. This
proposal will be constructed by the developer at their cost. The proposal is to construct retail
sales uses of 34,183 square feet of floor area, a restaurant use of 6,887 square feet of floor area
and a parking garage of a total of 349 parking spaces (which includes 48 accessory parking
spaces for the retail sales and restaurant uses and 301 public parking spaces). This proposal
represents an increase of 27,055 square feet of retail sales floor area (a 379% increase) and an
increase of 829 square feet of restaurant floor area (a 13.7% increase). The total floor area of
41,070 square feet is almost an acre of commercial floor area (0.94 Floor Area Ratio). With this
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 2 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
increase in floor area, the applicant proposes to increase the number of parking spaces for
customers and employees from 27 (existing) to 48 (proposed) spaces, or a 77.8% increase. The
proposal includes the provision of 301 parking spaces open to the public (for a fee). Based on
the ranges of the required parking for retail sales and restaurant uses in the Tourist District and a
shared use calculation in Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-1405, required
parking for this development ranges from a high of 243 spaces and a low of 160 spaces. The
proposal includes a parking reduction from the required high of 243 spaces to 48 spaces. The
applicant has prepared a Parking Reduction Study analyzing this proposal, a discussion which is
contained later in this Staff Report under “Minimum Off-Street Parking”.
The proposal anticipates the vacation of 35 feet of the existing S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-
way. It is noted that the subject property extends 10 feet farther east than the Aqualea/Hyatt
project, as the Aqualea/Hyatt project dedicated 10 feet for additional Coronado Drive right-of-
way. The ground and mezzanine levels of this proposed building (comprising the retail sales and
restaurant uses) will be located approximately at the same location as the Aqualea/Hyatt project.
The parking garage is located on the second through the sixth levels. However, the upper levels
ndth
(2 through 5) on the east side of the building (the parking garage portion) will project
approximately nine feet eastward toward the Coronado Drive travel lanes. This cantilevered
portion of the building will be located 1.4 feet from the east property line and will be a
noticeable projection to motorists and pedestrians on Coronado Drive.
It is also noted that the proposal with the retail sales and restaurant uses on the ground level is
contingent upon the approval by FEMA of a Flood Zone map change from a VE-Zone to an AE-
Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a wave dissipating wall within the S. Gulfview
Boulevard right-of-way (preliminary approval of such wall has been given by FEMA), which
must be constructed and given final approval by FEMA prior to the issuance of any building
permit for the building. There is a separate Development Agreement between the developers and
the City providing for such wave dissipating wall and a building permit for its construction has
already been submitted to the City.
While this proposal is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project request,
the proposal (from a comparative standpoint to the minimum setbacks for the proposed uses in
the Tourist District) in essence includes setback reductions to various structures around the
perimeter of the proposed parcel. The building is proposed with a front (west) setback of zero
feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 1.4 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 0.2 feet
(to building) and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk) and a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building). It is
noted that the proposed building almost completely fills the subject property. Although the
advertised north side setback is 0.2 feet (to building), this setback only occurs at a jog in the
property line (approximately midpoint of the site). The ground and mezzanine levels on the
western “half” of the property are actually setback between 6.55 and 9.44 feet from the north
property line. The second through sixth levels on this western “half” step back an additional
approximate 12 feet to the parking garage levels. This is important to note as this gives building
separation between the Aqualea/Hyatt building and this proposed building, since there are
attached dwellings in the western portion of the Aqualea/Hyatt building adjacent to the parking
garage portions of this proposed building. On the eastern “half” of the northern portion of the
site, the face of the retail floor area and parking garage is approximately three to four feet from
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
the north property line (building columns are closer). Likewise, the proposal was advertised with
a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), which only occurs at a similar jog in the property
line (approximately midpoint of the site). The ground and mezzanine levels on the western
“half” of the property are actually setback 1.41 feet at the southwest corner of the site. The
second through sixth levels on this western “half” step back approximately 33 feet to the parking
garage levels. On the eastern “half” of the southern portion of the site, the building face of the
ramp to the parking garage is approximately three feet from the south property line. There is an
approximate 40-foot setback from the south property line to the stairwell at the southeast corner
of the building, with the face of the parking garage levels set back an additional five feet (or a
total of 45 feet). The proposed setbacks are similar, but greater than that approved/constructed
for the Aqualea/Hyatt project to the north.
The proposed building is 59.5 feet to the highest parking deck (west side). The Aqualea/Hyatt
and Kiran Grande projects north of the subject property were approved with a 150-foot building
height (Aqualea/Hyatt project is constructed). Although the properties across Coronado Drive to
the east are all currently one story in height, a hotel at a height of 74.33 feet was approved by the
CDB last month on a portion of the property across Coronado Drive. The hotel directly south of
the subject property is approximately 45 feet in height, but any future redevelopment project for
that property could be expected to request a building height of potentially 150 feet. The exterior
base and body colors of the building will be primarily Bay Coral and Pink Bauble. Wall accents
will be Skyrocket Red at the base and Peach Puff and Vanilla Cream trim. Standing seam metal
hip roofs are proposed over the stair towers with a Skyrocket Red color.
Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00004) that must
be approved by City Council, which provides for specific parameters of the project, the project
financing, the project approval and commencement of construction timing provisions and other
design considerations.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-
801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The
proposal is for a total of 41,070 square feet of floor area (retail sales of 34,183 square feet and
restaurant of 6,887 square feet) at a FAR of 0.94, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.94, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for retail
sales and restaurant uses can range between 5,000 – 10,000 square feet, while parking garages
require at least 20,000 square feet. The overall proposed site is 43,543 square feet of lot area,
including that portion of S. Gulfview Boulevard to be vacated. Pursuant to the same Table, the
minimum lot width for retail sales and restaurant uses can range between 50 – 100 feet, while
parking garages require at least 100 feet. The lot width along S. Gulfview Boulevard is
approximately 180 feet and the lot width along Coronado Drive is approximately 174 feet. The
proposal exceeds these Code provisions.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for retail sales
and restaurants uses can range between 0 – 15 feet (this site must meet front setbacks along S.
Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive, since the subject property fronts on both rights-of-
way), while the minimum front setback for parking garages can range between 15 – 25 feet. The
minimum side setback for retail sales and restaurants uses can range between 0 – 10 feet, while
the minimum side setback for parking garages is 10 feet. This application is being processed as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project where there are no required setbacks. However,
from a comparative standpoint to the above minimum setbacks, the proposal in essence includes
setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the proposed parcel. The
building is proposed with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), a front (east) setback
of 1.4 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 0.2 feet (to building) and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk)
and a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building). On the west side, the proposed building will
be similar in its location as the Aqualea/Hyatt project to the north, except there is a terrace
portion of the Aqualea/Hyatt building farther westward within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-
of-way (permitted within an easement). It is noted that the subject property extends 10 feet
farther east than the Aqualea/Hyatt property, as the Aqualea/Hyatt project dedicated 10 feet for
additional Coronado Drive right-of-way. The ground and mezzanine levels of this proposed
building will be located approximately at the same location as the Aqualea/Hyatt project.
ndth
However, the upper levels (2 through 5) of the building (the parking garage portion) will
project approximately nine feet eastward toward the Coronado Drive travel lanes. This
cantilevered portion of the building will be located 1.4 feet from the east property line and will
be a noticeable projection to motorists and pedestrians on Coronado Drive.
It is noted that the proposed building almost completely fills the subject property. The proposal
was advertised with a side (north) setback of 0.2 feet (to building). This building setback occurs
at a jog in the property line (approximately midpoint of the site). The ground and mezzanine
levels on the western “half” of the property are actually setback 6.55 feet at the northwest corner
of the site, and due to a slight angle between the property line and building location,
approximately 9.44 feet at the stairwell. The second through sixth levels on this western “half”
step back an additional approximate 12 feet to the parking garage levels. This is important to
note as this gives building separation between the Aqualea/Hyatt building and this proposed
building, since there are attached dwellings in the western portion of the Aqualea/Hyatt building
adjacent to the parking garage portions of this proposed building. A required egress sidewalk
from the northern stairwell to the Beach Walk area west of the property is located at its closest
point 0.9 feet to the north property line. On the eastern “half” of the site, the face of the retail
floor area and parking garage is approximately three to four feet from the north property line.
Building columns are at a 1.96 and 2.86-foot north setback. The proposal was advertised with a
side (south) setback of zero feet (to building). This building setback occurs at a similar jog in the
property line (approximately midpoint of the site). The ground and mezzanine levels on the
western “half” of the property are actually setback 1.41 feet at the southwest corner of the site.
The second through sixth levels on this western “half” step back approximately 33 feet to the
parking garage levels. On the eastern “half” of the site, the building face of the ramp to the
parking garage is approximately three feet from the south property line. There is an approximate
40-foot setback from the south property line to the stairwell at the southeast corner of the
building, with the face of the parking garage levels set back an additional five feet (or a total of
45 feet).
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for
retail sales uses can range between 35 – 100 feet, restaurant uses can range between 25 – 100
feet and parking garages can be 50 feet. The proposed building is 59.5 feet to the highest
parking deck. The Aqualea/Hyatt mixed-use project directly north of the subject property was
approved with a 150-foot building height (Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and FLD2004-07052). The
Kiran Grande project to the north of the Aqualea/Hyatt project at 100 Coronado Drive was also
approved with a 150-foot building height. The properties across Coronado Drive to the east are all
currently one story in height. However, portions of the properties across Coronado Drive were
approved by the CDB on November 17, 2009 for an overnight accommodation use at a height of
74.33 feet (from BFE to flat roof) (Case No. FLD2009-08026, 300 Hamden Drive [including 301,
305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and a portion of 316 Hamden Drive]). The overnight
accommodation use directly south of the subject property is approximately 45 feet in height (from
base flood elevation to the top of the flat roof). On the other hand, any future redevelopment
project for that property could be expected to request a building height of potentially 150 feet.
Given this property’s location and the surrounding existing and proposed building heights, the
proposed height is lower than what could have been requested and is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for
retail sales uses can range between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for
restaurants can range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. When there are two or more
uses proposed on the same property or in the same building, CDC Section 3-1405 requires
parking to be determined using a shared use calculation. The shared use calculation indicates
that a high (based on the top number in the range of the uses) requirement is 243 parking spaces,
and the low (based on the bottom number in the range of the uses) requirement is 160 parking
spaces. The proposal includes a parking reduction from the required 243 spaces to 48 spaces.
The applicant has prepared a Parking Reduction Study (Study) analyzing this proposal. The
premise of this proposal is that a majority of the business customers, both at the retail sales and
the restaurant portions of the commercial area, are “captured” from those already visiting the
beach and did not drive to this property specifically to shop or dine at these establishments. The
applicant surveyed customers of their four businesses on Clearwater Beach and found that only
11% specifically made the trip to come to Surf Style/Britts, with 66% primarily going to the
beach and 23% for other reasons. Of the 329 respondents to the survey, 62% drove a car to the
beach that day, while 34% were staying at local hotels on the beach and 4% took other modes of
transportation to the beach. The study also found that only 11% of the respondents parked on-
site at Surf Style/Britts. Otherwise, of those that had access to a car requiring a parking space,
38% parked in a public parking lot and 51% either parked in on-street spaces or at their hotel or
condo. Based on the 11% specifically driving to the site to go to Surf Style/Britts and the range
of required parking based on the shared use calculation of 160 – 243 spaces, a range of parking
spaces needed to meet the demand for customer parking is 18 – 27 spaces. The applicant
projects the retail sales business and the restaurant to have a maximum of 27 employees on the
largest shift. The Study anticipates only 80% of these employees will drive a vehicle to work (or
a need for 22 parking spaces). When the customer and employee parking demands are added,
this produces a requirement for parking of 40 – 49 parking spaces. The design of this project
includes a designated, separate employee parking area of 24 spaces on the second level that is
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
gated. Customer parking for the Surf Style/Britts is proposed on the second level. The balance
of the provided parking is proposed to be open to the public (for a fee). The provided parking
appears adequate for employees and customers. This “captured” premise of customers is borne
out in the design of the proposed building. The ground floor of the building has been designed
with a “beach walk through” corridor from the building entry on Coronado Drive to the building
entry on S. Gulfview Drive. Persons that walk through the building or that park in the parking
garage will need to walk through the retail sales portion of the building to get out of the building
to go to the beach or other businesses on the beach, or to get back to their car, thus being
“captured” by the retail sales area. Persons desiring to park in the parking garage will need to
use the elevators located in the eastern portion of the building. There will be pay stations located
on the ground floor of the building adjacent to the elevators where customers may pay their fee
and receive a ticket to get out of the parking garage.
This proposal takes sole driveway access on Coronado Drive at the southeast corner of the
property with one lane entering and one lane exiting the parking garage. The existing driveway
access for this property on S. Gulfview Boulevard was removed as part of the Beach Walk
construction. Existing driveways on Coronado Drive will be removed. The proposal includes a
deceleration lane on Coronado Drive similar to that constructed with the Aqualea/Hyatt project
to the north. The entrance and exit to the Aqualea/Hyatt project is directly north of the subject
property. This proposal includes a bulb-out at the northeast corner so that there is a separation of
traffic between the Aqualea/Hyatt project and this project. The proposal includes a loading area
for deliveries due north of this project’s driveway access. A seven-foot wide sidewalk will be
constructed for the site frontage along Coronado Drive. A portion of the deceleration lane and
the public sidewalk is located on the subject property and will require the recording of an
easement for such prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Even if
there is a Flood Zone map change approved, all mechanical equipment must be located above the
Base Flood Elevation. The proposal locates exterior mechanical equipment on the roof of the
second level north of the parking garage or on the second level in the northeast corner of the
parking garage. The parapets surrounding the roof and the railing of the parking garage may be
sufficient to screen the mechanical equipment. This will be reviewed at time of the building
permit submission. Access to the second floor roof for maintenance of these rooftop units will
be from the northern stairwell.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveway on Coronado Drive, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering
Department and been found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development will
be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. It is unknown of the
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
location of proposed electric panels, boxes and meters for this development. If located exterior
to the building, to ensure views are minimized, this electrical equipment should be painted the
same color as the building. The location and potential views of such electrical equipment will be
addressed at the building permit stage.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal includes a reduction to the required
foundation landscape area from five to zero feet along the west side of the building (S. Gulfview
Boulevard) and a reduction to the required foundation landscape area from five to four feet along
the east side of the building (Coronado Drive). The proposed building has been designed at a
zero-foot front setback to the proposed new property line on S. Gulfview Boulevard (after vacation
of a 35-foot portion of the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way), thereby eliminating the ability to
provide the required foundation landscape area on the subject property. The applicant is, however,
proposing a five-foot wide landscape area within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way (that
portion not being vacated), which will require a Right-Of-Way Permit, essentially providing the
required foundation landscaping albeit in the City’s right-of-way. This landscape area will be
planted with Indian hawthorn shrubs, dune sunflower groundcover and cabbage palm trees. Along
Coronado Drive, the foundation landscape area is proposed between the public sidewalk and the
building. The public sidewalk and a portion of the deceleration lane are on the subject property.
This eastern foundation landscape area is also located under the cantilevered portion of the
building, with an approximate 24-foot vertical growth area. This landscape area will be planted
with purple lantana groundcover, bird of paradise and crape myrtle trees. Otherwise, there is very
little area on-site for significant, visible landscaping. There is landscaping (viburnum hedge with
cabbage palm trees) along the south property line, a small landscape area on the north side of the
access ramp to the parking garage and cabbage palms on the north side of the building. The area
on the north side of the building is limited in its size and ability for landscaping, as it is a narrow
area between the Aqualea/Hyatt building and this proposed building that will not receive much
sunlight.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize roll out dumpsters for trash removal. Dumpsters will be
located within the truck loading area behind metal screening doors. On trash days, the dumpsters
will be staged in front of the truck loading area. Should the number of dumpsters be inadequate
to handle the trash demand of the retail sales and restaurant uses, or should the storage area for
the dumpsters be of inadequate size, any additional dumpsters will need to be located within a
properly screened area acceptable to the City to avoid unsightly views. The proposal has been
found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign. There is insufficient area for any
freestanding sign. This site, much like the Aqualea/Hyatt project to the north, will utilize
attached signage for the retail sales and restaurant uses and for the parking garage. Most likely,
proposed signage will need to be addressed through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in
accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2-803.I.3.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of
greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building
dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 8 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
footprint is approximately 34,327 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions
are approximately 170 feet along S. Gulfview Boulevard, 128 feet along Coronado Drive and
240 feet along the north and south sides of the building, while the vertical plane is approximately
67 feet from ground level to the top of the building parapet. Except for the north and south
building dimensions, no other dimensions are equal; thus the proposal complies with this
provision.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. All façades of the building have been designed in
compliance with this requirement, with the largest linear dimension of approximately 99 feet
along the eastern portion of the north facade. All other portions of the building façade are
modulated with at least a five-foot deviation, whether along the street frontages or on the north
or south sides of the building.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated the west elevation along S. Gulfview
Boulevard at 63 percent, the east elevation along Coronado Drive at 51 percent, the north
elevation at 46 percent and the south elevation at 48 percent. The applicant has attempted to
comply with this provision to the greatest extent possible, but there is only so much that can be
done with a parking garage structure. This Beach by Design provision is a guideline that does
not require relief.
Section C.4 provide that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelop
located above 45 feet be occupied by a building. The applicant has calculated the overall
proposed building mass between 45 – 100 feet at 47 percent, in compliance with this provision.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and
Tables 2-802 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 1.0 41,405 square feet (0.94) X 1
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.94 X 1
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Retail Sales and Services: 43,543 sq. ft. X 1
5,000 – 10,000 sf
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Restaurant: 5,000 – 10,000 sf
Parking Garage: 20,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width Retail Sales and Services: 50 – S. Gulfview Blvd: 180 feet X 1
100 feet
Restaurant: 50 – 100 feet Coronado Drive: 174 feet
Parking Garage: 100 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: Retail Sales and S. Gulfview Blvd.: zero feet (to X 1
Services and building)
Restaurant uses: 0 – 15 Coronado Drive: 1.4 feet (to
feet building)
Parking Garage: 15 –
25 feet
Side: Retail Sales and North: 0.2 feet (to building); X 1
Services and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk)
Restaurant uses: 0 – 10
South: : zero feet (to building)
feet
Parking Garage: 10
feet
Maximum Height Retail Sales and Services: 35 – 59.5 feet (to highest parking X 1
100feet deck)
Restaurant: 25 – 100 feet
Parking Garage: 50 feet
Minimum Retail Sales and Services: 4 – 5 349 parking spaces (including X 3
Off-Street Parking spaces per 1,000 square feet 48 accessory parking spaces for
the Retail Sales and Services
Restaurant: 7 – 15 spaces per
and Restaurant uses and 301
1,000 square feet
public parking spaces)
Parking Garage: n/a
(Required parking: 160 – 243
2
spaces)
1 See analysis in Staff Report
2 Based on a “mixed use” calculation; See analysis in Staff Report
3 Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1
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.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Consistent Inconsistent
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X 1
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X 1
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X 1
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
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 1
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 1
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 1
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.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Consistent Inconsistent
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of October 1 and November 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be
legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 0.99 acres located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive approximately
is
200 feet south of Third Street;
2.The proposal includes the vacation of 35 feet of the existing S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-
way;
3.The proposal includes the construction of retail sales uses of 34,183 square feet of floor area,
a restaurant use of 6,887 square feet of floor area and a parking garage of a total of 349
parking spaces (which includes 48 accessory parking spaces for the retail sales and restaurant
uses and 301 public parking spaces);
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00004) that must be approved by City
Council is also on this CDB agenda, which provides for specific parameters of the project,
the project financing, the project approval and commencement of construction timing
provisions and other design considerations;
5.The proposal includes a parking reduction from the required 243 spaces to 48 spaces, which
is supported by a Parking Reduction Study;
6.The proposal includes, and is contingent upon, the construction of a wave dissipating wall
within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way that would provide for a Flood Zone map
change from a VE-Zone to an AE-Zone, which must be constructed and given final approval
by FEMA prior to the issuance of any building permit for the building;
7.The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines;
8.The proposed building is 59.5 feet to the highest parking deck (west side), which is less than
what could be requested and is compatible with the surrounding existing, approved or
anticipated building heights;
ndth
9.The upper levels (2 through 5) of the east side of the building (the parking garage portion)
will project/cantilever approximately nine feet eastward toward the Coronado Drive travel
lanes at a 1.4-foot setback from the east property line, where such building projection will be
noticeable to motorists and pedestrians on Coronado Drive; and
10.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1, 2-802
and 2-803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the (1) Flexible Development application to permit Retail Sales and Services of 34,183 square
feet of floor area, a Restaurant of 6,887 square feet of floor area and a Parking Garage of 349
parking spaces (including 48 accessory parking spaces for the Retail Sales and Services and
Restaurant uses and 301 public parking spaces) with a lot area of 43,543 square feet, a lot width
of 180 feet on S. Gulfview Blvd. (west) and 174 feet on Coronado Drive (east), a front (west)
setback of zero feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 1.4 feet (to building), a side (north)
setback of 0.2 feet (to building) and 0.9 feet (to sidewalk), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to
building), a building height of 59.5 feet (to highest parking deck) and 349 parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C; (2) a reduction to the required foundation landscape
area from five to four feet along the east side of the building and a reduction to the required
foundation landscape area from five to zero feet along the west side of the building, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G; and (3)
Vacation of the east 35 feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00004);
2.That approval of this Flexible Development case be subject to the vacation by City Council
of a 35-foot portion of S. Gulfview Boulevard;
3.That approval of this Flexible Development case be subject to the approval by FEMA of a
Flood Zone map change for the subject property to an AE-Zone;
4.That commencement of construction occur by the date as set out in Development Agreement
DVA2009-00004;
5.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records;
6.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
7.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, an easement be recorded for that
portion of the deceleration lane and the public sidewalk that is located on the subject
property;
8.That, in the event the number of dumpsters be inadequate to handle the trash demand of this
development and/or the storage area for the dumpsters be of inadequate size, any additional
dumpsters be located within a properly screened area acceptable to the City;
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09032 2009-12-15
9.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Right-Of-Way Permit be obtained to allow
placement of foundation landscaping within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way;
10.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, plans be revised to show mirrors and/or
other devices to aid motorists with blind spots in the parking garage;
11.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, screening of outside mechanical equipment
comply with Code provisions;
12.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be shown and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from adjacent roadways, be painted the same color as the building;
13.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and
14.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Environmental Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire
Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Gulfview S 0311 Surf Style Parking Garage (T) 2009.xx -
12.15.09 CDB - WW\Gulfview S 0311 FLD Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-09032 – Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
CDB Meeting Date: December 15, 2009
Case Numbers: FLD2009-10037
Agenda Item: D.3.
Owner/Applicant: 411 East, LLC
Representative: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting
Address: 411 East Shore Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval in the Tourist (T) District (1) to
permit the construction of a 4,000 square-foot, 31-slip dock as a
marina facility with an increase to the maximum length of the dock
from 75 percent of the lot width (133.5 feet) to 178.65 percent of
the lot width (318 feet) and reduction to the required side (south)
setback from 17.8 feet to 10.6 feet as Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Sections 2-803.C, 3-601 and 3-603 and (2) to
permit a parking lot with a lot area of 17,061 square feet (upland),
a lot width of 175 feet, a building height of 11.5 feet (to midpoint
of roof), a front (west) setback of 8.22 feet (to pavement) and 15
feet (to structure), a side (north) setback of five feet (to pavement),
a side (south) setback of five feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to
building) a rear setback of 565 feet (to pavement from the
submerged property line) and 16 parking spaces 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)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER DISTRICT:
Marina District
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Marina (Vacant)
Proposed Use: Marina and Parking Lot
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING
Retail Sales
ZONING AND USES:
South: Tourist (T) District
Marina (Vacant)
East: Preservation (P) District
Intracoastal Waterway
West: Tourist (T) District
Restaurant and Overnight Accommodations
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 1 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.133 acre (0.39 acres upland and 0.74 acres submerged) subject property is located on the
east side of East Shore Drive approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of Causeway
Boulevard and East Shore Drive within the Beach by Design Marina District. This district is the
northern gateway to Clearwater Beach and has a high profile location along Clearwater Harbor
and visibility from Causeway Boulevard. The Marina District also supports the maintenance and
expansion of dock facilities that serve existing and new uses, as well as those that serve the
broader public. Formerly the 13-unit Bay Breeze Resort Motel occupied the subject property, it
has since been demolished. Since demolition the upland portion has been used as temporary
seasonal parking. The existing eight-slip, 497 square foot dock is proposed to be completely
removed.
To the east is the intracoastal waterway and to the south a vacant lot and dock. Overnight
accommodations and restaurant uses are to the west and retail sales and services exist to the
north. The overall site appearance in this area is fair with several vacant lots and non-conforming
structures.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is for both a marina and parking lot. The marina is proposed as a 31 slip, 4,000
square foot dock with a dockmaster building and 16 surface parking spaces; also proposed is an
additional 16 surface parking spaces available to patrons of other local businesses. The proposed
boat slips will be available to the public for daily, weekly or monthly rental on a first come first
serve basis. The hours of operation are 7AM to 11PM for both the marina and public parking.
The proposed dockmaster building will be 256 square feet and contain a restroom, office and
storage area and will serve patrons from both the marina and public parking. The dockmaster
building will be constructed of hardi board siding, metal roofing and will have bahama style pull
down metal shutters for the windows. All parking spaces will be numbered and marina tenants
will have assigned parking spaces. The onsite attendant will assign public parking spaces and
collect the fee and then provide a parking pass. The slips are proposed to accommodate 31 boats
up to 40 feet in length. No covered boatlifts, roof structures or vertical walls are proposed as part
of this marina.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Table 2-801.1, the
maximum allowable FAR is 1.0. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of
0.02.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Table 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.69, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 2 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
Minimum Lot Area / Lot Width:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, marinas and marina facilities are required a minimum lot area of
5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet. Compliance is achieved with the criteria
as the parcel contains 17,061 square feet and has a lot width of 175 feet.
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, parking lots are required a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet
and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Compliance is achieved with the parcel in regard to the lot
width; however it is not in compliance with the lot area requirement thus the filing of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the maximum height for parking lot
structures is 50 feet and pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum height for marina facilities
is 25 feet. The dockmaster building is proposed at a height of 11.5 feet which is consistent with
both Code requirements.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the minimum front setback for parking lots
can range between 15 – 25 feet, the minimum rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet and
the minimum side setback is 10 feet. The proposal includes reductions to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 8.22 feet (to proposed pavement) and 15 feet (to building); to the side
(north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement); and to the side (south) setback from 10
feet to five feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building). As the applicant owns the submerged
land to the rear of the parcel, the pavement is setback 565 feet from the submerged property line.
The front (west) setback and both sides (north and south) are not within the flexibility range thus
the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application.
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for marinas and marina facilities can
range between 10 – 15 feet, the minimum side setbacks can range between 0 – 10 feet and the
rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet. In regard to marinas and marina facilities only the
proposed front (west) setback is not within the flexibility range.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, marinas and marina facilities are
required one off-street parking space per two slips. As 31 slips are proposed, a total of 16
parking spaces are required for the marina. The proposal has provided 32 parking spaces for both
the marina and public parking lot. A total of 16 spaces will be labeled for exclusive marina use
with remaining spaces available for public parking.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines will be installed
underground on-site in compliance with this requirement.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
(T) Tourist District; however the applicant has proposed a 10-foot landscape buffer adjacent to
the off-street parking as well as a five-foot buffer on both sides and the rear. The buffers will be
planted with both dwarf magnolias and live oak trees. Along with the trees will be three species of
shrubs and groundcover. As this proposal is located in the Beach by Design Marina Residential
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 3 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
District, staff has requested the addition of clusters of three sable palms throughout the site and as
such is attached as a condition of approval. The proposed addition of landscape buffers will
provide enhanced landscape design. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E, ten percent of the
vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size
and foundation plantings must be provided along 100 percent of any building façade facing a street
right-of-way. The proposal provides 12.6 percent of the vehicular use area as interior landscape
within appropriately sized islands. Lastly, shrubs, groundcover and trees provide foundation
plantings on the building façade facing East Shore Drive.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides for a screened dumpster location which has been found to
be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the marina and marina facilities and parking lot uses with the standards as per
CDC Tables 2-801.1, 2-802 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Maximum FAR 1.0 0.02 X
Maximum ISR 0.95 0.69 X
Minimum Lot Area
Marinas and Facilities 5,000 square feet 17,061 square feet X
Parking Lots 20,000 square feet 17,061 square feet X 1
Minimum Lot Width
Marinas and Facilities 50 feet 175 feet X
Parking Lots 100 feet 175 feet X
Minimum Setbacks
Marinas and Facilities Front: 10 - 15 feet West: 8.22 feet (to pavement) X 1
15 feet (to building)
Side: 0 - 10 feet North: 5 feet (to pavement) X
Side: 0 - 10 feet South: 5 feet (to pavement) X
10 feet (building)
Rear: 10 - 20 feet East: 565 feet (submerged X
property line)
Parking Lots Front: 15 - 25 feet West: 8.22 feet (to pavement) X 1
15 feet (to building)
Side: 10 feet North: 5 feet (to pavement) X 1
Side: 10 feet South: 5 feet (to pavement) X 1
10 feet (to building)
Rear: 10 – 20 feet East: 565 feet (submerged X
property line)
Maximum
Building Height
Marinas and Facilities 25 feet 11.5 feet X
Parking Lots 50 feet 11.5 feet X
Minimum 1 spaces per 2 slips 32 parking spaces X 2
Off-Street Parking (16 parking spaces)
1
See analysis in Staff Report
2
16) parking spaces are devoted to the marina and 16 are devoted to the public parking lot.
(
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 4 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
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.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
?
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
Additional Applicable Beach by Design Guidelines: Section II.C requires that a minimum five
foot setback shall be provided for all paved surfaces. Additionally, the same section requires
parking areas to be screened from Clearwater Harbor. A five foot setback has been provided
from all paved surfaces and the parking area has been screened with viburnum and yaupon holly.
The proposal is in compliance with both criteria.
Section VII.D.1 requires the area between the building and the right-of-way to be 12 feet in
width to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed dockmaster building will be 15
feet from the right-of-way.
Section VII.F requires all surface parking areas to be landscaped so that the view of such parking
facilities from public roads, sidewalks and other places are defined by landscape material instead
of asphalt. As discussed above, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer has been provided to screen the
surface parking area from the road and sidewalk.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (CDC SECTION 2-803.E):
The Flexibility criteria for marinas and marina facilities set forth in CDC Section 2-803.E state
that the proposed marina shall not be located in any of the areas of environmental significance as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed marina is not located in any of the areas of
environmental significance with the exception of its proximity to Clearwater Harbor grass beds.
However, those sea grass beds were mapped prior to the dock design phase and the proposed
dock has been located in a manner so as to avoid any sea grasses. There are no residentially
zoned properties adjacent to the proposed dock (adjacent properties are zoned Tourist District).
No commercial activities will be permitted in the leased slips and live aboard vessels will be
prohibited.
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.E (Marinas and Marina Facilities):
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 6 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The parcel proposed for development is not located in areas identified in the X 1
Comprehensive Plan as areas of environmental significance including:
a. The north end of Clearwater Beach;
b. Clearwater Harbor grass beds;
c. Cooper's Point;
d. Clearwater Harbor spoil islands;
e. Sand Key Park;
f. The southern edge of Alligator Lake.
2. No commercial activities other than the mooring of boats on a rental basis shall be X
permitted on any parcel of land which is contiguous to a parcel of land which is
designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas, unless the marina facilities are totally
screened from view from the contiguous land which is designated as residential and
the hours of operation of the commercial activities are limited to the time period
between sunrise and sunset.
3. Setbacks: X
a. The reduction in the front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic
street life;
b. The reduction in the front setback results in an improved design and appearance;
c. The reduction in the side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of
any building by emergency vehicles;
d. The reduction in the side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking or improved design or appearance.
4. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in X
Division 5 of Article 3.
5. All marina facilities shall comply with the commercial dock requirements set forth X 1
in Section 3-601.C.3 and the marina and marina facilities requirements set forth in
Section 3-603.
1
See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (CDC SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The first criteria in CDC Section 3-601.C.3 is not applicable as the proposal is for a marina and
parking lot, which are the principal uses. The dock will meet the width requirements, tie pole
requirements and the northern setback requirement.
The entirety of the subject property is within the Marina District of Beach by Design which
supports the redevelopment of this district into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that
includes a mix of hotels, commercial, restaurant, residential and mixed use development, as well
as a variety of dock facilities and water related uses. While the request for the length deviation
significantly exceeds the allowable 75 percent lot width calculation, it is less than 25 percent of
the width of the waterway and does not constitute a hazard to navigation. Additionally, the
request for a setback reduction on the south from 17.8 feet to 10.6 feet is only for the boardwalk,
the actual dock is setback 18.4 feet. The established character in the general vicinity is consistent
with this request.
Regarding impacts on water recreation activities, the City Harbormaster has reviewed the dock
proposal and indicates that there is compliance with those criteria as well as the remaining
environmental criteria.
The following table depicts the consistency with the Flexibility criteria set for in CDC Section 3-
601.C.3.a-g. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and
are included with their application.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 7 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
Consistent Inconsistent
a. Use and Compatibility: X
i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort,
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the
property;
ii) The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent
properties and the neighborhood in general; and
iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity.
b. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities: The use of the proposed dock shall X
not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the
adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall not
hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses including but
not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
c. Impacts on Navigation: The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on Marine Environment: X
i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas; and
ii) Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef
which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to
be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
e. Impacts on Water Quality: X
i) All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area
associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to
ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest
member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at
mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum); and
ii) The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage,
shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the
area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in
the area in which the dock is proposed to be located.
f. Impacts on Natural Resources: X
i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so
as to be contrary to the public interest; and
ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative,
terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one
or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or
feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which
would serve to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated
preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan,
national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated
preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands: The dock shall not have a material adverse X
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
The dimensional standards criteria
for setbacks set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be located no closer to
any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent of the
width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line on the subject
property is 178 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from both the north and south
property line a minimum of 17.8 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from the north
property line a distance of 48.8 feet and the boardwalk set back 10.6 feet. The dock will be set
back 18.4 feet from the south property line. Staff supports the reduction to 10.6 feet as it is only
for a boardwalk providing handicap accessibility.
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 133.5 feet.
As proposed, the dock has a length of 318 feet. The deviation request is to allow the proposed
dock to be 184.5 feet longer than permitted by Code. Sea grass beds are located immediately
east of the seawall, extending out as much as 40 feet, as such the slips may not be constructed
within the first 40 feet. CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h.ii allows tie poles to extend beyond the dock
provided such poles do not extend 25 percent of the width of the waterway and do not constitute
a navigational hazard. The waterway width in this area is approximately 1,300 feet; therefore tie
poles may extend up to 325 feet, approximately seven feet beyond the dock. The proposal has
no tie poles extending beyond the dock. The Belle Harbor dock, to the north, has an approximate
length of 332 feet and Frenchy’s dock, also to the north, has an approximate length of 267 feet.
To the south is the Barefoot Bay dock, approximately 248 feet in length and just across the bay,
Island Way Yacht Club’s dock is 400 feet in length. With this established character of existing
docks in the vicinity, staff supports the request for an increased dock length.
The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the
proposed dock cannot exceed 133.5 feet. The dock has a proposed width of 107 feet; thus
compliance with this standard is achieved.
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject North: 48.8 feet X
(Minimum) property (17.8 feet)
10% of the width of the subject South: 10.6 feet (to boardwalk) X 1
property (17.8 feet)
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject 318 feet X 1
(Maximum) property (133.5 feet)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject 107 feet X
(Maximum) property (133.5 feet)
1
See discussion above
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 9 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (CDC SECTION 3-603):
Compliance has been met with the Flexibility criteria for marinas and marina facilities as set
forth in CDC Section 3-603. While proposed for a marina facility, there will be no living aboard,
no fueling facilities, no launching facilities, and no chartering and/or servicing of vessels. Since
a portable sanitary pump out station is proposed, no holding tank will be located over water.
Restrooms have been provided landside for marina and parking lot patrons. Additionally, the
proposed dock will be constructed on pilings and spaced appropriately to aid in tidal flushing and
aquatic flushing. No construction will take place that will inhibit tidal flushing. Manatee
awareness signs will be posted on the docking facility. The City Harbormaster has determined
that the proposed marina poses no hazard or obstruction to navigation.
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria in CDC Section 3-603. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided
by the applicant and are included with their application.
Consistent Inconsistent
1. All proposed activities including, but not limited to, fueling, pumping-out, X
chartering, living-aboard, launching, dry storage and the servicing of boats, motors
and related marine equipment shall require approval in accordance with the
provisions of the zoning district in which the marina or marina facility is proposed to
be located.
2. For marina facilities located adjacent to residential districts, no fueling or launching X
facilities shall be located within 20 feet of the residential property line, and no
fueling or servicing of boats shall occur at such marinas after 9:00 p.m. or before
6:00 a.m.
3. No fuel storage facility or sanitary pump-out station holding tank shall be located X
over water.
4. The marina shall pose no hazard or obstruction to navigation, as determined by the X
city harbormaster.
5. The marina shall not adversely affect the environment, including both onshore and X
offshore natural resources.
6. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided landside and a sanitary pump-out X
station shall be provided and shall be available to marina users 24 hours a day.
7. A manatee protection plan shall be provided and appropriate speed zone signs shall be X
posted to control boat speed for manatee protection.
8. Adequate spill containment areas shall be provided on the property. X
9. Design of the marina shall maintain existing tidal flushing and aquatic circulation X
patterns.
10. In the event of conflict between these standards and federal or state law or rules, the X
federal or state law or rules shall apply to the extent that these standards have been
preempted; otherwise, the more stringent regulations shall apply.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA 2-802.L:
Compliance has been met with the applicable Flexibility criteria for parking lots as set forth in
CDC Section 2-802.L. The subject property is not contiguous to residential property, the frontage
along East Shore Drive is landscaped, the building complies with the Tourist District design
guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 and there is an unmet existing demand for additional
parking in the immediate vicinity.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS:
As previously discussed the development
of the land relating to scale, bulk, coverage, density and character with adjacent properties and
the immediate vicinity have been found to be consistent.
The marina project represents an appropriate addition to the waterfront and complements Beach
by Design. The scale and coverage of the proposed marina is appropriate for this location, as it
has been designed to be consistent with the lengths of other existing docks. The marina will not
hinder or discourage the appropriate development or redevelopment of adjacent properties.
Moreover, the proposed marina is consistent with the community character of the immediate
vicinity.
The proposed docks will not affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the
neighborhood as they meet state and local guidelines by not extending past the 25 percent
waterway width and will be illuminated well with no tie poles beyond the length of the dock.
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development
Code:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of November 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the December 15, 2009 Community Development Board (CDB)
meeting based upon the following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 1.133 acre (0.39 acres upland and 0.74 acres submerged) subject property is located on
the east side of East Shore Drive approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of
Causeway Boulevard and East Shore Drive;
2.That the parcels are located in the Marina District of Beach by Design;
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 11 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
3.That the upland development consists of a 256 square foot dockmaster building and 32
parking spaces;
4.That the existing dock and slips are to be removed;
5.That the site has approximately 178 feet of waterfront frontage on Clearwater Harbor
between the north and south property lines;
6.That the proposal consists of the construction of a 4,000 square-foot, 31 slip dock to be used
as a marina;
7.That the proposal consists of the construction of public parking lot of 16 spaces;
8.That based on a parking ratio of one parking space per two slips and there being 31 proposed
slips, a total of 16 parking spaces are required;
9.That there are no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed dock;
10.That the proposal includes a deviation to increase the maximum length from 75 percent of
the lot width (133.5 feet) to 178.65 percent of the lot width (318 feet);
11.That the proposal includes a deviation to reduce the side (south) setback from 17.8 feet to
10.6 feet (to boardwalk);
12.That the proposed dock complies with the north setback and width standards of CDC Section
3-601.C.3.h;
13.That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding area; and
14.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section
2-803.E and 2-802.L;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per
CDC Section 3-601.C.3;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the marina review criteria as per CDC
Section 3-603; and
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per
CDC Section 3-913.A.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the
Flexible Development application in the Tourist (T) District (1) to permit the construction of a 4,000
square-foot, 31-slip dock as a marina facility with an increase to the maximum length of the dock from 75
percent of the lot width (133.5 feet) to 178.65 percent of the lot width (318 feet) and reduction to the
required side (south) setback from 17.8 feet to 10.6 feet, as Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Sections 2-803.C, 3-601 and 3-603; and
(2) to permit a parking lot with a lot area of 17,061 square feet (upland), a lot width of 175 feet, a building
height of 11.5 feet (to midpoint of roof), a front (west) setback of 8.22 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to
structure), a side (north) setback of five feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of five feet (to
pavement) and 10 feet (to building) a rear setback of 565 feet (to pavement from the submerged property
line) and 16 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
with the following conditions:
CDC Section 2-803.C.
Conditions of Approval:
1.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, 16 parking spaces are dedicated for
marina use only and labeled as such;
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10037 2009-12-15
2.That prior to the issuance of any permits a revised landscape plan be submitted to Staff
showing clusters of three sabal palms throughout the site;
3.That the restroom facilities are identified as such on the facility;
4.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant underground the
overhead utility line(s) from the west side of East Shore Drive to the east side and remove
utility poles at the southwest corner of the property;
5.That no tenants conduct any commercial business from any slip in this marina;
6.That there be no fueling facilities at this marina;
7.That live aboard vessels are prohibited;
8.That covered boat lifts are prohibited;
9.That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the
vicinity; and
10.That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental
permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if
applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending Cases\Up For The Next CDB\East Shore 411 - Marina And Parking - (T) - 2009.Xx - 12-
15-09 CDB- SK\411 Marina And Parking - Staff Report.Docx
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10037 – Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
CDB Meeting Date: December 15, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-10038
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner: Bellwether Property FL, c/o Westfield Property
Applicant: Atomic Tattoos
Representative: Clay Montgomery
Address: 27001 U.S. Highway 19 North
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use (tattoo
parlor) in the Commercial (C) District within an existing shopping
center and no changes to the building height, structure setbacks
parking or building as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-704.M.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) Category
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail Sales and Services
Proposed Use: Problematic Use (Tattoo Parlor)
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District
SURROUNDING Retail Sales and Service
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) and Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) Districts
Retail Sales and Services and Attached Dwellings
East: Institutional (I), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts
Detached Dwellings
West: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts
Retail Sales and Services and Office
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 22.95 acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of US Highway 19 N and
Countryside Boulevard. The site currently operates as the Westfield Countryside Shopping Mall
and has done so since prior to the adoption of the Community Development Code (CDC) in
1999. It is noted that the building, off-street parking area and landscaping are nonconforming
with regard to building height and setbacks to pavement as well as foundation, perimeter and
interior landscaping.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 1of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
Development Proposal:
On October 2, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted
for the subject property. The application proposes to establish a tattoo parlor (Atomic Tattoos) in
an existing tenant space (#1073) within the Westfield Countryside Shopping Center. According
to information provided to the City by Atomic Tattoos, the sale and creation of the tattoos
comprises more than 25 percent of the retail operations performed; therefore, pursuant to CDC
Section 8-102 the tattoo parlor is considered a problematic use and approval through the
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment process is necessary.
The building in which Atomic Tattoos is proposing to locate is the primary building in the
Westfield Countryside Shopping Mall complex, which as previously stated has been in use prior
to the adoption date of the current Code. As was also previously noted, the proposal does not
contain any changes to either the existing shopping center building or the off-street parking area
and therefore there will not have an impact upon the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size,
maximum building height, minimum setback development standards or off-street parking
requirements of the Code. While the subject building does meet required building setbacks, there
exist the aforementioned non-conformities. However, to require the site to come into full Code
compliance to accommodate a proposed change of use for an existing tenant space would be
impractical and inappropriate.
Flexibility Criteria – Problematic Uses:
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.M, problematic uses
are permitted within the Commercial (C) District provided the following Flexibility Criteria are
met:
1.Location:
a.The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is
designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas; and
b.The use is not located within 500 feet of another problematic use.
The subject property is not contiguous to any parcels of land that are designated as residential
within the Zoning Atlas. Specifically, the property is surrounded by various rights-of-way
and does not abut any other parcel. Furthermore, the property is not located within 500 feet
of another problematic use. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent
with this criterion.
2.Design:
a.The building in which the use is located is painted or otherwise finished in materials and
colors which are muted; and
b.There are no security bars on the outside of doors or windows which are visible from a
public right-of-way.
The exterior color scheme of the Mall consists of muted colors such as tan and gray. There
are no security bars on the outside of doors or windows which are visible from a public right-
of-way. All security bars are used on the interior store fronts each close of business day.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 2of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
3.Signs: Any signage which has a height of greater than six feet is a part of a comprehensive
sign program.
The only signage that will be proposed is interior signage.
4.The building in which the use is located is a building which is conforming to all current land
development and building regulations.
As previously discussed, Atomic Tattoos will occupy an interior storefront of the Westfield
Countryside Shopping Mall. Any non-conformities to the subject property existed at the date
of adoption of the current Code.
5.Front Setback: The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved
design and appearance.
This criterion is not applicable as no deviation to the front setback has been requested or is
necessary as part of this Flexible Development request.
6.Rear Setback:
a.The reduction in rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by
emergency vehicles; and
b.The reduction in rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking, or
improved design and appearance and landscaped areas are in excess of the minimum
required.
This criterion is not applicable as no deviation to the rear setback has been requested or is
necessary as part of this Flexible Development request.
Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition of approval, the development
proposal will be consistent with the Flexibility Criteria to permit a problematic use within the
Commercial (C) District as per CDC Section 2-704.M.
Compliance with Standards and Criteria (CDC Section 2-701.1):
The development proposal
to establish a problematic use (tattoo parlor) at the subject property will not have an impact on
the standards and criteria as they pertain to impervious service ratio, lot area, lot width, height,
setbacks and off-street parking.
General Applicability Standards (CDC Section 3-913.A):
The following table depicts the
development proposals level of consistency with the General Applicability Standards as set forth
in CDC Section 3-913.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, X
bulk, 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.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 3of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
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.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is no outstanding code enforcement issue associated with
this site.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of November 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development 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 22.95-acre subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the
Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category;
2.That the site is currently operates as the Westfield Countryside Shopping Mall and has done
so since prior to the adoption of the Community Development Code (CDC) in 1999;
3.That the proposal is to permit a problematic use (tattoo parlor) within an existing tenant
space of the existing main shopping center building with no increase in floor area;
4.That the building, off-street parking area and landscaping are non-conforming with regard to
building height and setbacks to pavement as well as foundation, perimeter and interior
landscaping;
5.The proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R.,
minimum lot area/size, maximum building height or off-street parking requirements as they
presently exist; and
6.That there is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue with subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Standards and
Criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1;
2.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility
Criteria for a Problematic Use pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.M; and
3.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General
Applicability Criteria pursuant to CDC Section 3-913.A.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 4of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit a problematic use (tattoo parlor) in the
Commercial (C) District within an existing shopping center and no changes to the building
height, structure setbacks parking or building as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.M., with the following
condition of approval:
Condition of Approval:
1.That the Business Tax receipt be applied for within one year of the approval of this
application (December 15, 2010).
Prepared by: Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Application
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\US Hwy 19 N - Atomic Tattoos - (C) - 2009.12 - 12.15.09 CDB
- MJ\US Hwy 19 N - Atomic Tattoos - (C) - 2009.12 - Staff Report - MJ.doc
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 5of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-10038 2009-12-15
Matthew Jackson
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
(727) 562-4836
matthew.jackson@myclearwater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Planner II
?
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida October 2008 to Present
Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance with land resource ordinances and
regulations related to community development. Landscape plan review including: conceptual, and
variance. Reviews and analyzes site plans and conducts field studies to determine the integrity of
development plans and their compatibility with surroundings. Interdepartmental and zoning
assistance. Respond as a City representative to citizens, City officials, and businesses concerning
ordinances and regulations. Make recommendations and presentations at staff level at various review
committees, boards, and meetings.
Planner I
?
Calvin-Giordano and Associates, Fort Lauderdale, Florida May 2005 to December 2007
Project manager for various development applications such as plat, site plan, rezoning and variances.
In-depth government agency, in-house and client coordination to ensure that the projects maintained
submittal schedules stayed within budget constraints and attained approval. Schedule and lead
project kick-off meetings, ensure municipal project conditions were resolved, produce supporting
documents and make site visits as well. Research and prepare due diligence reports including subject
matter such as zoning, land uses, densities, available public utilities and land development costs.
Member of emergency mitigation committee formed to prepare and mitigate for natural or man-made
disasters affecting Calvin, Giordano and Associates and local municipalities.
Manager
?
Church Street Entertainment, Orlando, Florida September 1999 to February 2004
Supervised and managed daytime and nighttime operations of a bar and nightclub entertainment
complex including 100+ staff. Conducted hiring and training operations including security and
inventory control. Managed and reconciled nightly gross revenues as well as preparing and
delivering deposits. Assisted in taking inventory and preparing weekly inventory orders, marketing
and special events.
Linguist
?
US Army, Fort Campbell, KY October 1991 to October 1995
Maintain fluency in the Arabic language and knowledge of customs and culture as well as military
readiness for possible deployments or training operations. Co-managed intelligence gathering
operation in Haiti including coordination between multiple Special Forces units and civilian
authorities. Interpreter between U.S. and Egyptian soldiers during training exercises. Liaison
between Special Forces battalions to coordinate certification training.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 2007
?
Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Rollins College, 2004
?
Community Development Board – December 15, 2009
FLD2009-10038 – Page 6of 6
.,..
~ 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 December 15, 2009
December 10, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 17, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1.
Case: FLD2009-060 19 - 1808 - 1820 Drew Street
yesJ(
No
2.
Case: FLD2009-1 003 8 - 27001 US Highway 19 N
yes}L-- No
3.
Case: FLD2009-10037 - 411 East Shore Drive
v
No
Yes
4. Case: FLD2009-09032 - 311 S. Gulfview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gulfview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to Case No. DV A2009-00004)
Level two and Level three
Yes
~
'J
No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009112 December 15,200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: DV A2008-00003 - 20 Kendall Street
Yes ~ No. ~
Signature:
. ~(Z.,~L. L '-I f)~ { -/
PRiNT NAME -
Date: /G ~l b
, r
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D B\Agendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\12 December 15,200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.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 December 15, 2009
December 10, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 17, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1.
Case: FLD2009-060 19 - 1808 - 1870 Dr w Street
Yes . No \
"
2.
Case: FLD2009-10038 - 27001 US Highway 19 N
Yes No /
3.
Case: FLD2009-10037 - 411 East Shore Drive
Yes
No
~.
4. Case: FLD2009-09032 - 311 S. Gu1fview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gu1fview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to Case No. DV A2009-00004)
Level two and Lev hree
Yes
No
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\12 December 15,200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: DV A2008-00003 - 20 Kendall Street
Yes
No
'''('' .
Signature:
Date: \ ~\ \ ~\ ()~
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI2009112 December 15,200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.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 December 15, 2009
December 10, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 17, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-06019 -1808 - 1820 Drew Street
Yes
No
x
2. Case: FLD2009-10038 - 27001 US Highway 19 N
Yes
No
x
3. Case: FLD2009-10037 - 411 East Shore Drive
Yes
No
x
,
4. Case: FLD2009-09032 - 311 S. Gu1fview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gu1fview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to Case No. DV A2009-00004)
Level two and Level three
Yes
No
x
S:IPlanning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009112 December 15.200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: DV A2008-00003 - 20 Kendall Street
Yes
No
X
/
Signature:
erties.
I have conducted a
Date:
/2/;O ~1
. .
2r(~)t 1A'r k~
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009112 December 15,2009\1 Cover MM012.15.2009.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 December 15, 2009
December 10, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 17, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1.
Case: FLD2709- 6019 - 1808 - 1820 Drew Street
Yes No
2.
Case: FLD2009-10038 - 27001 US Highway 19 N
/
No
Yes
3.
Case: FLD2009)0037 - 411 East Shore Drive
Yes vi No
4.
Case: FLD2009-09032 - 311 S. Gulfview Boulevard (including 305, 309 and 315 S.
Gulfview Boulevard and 320 Coronado Drive) (Related to Case No. DV A2009-00004)
Level two and Level three
vi
No
Yes
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009112 December 15,200911 Cover MM012.15.2009.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: DV A2008-00003 - 20 Kendall S,et
Yes No V
/Ul tl-4u/ ~
PRINT NAME
Date: /Y~dJ
Signature:
S:IPlanning Depar/men/IC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBl2009\12 December 15,2009\1 Cover MM012.15.2009.doc