02/16/2010
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
February 16, 2010
Present: Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member
Empty Seat Board Member
Absent: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order. A full board was not present; applicants declined to
have their items continued.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: January 5 and January 19
Acting Member Carlough moved to approve the minutes of the special Community
Development Board meeting of January 5, 2010, and the minutes of the regular Community
Development Board meeting of January 19, 2010 as recorded and submitted in written
summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 – 1454 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owners/Applicants: Jeffrey L. Kyle, Mary L. Kyle, Terry R. Kyle, Barbara M. Kyle, C/O
Cobb, Jerry ESQ.
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 South Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email:
renee@northsideengineering.net).
Location: 0.14 acre located at the corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and San Remo Avenue.
Atlas Page: 288A.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a Mixed Use (Retail Sales and Services and
one Attached Dwelling) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 6,204 square-feet, a lot
width of 121 feet along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) and 158 feet along San Remo Avenue, a
building height of 20.2 feet (to roof deck), a front (west) setback of 3.2 feet (to existing building)
Community Development 2010-02-16 1
and zero feet (to existing pavement), a front (east) setback of 2.4 feet (to existing building) and
zero feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing building) and zero
feet (to existing pavement) and zero off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section
2-704.C. and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 15
feet to zero feet, a reduction to the side (north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet and a
reduction to the required foundation landscaping along both the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard façade
and San Remo Avenue façade from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Mixed Use (Retail Sales and Services and one Attached Dwelling).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Gateway Neighborhood
Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
In his February 2, 2010 memorandum, Planner III Scott Kurleman reported that the
applicant had requested that Case FLD2009-12044 be continued to March 16, 2010.
Member Dame moved to continue Case FLD2009-12044 to March 16, 2010. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2009-12004 – Multiple lots (31) located south of the main Calvary Baptist
Church site at 110 N. McMullen-Booth Road
Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church.
Representative: Harry S. Cline, Esq. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-
441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470).
Location: 2.32 acres located south of the main church site at 110 N. McMullen-Booth
Road
Atlas Page: 292A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the
Institutional (I) category and
b) Zoning Atlas amendment from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the
Institutional (I) District.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Church and support facilities.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III.
Member Barker declared a conflict of interest.
In her February 11, 2010 memorandum, Planner III Sandra Herman reported that staff
requested that Case LUZ2009-12004 be continued to March 16, 2010.
Member Dame moved to continue Case LUZ2009-12004 to March 16, 2010. The motion
was duly seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and Adelson, Acting Member Carlough, and
Vice Chair Coates voted “Aye”; Member Barker abstained. Motion carried.
Community Development 2010-02-16 2
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1 - 6)
1. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: LUZ2009-12003 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Three Application
(Related to DVA2009-00005, FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
Owners/Applicants: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 30.07 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South
Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 298B.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low Medium (RLM) category to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential Medium (RM) categories and
b) Zoning Atlas amendment from the Mobile Home Park (MHP) District to the Commercial (C)
and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses (proposed Parcel 1) and Attached
Dwellings (proposed Parcel 2).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Oakgrove Estates Homeowners
Association, Grovewood Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners
Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Gina Clayton, Assistant Director.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Member DiPolito moved to accept Gina Clayton as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, annexations, land use/rezoning applications and demographics, land development code
& land development code amendments, and general planning. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reviewed the application.
Acting Member Carlough moved to accept Cyndi Tarapani as an expert witness in the
fields of comprehensive planning, project approvals, zoning and land development regulations,
land use litigation and eminent domain, and historic preservation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Applicant representative Cyndi Tarapani reviewed the mixed-use project. She said the
northern third of the property (Parcel 1) will be dedicated to commercial uses; the remaining
land (Parcel 2) will feature luxury apartment units. She said the development’s FAR (Floor Area
Ratio) will be lower than permitted. She said the property has no wetlands and stormwater will
be managed onsite; the lake will be relocated. She said significant oaks will be retained in the
residential area. She said the project will have little impact on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Belcher
Road, or Druid Road traffic. Ms. Tarapani said the development’s one entrance on Gulf-to-Bay
Community Development 2010-02-16 3
Boulevard will line up with South Main Avenue and its one entrance on Belcher Road will line up
with the traffic signal at the entrance to Gulf to Bay Plaza. She said three driveways off Druid
Road will serve the residential section. She said internal circulation will discourage cut through
traffic. She reviewed road improvements associated with the project, including a mast arm
traffic signal and dedicated easement on Belcher Road. She said road improvements will be
codified in the development agreement. She said the project is consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan.
In response to a comment that the comprehensive plan had identified a need for
workforce housing, Ms. Tarapani said based on market research, the developer determined that
constructing luxury apartment units with high end finishes was the best fit for this site.
Two residents expressed concern that the project will increase traffic congestion on
Druid Road and one resident spoke in support of the project.
Ms. Clayton said both Druid Road and its intersection with Belcher Road have a LOS
(Level of Service) of C. Applicant attorney Ed Armstrong said the applicant had completely
addressed transportation concerns; he said the Druid Road LOS will remain C after the
development is constructed.
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2009-12003 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: DVA2009-00005 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Three Application
(Related to LUZ2009-12003, FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
Owners/Applicants: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 30.07 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South
Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 298B.
Proposed Zoning: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and
the City of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses of up to 90,000 square-feet of floor
area (0.178 Floor Area Ratio) at a maximum height of 36 feet, and 243 Attached Dwellings
(13.181 dwelling units per acre) at a maximum height of 41 feet.
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Oakgrove Estates Homeowners
Association, Grovewood Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners
Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
Community Development 2010-02-16 4
Member Dame 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.
Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2009-00005
based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at
today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the
Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2009-12045 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
(Related to LUZ2009-12003, DVA2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
Owner/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 18.435 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of S. Belcher
Road and Druid Road.
Atlas Page: 298B.
Proposed Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit 243 Attached Dwellings in the proposed
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a proposed lot area of 803,028 square-feet
(18.435 acres), a lot width along Druid Road of 1,301 feet and along S. Belcher Road of 618
feet and a building height of 41 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) where 50 feet is allowable, as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
304.G, and a two year development order.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings (243 units).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Oakgrove Estates Homeowners
Association, Grovewood Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners
Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
Staff Memorandum FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
Consensus was to hear Cases FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046 together.
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.
Planner III Wayne Wells reviewed the applications. Regarding Case FLD2009-12045, to
comply with a request by Bamboo Lane residents, the applicant agreed to Condition of Approval
23) That a six-foot high concrete wall be installed, in lieu of a six-foot high fence, along the north
property line from the western property line of Parcel 2 to the western property line of Parcel 1.
Mr. Wells said an open space area is planned for the display of public art. He said the
requested parking reduction is minor and will have no impacts.
Community Development 2010-02-16 5
Acting Member Carlough moved to accept Cyndi Tarapani as an expert witness in the
fields of comprehensive planning, project approvals, zoning and land development regulations,
land use litigation and eminent domain, and historic preservation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Applicant representative Tarapani reviewed the residential portion of the development,
noting the project adheres to all setback and buffer requirements. She said the Belcher Road
entrance will provide access to the residential and commercial sections of the development.
In response to a concern, Ms. Tarapani said the site has sufficient stacking space at its
entrances. She said the development is not designed to encourage movement through the site.
She said the project is much smaller than Clearwater Mall.
One resident of Druid Park said his neighborhood also would have requested a six-foot
concrete wall to reduce noise from the residential garages.
One resident expressed concern that the development will exacerbate traffic congestion
on Druid Road.
In response to a question, applicant attorney Ed Armstrong said the two year timetable is
based on a worst case scenario. He said the developer plans to start the project soon. He said
Druid Park residents had never requested a concrete wall. He said the developer would agree
to construct six-foot concrete walls between the garages. Ms. Tarapani said the developer
wants to retain buffering along the property line.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2009-12045 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 plus Condition 23) That a six-foot high concrete wall be installed, in lieu of a
six-foot high fence, along the north property line from the western property line of Parcel 2 to the
western property line of Parcel 1 and Condition 24) That a six-foot high concrete wall be
installed in lieu of a six-foot high fence between the garages on the western portion of the
property and maintaining the landscape buffer. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Community Development 2010-02-16 6
4. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2009-12046 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
(Related to LUZ2009-12003, DVA2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045)
Owners: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, LLC.
Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 11.637 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and S.
Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 298B.
Proposed Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit 70,212 square-feet of Retail Sales and
Services uses and 12,787 square-feet of Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999
square-feet) in the proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of 506,892 square
feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard of 820 feet and along S. Belcher
Road. of 617 feet, a front (north) setback to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard of 25 feet (to proposed
pavement), a front (east) setback to S. Belcher Road of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a side
(west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side
(south) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement), a maximum building height of 36 feet and
495 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, and a two-year development order.
Proposed Use: 70,212 square-feet of Retail Sales and Services uses and 12,787 square-feet of
Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square-feet).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Oakgrove Estates Homeowners
Association, Grovewood Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners
Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
See Case: FLD2009-12045 for discussion.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2009-12046 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 2010-02-16 7
5. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2009-02009 – 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Louis Developments, LLC, Elias Anastopolous.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting, (1714 County Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL
34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 1.25 acres located on the east side of East Shore Drive approximately 10 feet
north of the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive.
Atlas Page: 267A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval in the Tourist (T) District to permit the construction of a
7,142 square-foot 50-slip dock of which 32 slips will be used as a marina facility to be rented to
the public and the remaining 18 slips will be used as commercial dock accessory to existing
attached dwellings under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-803.E, 3-
601 and 3-603.
Proposed Use: Marina and Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
Member Barker 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.
In response to questions, Planner II Matthew Jackson said based on concerns from the
neighbor to the north, the property owner had revised the plan for the docks. The building
permit will reflect the revisions. Due to a staff error, the staff report incorrectly indicates that tie
poles will be on the north and south end of the dock slips; staff acknowledged that the staff
report would be corrected. A Unity of Title will be required for the properties to ensure that the
site retains sufficient parking.
William Day requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant William Day Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Status Holder William Day supported the request as long as revisions to the dock
plan remain.
Member Barker moved to approve Case FLD2009-02009 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 2010-02-16 8
6. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department.
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan to amend the Public School
Facilities Element by replacing Map #: J-1, Map #: J-2, Map #: J-3, Map #: J-4, and Map #: J-5
to reflect school facility closures and mergers, program changes, the expansion of existing and
the addition of new charter schools, as well as changes to assign charter schools to individual
school concurrency service areas pursuant to the adopted changes by the Pine lias County
School Board.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III.
See Exhibits: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001J-1 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001J-2 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001J-3 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001J-4 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001J-5 2010-02-16
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001 MAP 2010-02-16
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2009-12001 on today's
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
'2(~ ~
Community Development Board
Community Development 2010-02-16
9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case Number: LUZ2009-12003
Owner/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C.
Address: 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Agenda Item: E-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Low Medium (RLM) Classification to the
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential
Medium (RM) Classifications.
(b) Rezoning from the Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
to the Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential
(MDR) Districts.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
1,309,849 square feet or 30.07 acres (total)
(1) 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Proposed Parcel 1:
506,908 square feet or 11.637 acres
(2) Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Proposed Parcel 2: 803,028
square feet or 18.435 acres
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use: Vacant (former Mobile Home Park)
Proposed Use: Retail/Commercial and Attached Dwellings
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
Proposed Category: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential Medium
(RM)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District: Mobile Home Park (MHP)
Proposed District: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
EXISTING
North: Drug store, Grocery Store, and Vacant Retail/
SURROUNDING USES:
Commercial
West: Auto Dealership and Single-Family Residential
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Retail/Commercial, Bank, and Office
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves three parcels of land,
comprising approximately 30.07 acres in area, located west of South Belcher Road between
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Druid Road. The applicant is proposing minor lot line adjustments
as part of two related Flexible Development applications submitted concurrently with this land
use plan amendment and rezoning application (see Case No. FLD2009-12045 and Case No.
FLD2009-12046), resulting in two parcels to be addressed by this request. The subject property
is currently vacant, but was formerly occupied by a 295-unit mobile home park. It has an
existing Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a zoning
designation of Mobile Home Park (MHP). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land
Use Plan classification of proposed Parcel 1 (northern 11.637 acres of property) to the
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) classification and to rezone it to the Commercial (C) District
in order to permit the development of retail/commercial uses. The applicant is also requesting to
amend the Future Land Use Plan classification of proposed Parcel 2 (southern 18.435 acres of
property) to the Residential Medium (RM) classification and to rezone it to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District in order to permit the development of attached dwellings.
A proposed development agreement between the applicant and the City is also associated with
this site that limits the amount of retail/commercial uses on Parcel 1 to 90,000 square feet
(202,763 square feet allowed pursuant to the Residential/Office Retail (R/O/R Plan designation);
limits the number of developable residential units on Parcel 2 to 243 dwelling units (276 units
allowed pursuant to the Residential Medium (RM) Plan designation); and limits the building
heights to 36 feet on proposed Parcel 1 and 41-feet on proposed Parcel 2 (see Case No.
DVA2009-00005, agenda item E4 for complete analysis).
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the Future Land Use Plan amendment is subject
to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel as well as the proposed density,
review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-
602.F.1 and Section 4-603.F.1 and 2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 2 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
A.2. Goal – A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to
accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
A.2.2.2 Policy – Residential land uses shall be appropriately located on local and minor collector
streets; if appropriately buffered; they may be located on major collector and arterial
streets. Residential land uses shall be sited on well-drained soils, in proximity to parks,
schools, mass transit and other neighborhood-serving land uses.
A.2.2.3 Policy – Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts
into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of
"strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by
zoning for commercial development at major intersections.
A.4. Goal – The City shall not permit development to occur unless an adequate level of
service is available to accommodate the impacts of development. Areas in which the
impact of existing development exceeds the desired levels of service will be upgraded
consistent with the target dates for infrastructure improvements included in the applicable
functional plan element.
A.4.1.1 Policy – No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level
of City services (roads, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage
collection, public school facilities, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable
levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent
with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded
concurrently with the impacts of development.
A.6. Goal – The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources,
ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill
development.
A.6.2.1 Policy – On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
B.1.3.1 Policy – Requests for amendment to the Future Land Use Map will have an analysis of
traffic impacts.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 3 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
B.1.4 Objective - The City shall specifically consider the existing and planned LOS the road
network affected by a proposed development, when considering an amendment to the
land use map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval.
C.1.1 Objective for Adequate Housing - Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by
providing for additional new dwelling units in a variety of types, costs, and locations to
meet the needs of the residents of the City of Clearwater.
C.1.1.1 Policy – Maintain sufficient residentially zoned acreage, of varying densities and
locations, to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the City of
Clearwater.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Amending the Future Land Use Plan classification and zoning designation of the subject
property will facilitate commercial and residential at an appropriate location within the City.
The development of retail/commercial uses at the corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South
Belcher Road and attached dwellings along South Belcher Road and Druid Road are both
consistent with the locational criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan and is also consistent
with and compatible with the surrounding environment. The neighborhood land uses include a
variety of retail uses, vehicle sales uses and single family residential uses. The redevelopment
of this site will promote infill redevelopment of what was a blighted site and provides
opportunities for new residential development in an area of the City that has not had new housing
in many years. Public transportation is available adjacent to the property, along both Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road, which will provide access to both the residents of the
proposed attached dwellings as well as patrons and employees of the proposed commercial
development.
The applicant has provided a traffic study that utilizes a methodology developed jointly with City
staff and has been reviewed by Pinellas County and the Florida Department of Transportation.
In order to mitigate potential traffic impacts the developer will be obligated to construct a variety
of improvements adjacent to the site as well as to dedicate land to the City for right-of-way
purposes (see Sufficiency of Public Facilities section as well as Case No. DVA2009-00005).
The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category (proposed Parcel 1), as
specified in Section 2.3.3.4.3 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that
are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in residential, office and/or retail commercial
use; and to recognize such areas as well suited for mixed-use of a residential/office/retail
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 4 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource
characteristics of such areas. This category is generally appropriate to locations where it would
service as a transition from an urban activity center or more intensive nonresidential use to
residential, office or public/semi-public use; and in areas where the size and scale of
development will accommodate true mixed residential, office and retail use. These areas are
typically in proximity to and served by the arterial and major thoroughfare highway network in
and adjacent to activity centers where mixed-use development allows interaction between uses
and encourages mass transit and non-vehicular trips.
The purpose of the proposed Residential Medium (RM) category (proposed Parcel 2), as
specified in Section 2.3.3.2.2 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that
are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a moderately intensive residential manner;
and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with
the urban qualities, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas.
The Residential Medium (RM) category is generally appropriate to locations within or in close
proximity to urban activity centers; and in areas serving as a transition between less urban and
more urban residential and mixed use areas. These areas are typically in close proximity to and
may have direct access from the arterial and thoroughfare highway network.
The site is situated at a major commercial intersection within the City. Retail and commercial
uses characterize the immediate area. Such uses are located on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
(Albertson’s grocery and CVS) and South Belcher Road (Gulf to Bay Plaza, including Publix).
This site is also located in close proximity to property developed with residential uses with
allowable densities ranging between 7.5 units per acre to 15 units per acre. The proposed use of
90,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses on proposed Parcel 1 is consistent with the purposes
of the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category which permits retail development at a 0.40
floor area ratio. The proposed use of 243 attached dwelling units on proposed Parcel 2 is
consistent with the purposes of the Residential Medium (RM) category which permits attached
dwellings up to 15 dwelling units.
The site is also located within a segment of South Belcher Road that has been designated a
Scenic/Non-commercial Corridor and classified as an Enhancement Connector according to
Section 4.2.7.1.3 of the Countywide Rules. Enhancement Connectors are areas characterized by
an existing or evolving pattern of land uses that are not exclusively non-commercial, including
the respective plan categories within Residential, Mixed Use, and Commercial plan
classifications shown on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. The Scenic/Non-Commercial
Corridor Element states that this subclassification may include roadway segments that would not
otherwise qualify as a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor, but where it is appropriate to include
such segments in order to provide continuity and interconnection of the corridor designation, as
well as to encourage their visual and operational enhancement to compliment the larger corridor.
The request to amend the land use plan category on proposed Parcel 1 to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) is consistent with the applicable requirements of the
Countywide Plan Rules Section 4.2.7.1.4, which allows a plan amendment to a non-residential
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 5 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
use on a Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor if it is a logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an
existing non-residential classification of an adjoining existing non-residential use, the
amendment is considered in relationship to the existing delineation of surrounding categories,
and the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Scenic/Non-Commercial
Corridor Element. The Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category is consistent with the
adjacent properties’ Commercial General (CG) designations, connecting two areas of
commercial at the corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road, consistent with
surrounding land use patterns.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan as well as the additional regulations set forth pertaining to Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridors and the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Element; therefore, the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 and 3 and Section 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Uses located to the north of proposed Parcel 1 across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and to the east
across South Belcher Road include a variety of retail sales and services. A vehicle sales and
display use also abuts the proposed parcel’s western boundary, and a small area of single-family
residential uses are adjacent to the parking for the vehicle sales use. Single-family dwellings
characterize the immediate area to the west of proposed Parcel 2 and across Druid Road to the
south. Uses east of proposed Parcel 2, across South Belcher Road, include office and retail.
Commercial General (CG) and Residential/Office General (R/OG) future land use classifications
exist to the north, east and west of the property. Residential Urban (RU) future land use
classification is found to the south and west of the property.
The proposed Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations will allow retail and residential
development at a density and scale that is consistent with the existing commercial and residential
development patterns in the vicinity of the site. The proposed Future Land Use Plan amendment
and rezoning is compatible with the surrounding areas and will allow development that is in
character with the surrounding area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 6 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
The proposed Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations are in character with the overall
Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations in the area. The Residential/Office/Retail
(R/O/R) future land use classification requested for proposed Parcel 1 is compatible with the
surrounding Commercial General (CG) areas. The requested Residential Medium (RM)
classification for proposed Parcel 2 is compatible with the surrounding Residential Urban (RU),
Commercial General (CG), and Residential/Office General (R/OG) categories as it will provide
an` appropriate transition from more intensive commercial uses to lower density residential areas
to the south. The proposed Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations are compatible with
surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and
neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.6 and Section 4-
603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
As stated earlier, the overall subject site is approximately 30.07 acres in area and was formerly
occupied by a 295-unit mobile home park, where 102 units were located on proposed Parcel 1
and 193 units were located on proposed Parcel 2. The site is currently vacant. The current future
land use category of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) zoning
district permits residential dwellings at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Plan category permits residential dwellings at
a density of 18 dwelling units per acre or retail and commercial uses at a 0.40 floor area ratio
(FAR). Based on a maximum permitted development potential in the proposed
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Plan, 209 dwelling units or a floor area of
202,763 square feet could be potentially constructed on proposed Parcel 1 (11.637 acres). The
allowable development potential in the Residential Medium (RM) category requested for
proposed Parcel 2 (18.435 acres) is 15 dwellings units per acre, which would allow 276 dwelling
units to be constructed on this site. As stated earlier, the applicant is proposing to limit
commercial development on proposed Parcel 1 to no more than 90,000 square feet and
residential development on proposed Parcel 2 to 243 attached units (apartments) through a
development agreement. For the purposes of this evaluation of impacts to public facilities,
however, the most intensive use and density allowed is analyzed.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of the proposed plan
amendment is based on the Pinellas Planning Council’s (PPC) traffic generation guidelines. The
PPC’s traffic generation rates have been calculated for proposed Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 based on
the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories and is analyzed below.
The subject site is proposed to have direct access to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, South Belcher Road
and Druid Road. According to the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant and approved by
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 7 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
the City’s Engineering Department, potential traffic generation will be distributed among the
three roadways in the following manner: 30% of the trips will be distributed to Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard; 47% of the trips will be distributed to South Belcher Road; and 20% of the trips will
be distributed to Druid Road. The remaining 3% of the trips are expected to flow between the
subject site and the shopping center located on the east side of the site, across South Belcher
Road. The traffic analysis submitted by the applicant utilizes different segment beginnings and
ends than those included within the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Level of Service (LOS) Report; therefore, the following table does not utilize the trip distribution
percentages provided within the secondary analysis. The resulting figures assume that the net
new trips generated would be distributed from only one access point onto one single adjacent
segment, as opposed to distributed among the three adjacent roadways, thus presenting the
maximum potential traffic to be generated on each segment by each proposed parcel and related
land use change.
MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC (Proposed Parcel 1 – 11.637 acres)
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard: Between Keene Current Existing Proposed Net New
12
Road and Belcher Road Situation Plan Plan Trips
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips
N/A 780 3,945 3,165
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential
N/A 74 375 301
3
Trips
Volume of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from Keene
59,500 60,280 63,445 3,165
Road to Belcher Road
LOS of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from Keene
F F F F
Road to Belcher Road
Belcher Road: Between Nursery Road &
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips
N/A 780 3,945 3,165
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential
N/A 74 375 301
3
Trips
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 8 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Volume of Belcher Road from Nursery Road
23,604 24,384 27,549 3,165
to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
LOS of Belcher Road from Nursery Road to
C C C C
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service
1 = Based on PPC calculations of 67 trips per acre per day for the Residential Medium (RLM) Future Land Use Category.
2 = Based on PPC calculations of 339 trips per acre per day for the Commercial General (R/O/R) Future Land Use Category.
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
Source: “The Rules” of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC (Proposed Parcel 2 – 18.435 acres)
Belcher Road: Between Nursery Road & Current Existing Proposed Net New
12
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Situation Plan Plan Trips
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips
N/A 1,235 1,880 645
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential
N/A 117 179 61
3
Trips
Volume of Belcher Road from Nursery Road
23,604 24,839 25,484 645
to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
LOS of Belcher Road from Nursery Road to
C C C C
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Druid Road: Between Belcher Road &
Keene Road
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips
N/A 1,235 1,880 645
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential
N/A 117 179 61
3
Trips
Volume of Belcher Road from Nursery Road
7,349 8,584 9,229 645
to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
LOS of Belcher Road from Nursery Road to
C C C C
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service
1 = Based on PPC calculations of 67 trips per acre per day for the Residential Medium (RLM) Future Land Use Category.
2 = Based on PPC calculations of 102 trips per acre per day for the Commercial General (RM) Future Land Use Category.
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
Source: “The Rules” of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
Based on the 2009 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service
(LOS) Report, the segment of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from Keene Road to Belcher Road has a
LOS F, the segment of Belcher Road from Nursery Road to Gulf-to-Bay Road has a LOS C, and
the segment of Druid Road from Belcher Road to Keene Road has a LOS D. The proposed
Future Land Use Plan categories could generate an increase in PM Peak Hour traffic on these
three roadway segments by as much as 301 trips. As required by the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
all affected roadway segments and intersections must maintain a LOS D. Any impacts generated
by the proposed development degrading the LOS below the acceptable level will require
mitigation at the expense of the applicant.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 9 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Specific uses in the existing and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the
number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation
th
Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition.
Net Change of PM Net Change
Square Footage/ Daily Average Daily PM Trips Peak of PM Peak
Uses Residential Units Trips Trips Average Rate Trips Trips
Existing MHP
District/ RLM Maximum
Future Land Use Development
Plan Potential
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 10 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Former Mobile
1
Home Park (MHP)
4
300 units 1,497 N/A 0.60 180 N/A
(4.99 trips/unit)
Proposed C District /
R/O/R Future Land Maximum
Use Plan Development
(Parcel 1) Potential
Shopping Center 2
5
202,763 sf 8,707 7,210 3.73 756 576
(42.94 trips/1,000 sf gfa)
Apartment
3
Residential Units
6
209 units 1,390 -107 0.62 130 -50
(6.65 trips/unit)
Proposed MDR
District / RM Future Maximum
Land Use Plan Development
(Parcel 2) Potential
Apartment
3
Residential Units
7
276 units 1,835 338 0.67 185 5
(6.65 trips/unit)
Permitted Use
through Proposed
Development Maximum
Agreement Development
(DVA2009-00005)Potential
Proposed Parcel 1:
2
Shopping Center
90,000 sf 3,865 N/A 3.73 336 N/A
(42.94 trips/1,000 sf gfa)
Proposed Parcel 2:
Low-Rise Apartment
3
Residential Units
243 units 1,616 N/A 0.62 151 N/A
(6.65 trips/unit)
Total Trips 90,000 sf +
(Parcel 1 + Parcel 2) 243 units 5,481 3,984 N/A 487 307
th
1 = Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 240
th
2 = Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 820
th
3 = Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 220
4 = Total Dwelling units per acre permitted by the underlying RLM Future Land Use Plan category is 10 units per acre.
5 = Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying R/O/R Future Land Use Plan category is 0.40.
6 = Total dwelling units per acre permitted by the underlying R/O/R Future Land Use Plan category is 18 units per acre.
7 = Total Dwelling units per acre permitted by the underlying RM Future Land Use Plan category is 15 units per acre.
A traffic analysis was prepared by the applicant based on a methodology approved by the City’s
Engineering Department for a 92,500 square foot shopping center on proposed Parcel 1 and 260
units on proposed Parcel 2. Since the time the study was prepared, the applicant’s development
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 11 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
agreement proposal has further restricted development potential to 90,000 square feet of
retail/commercial use and 243 attached dwellings. The findings of the study indicate that the
proposed development will result in a total of 236 net new PM Peak Hour trips distributed over
three roadways. All intersections analyzed are projected to operate at acceptable levels of
service (not below a D) with the exception of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard at Belcher Road, which
currently operates at a Level of Service E. This intersection is projected to continue to operate at
a LOS E by 2020. Based on the findings of the traffic study and through discussions with the
City, Pinellas County and the Florida Department of Transportation, the following improvements
will be required to mitigate the traffic impacts.
?
Dedication of approximately 0.09 acre of right-of-way for an eastbound right turn only
lane on S.R. 60;
?
Construction of the Parcel 1 project driveway located on S.R. 60 across from South Main
Avenue with right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in only movements;
?
Installation of a directional median separator on S.R. 60 between South Main Avenue and
the Parcel 1 project driveway such as to prohibit left turns exiting Parcel 1 and left turns
exiting South Main Avenue;
?
Construction of left turn modifications to the median of S.R. 60 located between South
Main Avenue and Belcher Road;
?
Construction of a southbound right turn only lane on Belcher Road between S.R. 60 and
the Parcel 1 project entrance;
?
Installation of a new mast arm traffic signal on Belcher Road at the Parcel 1 project
entrance with pedestrian signals at all four legs of the intersection;
?
Granting of an easement, in favor of the City, for the purpose of installation and
maintenance of signal control equipment to be located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Belcher Road and the project drive/Publix entrance; and
?
Construction of three Parcel 2 project entrance driveways on Druid Road.
It should be noted that the applicant proposed to construct the right turn lane along the south side
of Gulf to Bay Boulevard (SR 60). Upon review by the Florida Department of Transportation
staff, it was determined that traffic signals at this intersection should be replaced with mast arm
signals when the turning lane is added. At present there is insufficient space within the existing
right-of-way on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard to accommodate such new mast arm
poles; therefore, the applicant is dedicating land to be used in the future when additional right-of-
way is obtained on the north side of the intersection. Once the turning lane is constructed the
volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio) will decrease from the projected 1.06 to 1.0, and the delay
will decrease from a projected 70.7 seconds per vehicle to 63.6 seconds per vehicle.
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The
total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is located directly between two
existing transit routes along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (north) and South Belcher Road (east).
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 12 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Water
The current Future Land Use Plan category could use up to 78,300 gallons per day. Under the
proposed Future Land Use Plan categories, water demand could approach approximately
126,294 gallons per day. The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has confirmed,
however, that the increase will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for water.
Wastewater
The current Future Land Use Plan category could produce up to 70,500 gallons per day. Under
the proposed Future Land Use Plan categories, sewer demand could approach approximately
113,665 gallons per day. The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has confirmed that the
proposed land use will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for wastewater.
Solid Waste
The current Future Land Use Plan category could result in the production of 762 tons of solid
waste per year. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan categories, the development of a
shopping center on proposed Parcel 1 and the maximum development of 276 dwelling units on
.
proposed Parcel 2 could generate 1,440 tons of solid waste per yearThe proposed Future Land
Use Plan amendment will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for solid waste disposal.
Recreation and Open Space
The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations will permit the development of up to
485 dwelling units if both proposed Parcels 1 and 2 are developed entirely as residential use;
however, the use of the site is proposed to be limited to commercial development on proposed
Parcel 1 of up to 90,000 square feet and residential development on proposed Parcel 2 of 243
attached units (apartments) per a development agreement (Case No. DVA2009-00005). The
proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will not negatively impact the LOS of
recreational acreage or facilities due to available capacity. Payment of an Open Space,
Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fee will be required. The amount of this fee is
dependent on the actual number of units developed and will be addressed and paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Public School Facilities
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the current Residential Low
Medium (RLM) plan category (maximum of 300 residential units) could generate the following
number of students.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 13 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 300 units = 45 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 300 units = 21 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 300 units = 30 students
TOTAL = 96 students
Even though the use of the site is proposed to be restricted to 243 residential units pursuant to a
development agreement (in addition to commercial uses), the maximum residential development
(209 units on Parcel 1 and 276 on Parcel 2) could generate the following number of students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 485 units = 72 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 485 units = 34 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 485 units = 49 students
TOTAL = 155 students
An increase of 59 students could occur as a result of the proposed Future Land Use Plan
amendment. The subject property is located within Concurrency Service Area (CSA) C for
elementary and middle schools. According to enrollment and capacity data from the Pinellas
County School District, there is available capacity within both CSA C and the high school CSA
to accommodate the potential additional students.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan
amendment can be mitigated so as not to degrade the existing LOS to the adjacent roads.
Further, there is a minimal impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service as each has
adequate capacity to serve the maximum potential increase in demand generated by this
proposed amendment. Open space and recreation facilities, school capacity and mass transit will
not be negatively affected by the proposed future land use plan amendment.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended of Findings of Fact
No wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. Prior to development of this property, site
plan approval will be required. At that time, tree preservation requirements will be addressed and
the stormwater management system will be required to meet all City and Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. Any
redevelopment would require compliance with the City’s tree preservation and storm water
management requirements.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 14 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Due to the commercial nature of the immediate vicinity along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, the
location of the proposed Commercial (C) boundaries (proposed Parcel 1) at the southwest corner
of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road is logical and an appropriate classification. It
will be consistent with the existing Commercial (C) District to the west, north and east, and
compatible with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) Districts to the west and the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to
the south. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and
classifications of streets, ownership lines and existing improvements.
The location of the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) boundaries (proposed Parcel
2) is also logical and an appropriate classification. The proposed boundaries will provide a
transitional buffer between the single-family area to the west and south and the commercial areas
to the north and east. It will be consistent with the adjacent Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District to the west and compatible with the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
to the west and south. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and
classifications of streets, ownership lines and existing improvements.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of
streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from the Residential Low Medium (RLM)
classification to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential Medium (RM)
classifications for the subject site and rezoning from the Mobile Home Park (MHP) District to
the Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts is requested. The
proposed site is currently vacant. This 30.07-acre site exceeds the minimum requirements for the
proposed use of the property for commercial and residential development. The site is surrounded
by single-family residential dwellings to the south and west and a variety of non-residential uses
to the east and north. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible
with the existing neighborhood. The use and density of this property is proposed to be limited
through a companion development agreement application (Case No. DVA2009-00005).
The proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use
Plan classifications and Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning
districts are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are
compatible with the surrounding area, do not degrade public services below acceptable levels
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 15 of 16
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2009-12003 2010-02-16
with the proposed traffic mitigations, are compatible with the natural environment and are
consistent with the development regulations of the City.
Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.
Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
ACTION:
APPROVAL
a)Recommend of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Low Medium (RLM) Classification to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and Residential
Medium (RM) Classifications; and
APPROVAL
b)Recommend of the rezoning from the Mobile Home Park (MHP) District to
the Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts.
Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________
Lauren Matzke, Planner III
Attachments:
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Land Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010 - Case LUZ2009-12003 - Page 16 of 16
Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case Number: DVA2009-00005 (Related to LUZ2009-12003, FLD2009-12045 and
FLD2009-12046)
Agenda Item: E.4. (Related to E.3., D.2. and D.3.)
Owners/Applicants: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C.
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a
Development Agreement between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and
Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City of
Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606.
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
ZONING DISTRICT(S):
Proposed: Commercial (C) District (Parcel 1) and Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District (Parcel 2)
CURRENT/PROPOSED
Current: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
LAND USE PLAN
Proposed: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) (Parcel 1) and
CATEGORY(IES):
Residential Medium (RM) (Parcel 2)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant (former mobile home parks)
Proposed: Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses of up to
90,000 square feet of floor area (0.178 Floor Area Ratio)
at a maximum height of 36 feet, and 243 Attached
Dwellings (13.181 dwelling units per acre) at a
maximum height of 41 feet
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District
SURROUNDING Retail Sales uses and Automobile Service Station
ZONING AND USES: South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts
Retail Sales uses and Office uses
West: Commercial (C), Medium Density Residential (MDR)
and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Districts
Automobile Sales and Detached Dwellings
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
DVA2009-00005 – Page 1 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 30.07 acres is located on the west side of S. Belcher Road between Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Druid Road. The subject property was previously developed with mobile home parks (all
mobile homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The subject property
has approximately 820 feet of frontage along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 1,225 feet
of frontage along S. Belcher Road and approximately 1,301 feet of frontage along Druid Road.
Properties to the north of the subject property across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard are zoned
Commercial (C) District and are developed with retail sales uses (Albertson’s, vacant bank and a
vacant K-Mart) and an automobile service station at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. Properties to the east across S. Belcher Road are zoned
Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District and are developed with the Publix shopping
center, bank, funeral home and offices. Properties to the south across Druid Road are zoned Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings.
Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned Commercial (C) District, Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
The property adjacent to the west of the northern portion of the subject property (requested to be
rezoned to Commercial District) is developed with an automobile sales dealership. Detached
dwellings are adjacent to the west of the southern portion of the subject property (requested to be
rezoned to Medium Density Residential District).
Development Proposals:
There is a companion application to amend the land use plan category for the northern portion of
the subject property (Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) category to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category, and rezoning this area from Mobile Home Park
(MHP) District to Commercial (C) District; and amending the land use plan category the
southern portion of the subject property (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM)
category to Residential Medium (RM) category, and rezoning this area from Mobile Home Park
(MHP) District to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (LUZ2009-12003). The
development proposal includes two companion Flexible Development applications (FLD2009-
12045 and FLD2009-12046). The northern portion of the subject property is proposed to be
developed with a total of 82,999 square feet of commercial floor area (70,212 square feet of
retail sales uses and 12,787 square feet of restaurant uses). The southern portion of the subject
property is proposed to be developed with 243 attached dwellings.
Development Agreement:
The proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) land use plan category for the northern portion
of the subject property permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40. The proposed
Residential Medium (RM) land use plan category for the southern portion of the subject property
permits a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of this Development
Agreement is to restrict the development potential on both the northern and southern portions to
less than the maximums allowable.
Parcel 1 (northern portion), based on the proposed lot area (506,892 square feet; 11.637 acres)
and the maximum FAR, could be developed with a maximum of 202,756 square feet of
nonresidential floor area. The Development Agreement proposes a maximum of 90,000 square
feet of retail sales and restaurant development floor area at a FAR of 0.178. It is noted that the
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
DVA2009-00005 – Page 2 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
Development Agreement permits a larger amount of nonresidential floor area (90,000 square
feet) than that actually proposed under the companion Flexible Development application
(FLD2009-12046; 82,999 square feet), which gives some flexibility for future amendments to the
Flexible Development application without needing to amend the Development Agreement.
Parcel 2 (southern portion), based on the proposed lot area (803,028 square feet; 18.435 acres)
and the maximum density, could be developed with a maximum of 276 dwelling units. The
Development Agreement proposes a maximum of 243 dwelling units at a density of 13.181
dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years
and includes the following main provisions:
Is not effective until final approval and effectiveness of the amendment of the land use plan
?
categories and rezonings under LUZ2009-12003;
Sets out the Developer’s transportation obligations, including:
?
?
Dedication of approximately 0.09 acre of right-of-way for an eastbound right turn
only lane on S.R. 60;
?
Construction of the Parcel 1 project driveway located on S.R. 60 across from South
Main Avenue with right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in only movements;
?
Installation of a directional median separator on S.R. 60 between South Main
Avenue and the Parcel 1 project driveway such as to prohibit left turns exiting
Parcel 1 and left turns exiting South Main Avenue;
?
Construction of left turn modifications to the median of S.R. 60 located between
South Main Avenue and Belcher Road;
?
Construction of a southbound right turn only lane on Belcher Road between S.R.
60 and the Parcel 1 project entrance;
?
Installation of a new mast arm traffic signal on Belcher Road at the Parcel 1 project
entrance with pedestrian signals at all four legs of the intersection;
?
Granting of an easement, in favor of the City, for the purpose of installation and
maintenance of signal control equipment to be located at the southwest corner of
the intersection of Belcher Road and the project drive/Publix entrance; and
?
Construction of three Parcel 2 project entrance driveways on Druid Road.
Acknowledges that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are independent building sites subject to access
?
easements, allowing for separate ownership of Parcels 1 and 2;
Provides for the subdivision of Parcel 1 to allow for separate ownership of individual
?
commercial buildings without the need to amend the site plan under FLD2009-12046;
Provides for Parcel 1 to be considered as one parcel for purposes of signage, which may be
?
permitted through a Comprehensive Sign Program;
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent
Development Agreement.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
DVA2009-00005 – Page 3 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of January 7, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the 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.That the 30.07 acres is located on the west side of S. Belcher Road between Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and Druid Road;
2.That there is a companion application to amend the land use plan category for the northern
portion of the subject property (Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) category to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category, and rezoning this area from Mobile Home Park
(MHP) District to Commercial (C) District; and amending the land use plan category the
southern portion of the subject property (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM)
category to Residential Medium (RM) category, and rezoning this area from Mobile Home
Park (MHP) District to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (LUZ2009-12003);
3.That the proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) land use plan category for the northern
portion of the subject property permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40;
4.That the proposed Residential Medium (RM) land use plan category for the southern portion
of the subject property permits a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre; and
5.That the purpose of this Development Agreement is to restrict the development potential on
both the northern and southern portions to less than the maximums allowable.
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 Agreement implements and formalizes the maximum requirements for
the construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposals
(FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046);
2.That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606
of the Community Development Code;
3.That the Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
APPROVAL
, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between
Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City
of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606, for the property at 2165
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
DVA2009-00005 – Page 4 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00005 2010-02-16
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Land Use Plan Map
?
Zoning Map
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\DVA2009-00005 - Gulf to Bay 2165 (C + MDR) 2010.xx -
2.16.10 CDB - WW\Gulf to Bay 2165 DVA Staff Report for 2.16.10 CDB.docx
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
DVA2009-00005 – Page 5 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case Number: FLD2009-12045 (Related to LUZ2009-12003, DVA2009-00005 and
FLD2009-12046)
Agenda Item: D.2. (Related to E.3., E.4. and D.3.)
Owners/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc.
Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 243 Attached
Dwellings in the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District with a proposed lot area of 803,028 square feet (18.435
acres), a lot width along Druid Road of 1301 feet and along S.
Belcher Road of 618 feet and a building height of 41 feet (to
midpoint of pitched roof) where 50 feet is allowable, as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-304.G, and a two year development
order.
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
ZONING DISTRICT: Proposed: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (Parcel 2)
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
FUTURE LAND USE Proposed: Residential Medium (RM) (Parcel 2)
CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant (former mobile home park)
Proposed Use: 243 Attached Dwellings (13.181 dwelling units per
acre) at a maximum height of 41 feet
EXISTING North:Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
SURROUNDING Vacant (former mobile home parks)
ZONING AND USES: South:Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts
Retail Sales uses and Office uses
West: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 18.435 acres is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of S. Belcher Road and
Druid Road.The subject property was previously developed with 193 mobile homes, which was
part of a larger mobile home park development with a total of 295 mobile homes (all mobile
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 1 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The subject property has
approximately 618 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road and approximately 1,301 feet of
frontage along Druid Road.
Property to the north is presently zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP) District, is proposed to be
rezoned to Commercial (C) District, is the northern portion of the larger former mobile home
park and presently is vacant. This property to the north is proposed for retail sales uses and
restaurants under the companion Flexible Development application Case No. FLD2009-12046.
Properties to the east across S. Belcher Road are zoned Commercial (C) District and Office (O)
District and are developed with a bank, funeral home and offices. Properties to the south across
Druid Road are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed
with detached dwellings. Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings.
Development Proposal:
The former original mobile home park property is proposed to be divided into two parts. The
applicant proposes to amend the land use designation for the northern portion (Parcel 1) from
Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and rezone it from Mobile
Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District, while the applicant proposes to amend the land
use designation for this southern portion (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to
Residential Medium (RM) and rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District (companion Case No. LUZ2009-12003). The northern portion
(Parcel 1) is proposed for commercial development under the companion Case No. FLD2009-
12046. There is also a companion Development Agreement for the overall property (DVA2009-
00005). This southern portion (Parcel 2) of 18.435 acres is proposed to be developed with 243
attached dwellings at a density of 13.181 units per acre. Formerly, there were 193 mobile homes
on this Parcel 2. In order to divide the property into two developable lots, a Division of a Lot of
Record will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits, and be approved and
recorded in the public records (including the recording of a deed to create this parcel). Any
approval of this application should include a condition requiring this Division of a Lot of Record.
The proposal meets and/or exceeds required setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers for
buildings, parking and other structures. The project is designed with a large retention pond on
the east side of the property adjacent to S. Belcher Road, which provides drainage capacity not
only for this residential development on Parcel 2 but also for the commercial development to the
north on Parcel 1. There are 10 residential buildings proposed. Buildings 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9
each have 24 units per building. Buildings 2 and 7 each have 36 units. There are three units on
the south side of the clubhouse building. All buildings are three stories in height (41 feet to the
midpoint of the pitched roof). The exterior finishes of the residential and clubhouse buildings are
a combination of brick, stucco and painted, horizontal hardi-board, with wall colors of fired brick
and worldly gray, alabaster trim and black swan shutters and accessories. Building roofs will
have medium to dark gray shingles. The proposal includes one-story garage buildings on the
west and north sides of the site, 13 feet in height to the midpoint of the pitched roof, with
alabaster stucco walls and shingle roofs similar to the residential buildings.
The design of this residential project includes three driveways on Druid Road, with the main
driveway in the center of the project. A two-way driveway is planned on the western side, while
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 2 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
a right-turn directional, exit-only driveway is proposed on the eastern side. There is a drive
located northeast of Building 3 that connects to the access driveway to S. Belcher Road, which
will be constructed on the commercial Parcel 1 to the north. This cross-access internal drive also
allows residents to access the commercial development without the need to utilize local
roadways. Parking for this project is along the outer edges of the property, except for parking in
the center of the project off the main driveway that allows unimpeded access to the clubhouse for
guests. Access to the majority of the parking will be gated. The proposal exceeds by four
parking spaces the parking requirement of two parking spaces per unit. Forty-eight of the
parking spaces will be in the one-story garages.
Recreational amenities for this residential development include a clubhouse and pool between
Buildings 3 and 8, located adjacent to the west side of the retention pond. Its location in the
center of the project should minimize any noise issues to the adjacent detached dwellings on the
northwest and west sides of this site, and to detached dwellings across Druid Road. The proposal
includes a one-story, covered seating area on a dock-like structure within the retention pond.
Additional recreational facilities are designed between Buildings 4 and 5, including a covered
picnic area, open playground and a paver play area. The proposal also includes a six-foot wide
multi-use trail around the north and east sides of the complex, interconnected to the grid-like
sidewalk system that links the residential buildings and recreational amenities.
The sole reason this application is being processed as a Residential Infill Project rather than as
“attached dwellings” is due to the applicant requesting relief from the Flexibility criteria for
“attached dwellings” that states: “Off-street parking is screened from adjacent parcels of land
and any adjacent street by a landscaped wall or fence of at least four feet in height.” The
applicant requests the deletion of the minimum four-foot high wall or fence from this parking
screening requirement along the street frontage of Druid Road. The applicant asserts that the
increased buffer width (increased from 15 to 25 feet) should be sufficient to screen the parking
and that a four-foot fence or wall would not be as attractive. It is noted that the proposal
complies with the minimum perimeter buffer landscaping requirements of a continuous hedge
and trees for every 35 feet of the frontage. The hedge has been located approximately four feet
off the pavement edge to maximize the screening abilities of the hedge to the parked vehicles. It
is also noted that the applicant complies with Flexibility criteria for the landscaped wall or fence
along the west and north property lines, where a six-foot high opaque fence is proposed, as well
as landscaping along the fence. It is staff’s position that the increased width of the buffer along
Druid Road does not mitigate the Code requirement for the fence or wall (which must be
landscaped). A fence or wall can be attractively done, especially with landscaping to enhance it.
Staff recommends that the fence or wall be required to be installed along with the buffer hedge
and trees or, as an alternative to the fence or wall, that the hedge be installed on top of a 3 – 4
foot high berm to assist in screening the parking that faces Druid Road.
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must
be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise
specified under this approval.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 3 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) that must
be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project
and other design considerations.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the proposed Residential Medium
(RM) land use category and CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum density of 15 dwelling units
per acre would allow for a maximum of 276 dwellings on this Parcel 2. The proposal is for a
maximum of 243 dwelling units (13.181 dwelling units per acre), which is consistent with the
Code provisions. The companion Development Agreement also restricts the density for this
residential development to 243 dwelling units (see Case No. DVA2009-00005).
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.468, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 10,000 square feet. The proposed lot
area for this Parcel 2 is 803,028 square feet (18.435 acres). For comparative purposes, the
minimum lot width requirement for attached dwellings is 100 feet. The lot width along S.
Belcher Road is approximately 618 feet and the lot width along Druid Road is approximately
1,301 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for attached dwellings.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum front setback for Residential
Infill Projects can range between 10 – 25 feet (this site must meet front setbacks along both S.
Belcher Road and Druid Road. Also, as a corner lot, the site must meet side setbacks on the
north and west sides (no rear setback required), where the minimum side setback can range
between 0 – 5 feet. It is noted that for attached dwellings, the minimum required front setback is
25 feet and five feet for the side setback. The proposal exceeds both the minimum front and side
setback requirements. The design of the proposal includes the location of the parking lot at a
front setback to the Druid Road property line of 25 feet. The proposal includes a large retention
pond on the east side of the site, which pushes the actual development away from the S. Belcher
Road property line. From the S. Belcher Road property line, the proposal includes a front
setback of 270 feet to the closest building, 220 feet to pavement and 207 feet to a dumpster
enclosure. The garage buildings on the west side are proposed at a 10-foot side setback and are
oriented with the rear of the buildings facing the detached dwellings to the west. Pavement is
located at a side setback of 27 feet on the west side of the site. Along the north property line, the
proposal provides a side setback of 27 feet to the garage buildings, 45 feet to pavement and 10.7
feet to a multi-use trail.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the maximum allowable height for a
Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) can range between 30 – 50 feet. The proposed
three-story, residential buildings are 41 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The garage
buildings proposed along the north and west sides of the project are one story in height (13 feet
to the midpoint of the pitched roof), which is similar in height to the adjacent detached dwellings
to the north and west of this property. The closest three-story, residential building is proposed 122
feet from the north property line and 109 feet to the west property line, with surface parking and/or
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 4 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
garage buildings separating these residential buildings from the property lines. From a
compatibility standpoint to the adjacent detached dwellings to the west, the positioning of the
garage buildings acts as an intervening use to assist with transitioning building height. Based on
the distance the proposed residential buildings are located from this west property line, in
conjunction with the proposed landscaping, fencing and the garage buildings, the proposed three-
story residential buildings are compatible with the adjacent detached dwellings to the west.
Likewise, based on the distance Buildings 1 and 2 are set back from the north property line, the
proposed six-foot fence along the north property line and landscape improvements, the proposed
three-story residential buildings are compatible with the adjacent detached dwellings to the north.
There are detached dwellings across Druid Road to the south, where most of these dwellings are
oriented with the rear of the dwellings to Druid Road. Druid Road is a 100-foot wide right-of-way.
The closest proposed residential building to the south property line is set back 97 feet. With the
landscape buffers between the property line and the parking lot, the proposed three-story
residential buildings are compatible to the detached dwellings across Druid Road. The proposal
also includes a covered seating area within the retention pond as an amenity to the residents, with
its designed height at 17.5 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum required parking for
a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) is two spaces per unit. With 243 proposed
attached dwellings, 486 parking spaces are required for this project. The proposal exceeds this
requirement by providing 490 total parking spaces, with 48 of these parking spaces in the garage
buildings along the north and west sides of this project. Use of these garages must not be
converted to storage only, as to do so would reduce parking below the required minimum.
This proposal provides access to the main driveway located on the commercial Parcel 1 to the
north to S. Belcher Road, which will line up with the existing traffic light that accesses the
Publix shopping center on the east side of S. Belcher Road. At this driveway intersection, new
mast arms and traffic signal equipment will be installed when this proposed driveway on Parcel 1
is constructed. The new traffic signal equipment box will be located on the southwest corner of
this intersection on this Parcel 2, which will necessitate the need for an easement for this box.
This northern access drive, gated to prevent commercial traffic from entering the residential
project, also provides internal vehicular cross access to the commercial uses proposed on Parcel
1 without the need to access local roadways. Internal sidewalk access between this residential
project and the commercial uses on Parcel 1 is also proposed. The proposal also includes three
driveways on Druid Road. There is a main driveway in the center that will provide uninhibited
access to the clubhouse. The western driveway on Druid Road will be gated and will allow
ingress and egress to the site. The eastern driveway on Druid Road will also be gated, but it will
be only 20 feet in width and be for egress only, with only right turn capabilities. Existing
driveways no longer being used will need to be removed and upright curbing and sidewalk
restoration constructed in their place. Vehicular access to most of the dwelling units is restricted
by proposed gates. Details regarding such gating have not been outlined on the plans submitted.
Prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the restricted access via such gates,
including pull off lane(s) and key pads/contact phones will need to be provided.
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. The
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 5 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
proposal locates exterior mechanical equipment on the ground around each building.
Landscaping and/or fencing will provide screening of these air conditioning units and will be
reviewed with the site development building permit.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Druid Road and at the intersection of S. Belcher Road and Druid 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 was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, 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. There exist overhead
utilities on the west side of the adjacent right-of-way of S. Belcher Road and the north side of the
adjacent right-of-way of Druid Road. Due to the length of the site frontages on these roadways,
these existing overhead utilities should also be placed underground as part of this development
(also in conjunction with the commercial development proposed on Parcel 1 to the north).
Additionally, there exist two power distribution easements on the subject property (14 feet wide
and six feet wide) within blanket easements that will need to be vacated. Evidence of such
easement vacations will need to be provided prior to the issuance of the site development
building permit.
Exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) located on the outside of the
buildings visible to adjacent roadways should be painted the same color as the buildings they are
affixed to reduce their visibility. The location and visibility of such exterior electric equipment
will be reviewed at time of building permits.
It is noted that the drainage retention pond on the east side of this site will be the drainage
facility for both this site (Parcel 2) and the commercial project to the north (Parcel 1) proposed
under Case No. FLD2009-12046. Additionally, potable water and sanitary sewer systems are
interconnected between Parcels 1 and 2. Easements for drainage, water and sewer lines and
vehicular access are necessary. Any approval of this application should include a condition
requiring such easements to be recorded in the public records, with copies to the City, prior to
the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are 15-foot wide perimeter buffers
required along S. Belcher Road and Druid Road and 10-foot wide perimeter buffers required
along the north and west sides of this Parcel 2. The proposal complies with these required
perimeter buffers and provides for increased perimeter buffers along the street frontages of 25
feet to coincide with the required structure setbacks. The proposal also exceeds the requirement
for interior landscape area within the parking lot. A minimum of 10 percent of the vehicular use
area is required as interior landscaping and the proposal provides 11.65 percent. Required
foundation landscape area five feet in depth is provided for the residential buildings and common
facilities facing S. Belcher Road and Druid Road.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 6 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
CDC Section 3-1202.E.1 requires interior landscape islands so that there is a maximum of 10
parking spaces in a row, but allows flexibility to allow up to 15 parking spaces in a row when
necessary due to site circumstances. The proposal includes a parking row south of Buildings 6
and 7 that is designed with 20 parking spaces without an intervening landscape island. Prior to
the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans should be revised to introduce a
landscape island to this row of parking spaces.
As previously discussed, the sole reason this application is being processed as a Residential Infill
Project rather than as “attached dwellings” is due to the applicant requesting relief from the
Flexibility criteria for “attached dwellings” that states: “Off-street parking is screened from
adjacent parcels of land and any adjacent street by a landscaped wall or fence of at least four feet
in height.” The applicant requests the deletion of the minimum four-foot high wall or fence from
this parking screening requirement along the street frontage of Druid Road. The applicant
asserts that the increased buffer width (increased from 15 to 25 feet) should be sufficient to
screen the parking and that a four-foot fence or wall would not be as attractive. It is noted that
the proposal complies with the minimum perimeter buffer landscaping requirements of a
continuous hedge and trees for every 35 feet of the frontage. The hedge has been located
approximately four feet off the pavement edge to maximize the screening abilities of the hedge
to the parked vehicles. It is also noted that the applicant complies with Flexibility criteria for the
landscaped wall or fence along the west and north property lines, where a six-foot high opaque
fence is proposed, as well as landscaping along the fence. It is staff’s position that the increased
width of the buffer along Druid Road does not mitigate the Code requirement for the fence or
wall (which must be landscaped). A fence or wall can be attractively done, especially with
landscaping to enhance it. Staff recommends that the fence or wall be required to be installed
along with the buffer hedge and trees or, as an alternative to the fence or wall, that the hedge be
installed on top of a 3 – 4 foot high berm to assist in screening the parking that faces Druid Road.
This residential project will be planted with various trees, including Florida elms, bald cypress
(adjacent to the retention pond), red maple, southern red cedar, southern magnolia, southern live
oak, crape myrtle, Indian date palm, sabal palm and Mexican fan palm. Due to the existence of
overhead utilities along the west property line serving the adjacent detached dwellings, only accent
trees are proposed (crape myrtle) to reduce conflicts with these overhead lines. Most, if not all, of
the shrubs and groundcover plants are native, drought tolerant landscaping material.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides dumpster enclosures (for trash and recycling bins)
strategically located within the development for ease of truck pickup. Prior to the issuance of
any permits for this project, details for these dumpster enclosures will need to be provided on the
plans showing compliance with City standards, including the requirement to be consistent with
the exterior materials and color of the residential buildings. The proposal has been found to be
acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include any freestanding sign. Any proposed signage will be
required to meet Code provisions. Landscape design and plantings need to coordinate with any
such signage, so as to not shield the signage from view.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 7 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
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 of the proposed Residential Medium
(RM) land use category and the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) District as per
CDC Section 2-301.1 and Table 2-304:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 15 dwelling units per acre 13.181 dwelling units per acre X
(maximum of 276 dwelling (243 dwelling units)
units)
Impervious Surface 0.75 0.468 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Residential Infill Project: N/A 803,028 sq. ft. (18.435 acres) X
(Attached dwellings: 10,000
square feet)
Minimum Lot Width Residential Infill Project: N/A S. Belcher Road: 618 feet X
(Attached dwellings: 100 feet)
Druid Road: 1,301 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: Residential Infill S. Belcher Road: 270 feet (to X 1
Project: 10-25 feet building); 220 (to pavement);
(Attached dwellings: 207 feet (to dumpster enclosure)
25 feet) Druid Road: 25 feet (to
pavement)
Side: Residential Infill North: 27 feet (to building); 45 X 1
Project: 0-5 feet feet (to pavement); 10.7 feet
(Attached dwellings: (to multi-use trail)
five feet) West: : 10 feet (to building); 27
feet (to pavement)
Maximum Height Residential Infill Project: 30-50 41 feet (to mid-point of pitched X 1
feet (Attached dwellings: 30-50 roof)
feet)
Minimum Residential Infill Project: two 490 parking spaces (including X 1
Off-Street Parking spaces per unit (Attached 48 garage parking spaces)
dwellings: two spaces per unit) (2.016 spaces per unit)
(486 required parking spaces)
1 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-
304.G (Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity; other development standards.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 8 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 1
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
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
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 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 meeting of January 7, 2010, 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 18.435 acres is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of S. Belcher Road and
Druid Road;
2.The subject property has approximately 618 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road and
approximately 1,301 feet of frontage along Druid Road;
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 9 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
3.There is a companion proposal to amend the land use designation for this southern portion
(Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential Medium (RM) and to rezone
it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (Case No.
LUZ2009-12003);
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) must be approved by City
Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design
considerations;
5.This Parcel 2 is proposed for 243 attached dwellings at a density of 13.181 units per acre;
6.The proposal meets and/or exceeds required setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers for
buildings, parking and other structures;
7.There are 10 residential buildings proposed, all three stories in height (41 feet to the midpoint
of the pitched roof);
8.There are one-story garage buildings on the west and north sides of the site (13 feet in height
to the midpoint of the pitched roof), providing 48 enclosed parking spaces; and
9.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for 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 Standards as per Tables 2-301.1 and 2-
304 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
304.G 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 243 Attached Dwellings in the proposed Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District with a proposed lot area of 803,028 square feet (18.435
acres), a lot width along Druid Road of 1301 feet and along S. Belcher Road of 618 feet and a
building height of 41 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) where 50 feet is allowable, as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
304.G, and a two year development order, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a land use
amendment and rezoning (LUZ2009-12003);
2.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00005);
3.That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later
than February 16, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
4.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Division of a Lot of Record be approved and
recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner
shall record a deed creating this parcel in accordance with the Division of a Lot of Record;
5.That there be a maximum of 243 dwelling units (13.181 dwelling units per acre);
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 10 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
6.That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
7.That the minimum front setback and perimeter landscape buffer along S. Belcher Road and
Druid Road be 25 feet, while the minimum side setback and perimeter landscape buffer
(north and west) be 10 feet;
8.That the buffer along Druid Road include a landscaped wall or fence of at least four feet in
height or, as an alternative to the fence or wall, the buffer hedge be installed on top of a 3 – 4
foot high berm for the screening of parking;
9.That the maximum residential building height be 41 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof;
10.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the restricted access via gates,
including pull off lane(s) and key pads/contact phones be provided and indicated on plans;
11.That use of the garages be restricted to the parking of vehicles and not be converted to
storage only;
12.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion of the site development permit,
existing overhead utility lines along S. Belcher Road and Druid Road be undergrounded;
13.That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, evidence be provided to the City of
the vacation of two existing blanket power distribution easements on the property (14 feet
wide and six feet wide);
14.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site development plans indicate where existing
driveways on Druid Road are no longer being used, such driveways be removed and upright
curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place;
15.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be revised to introduce
a landscape island to the row of parking spaces south of Buildings 6 and 7 that is indicated
with 20 parking spaces without an intervening island;
16.That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, easements for access,
drainage, sanitary sewer and potable water between Parcels 1 and 2 be recorded in the public
records, with copies provided to the City;
17.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, dumpster enclosure details be provided on the
plans showing compliance with City standards, including consistency with the exterior
materials and color of the residential buildings;
18.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, screening of outside mechanical equipment
comply with Code provisions;
19.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;
20.That open space/recreational impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit;
21.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and
22.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 11 of 12
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12045 2010-02-16
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\Gulf to Bay 2165 Residential (MHDR) 2010.xx - 2.16.10 CDB -
WW\Gulf to Bay 2165 Residential FLD Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12045 – Page 12 of 12
.r
- - - -
H LJ A /JOe) M :::;.LJ) ;;)..COCf - J ~ oLj ~
5fA f1=- ~ 0''-1'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CDB Members
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III N~ (J
February 16,2010
FLD2009-1204j, 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
cf(ct;- 0:;1..-/'
~~
~.
~~~ (NV
J-t~ ~~
.
MEMORANDUM
For the residential Flexible Development application FLD2009-12045, Staff proposes to amend
Condition #8 of approval from that presented in the Staff Report (deleted language stricken; new
language underlined):
Conditions of Approval:
1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a land use
amendment and rezoning (LUZ2009-12003);
2. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DV A2009-00005);
3. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later
than February 16, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
4. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Division of a Lot of Record be approved and
recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner
shall record a deed creating this parcel in accordance with the Division of a Lot of Record;
5. That there be a maximum of243 dwelling units (13.181 dwelling units per acre);
6. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
7. That the minimum front setback and perimeter landscape buffer along S. Belcher Road and
Druid Road be 25 feet, while the minimum side setback and perimeter landscape buffer
(north and west) be 10 feet;
8. That the buffer along Druid Road include a landscaped wall or fence of at least four feet in
height or, as an alternative to the fence or wall, the buffer hedge be installed on top of a J---4
two- foot high berm for the screening of parking;
9. That the maximum residential building height be 41 feet to the midpoint ofthe pitched roof;
10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the restricted access via gates,
including pull offlane(s) and key pads/contact phones be provided and indicated on plans;
11. That use of the garages be restricted to the parking of vehicles and not be converted to
storage only;
12. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion of the site development permit,
existing overhead utility lines along S. Belcher Road and Druid Road be undergrounded;
13. That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, evidence be provided to the City of
the vacation of two existing blanket power distribution easements on the property (14 feet
wide and six feet wide);
14. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site development plans indicate where existing
driveways on Druid Road are no longer being used, such driveways be removed and upright
curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place;
15. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be revised to introduce
a landscape island to the row of parking spaces south of Buildings 6 and 7 that is indicated
with 20 parking spaces without an intervening island;
~.
-5T pry::; H1.-HofLfr)J()ol1 -=fj...,O tJDcR- /;;(otfS' bl.o/O- O(}.-/ b
,
16. That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, easements for access,
drainage, sanitary sewer and potable water between Parcels 1 and 2 be recorded in the public
records, with copies provided to the City;
17. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, dumpster enclosure details be provided on the
plans showing compliance with City standards, including consistency with the exterior
materials and color of the residential buildings;
18. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, screening of outside mechanical equipment
comply with Code provisions;
19. 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;
20. That open space/recreational impact fees be paid prior to the issuance ofthe building permit;
21. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and
22. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed.
2.:~.~+ fl'. (p' h'1~\.-.~~ i..s-M(e1 I!'/\ \..~v J "- (/ k-,,\.-.
kef ~\~ ~ ~t~\. ~~~ )~ ~)_.yJ.. "lo
~~~c~~A ~~t ;:'-~'\~~:~
1 h ~-t\:\e~,^ l'~v-.\-. ~~ -\, \-\.-t \;vt\ht"1><rf~ )"^'--
. j"IrN" ~\ l.... f
o~ PWt~\ \ ~ .' .
I
9Y,
bvJt r 6; G) 1\-,
~ <L 10 I ~t-' ~ ~ kl.t- ~~
0---~~(pI~~~
~{,~P- ~~ ~~
~-h: - - ~~5~~'
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases I Up for the next CDBlGlIlfto Bay 2165 Residential (MHDR) 2010.xx - 2.16.10 CDB _
WW\Memorandum to CDB re Amended Conditions of Approval 2. 16.J0.docx
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case Number: FLD2009-12046 (Related to LUZ2009-12003, DVA2009-00005 and
FLD2009-12045)
Agenda Item: D.3. (Related to E.3., E.4. and D.2.)
Owners/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, LLC
Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 70,212 square feet of
Retail Sales and Services uses and 12,787 square feet of Restaurant
uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet) in the
proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of
506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay
Blvd. of 820 feet and along S. Belcher Rd. of 617 feet, a front
(north) setback to Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 25 feet (to proposed
pavement), a front (east) setback to S. Belcher Rd. of 25 feet (to
proposed pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed
building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side (south) setback
of 10 feet (to proposed pavement), a maximum building height of
36 feet and 495 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C, and a two year development
order.
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
ZONING DISTRICT(S): Proposed: Commercial (C) District (Parcel 1)
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
FUTURE LAND USE Proposed: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) (Parcel 1)
CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant (former mobile home parks)
Proposed Use: Total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet -
Retail Sales and Services uses (70,212 square feet)
and Restaurant uses 12,787 square feet)
EXISTING North:Commercial (C) District
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 1 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
SURROUNDING Retail Sales uses and Automobile Service Station
ZONING AND USES: South:Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
Vacant (former mobile home park)
East: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales uses
West: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Districts
Automobile Sales
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road.
The subject property was previously developed with 102 mobile homes, which was part of a
large mobile home park and a smaller mobile home park with a total of 295 mobile homes (all
mobile homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The subject property
has approximately 817 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 617 feet
of frontage along S. Belcher Road.
Properties to the north are presently zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with retail
sales uses and an automobile service station. Property to the east across S. Belcher Road are
zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales uses (Publix shopping center).
Property to the south is presently zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP) District, is proposed to be
rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is the southern portion of the larger
former mobile home park that is now vacant (Parcel 2). This Parcel 2 is proposed for 243
attached dwellings under the companion Flexible Development application Case No. FLD2009-
12045. Property to the west of the subject property is zoned Commercial (C) District and
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with an automobile sales
dealership.
Development Proposal:
The larger, former mobile home park property is proposed to be divided into two parts. The
applicant proposes to amend the land use designation for this northern portion (Parcel 1) from
Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and rezone it from Mobile
Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District, while the applicant proposes to amend the land
use designation for the southern portion (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to
Residential Medium (RM) and rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District (companion Case No. LUZ2009-12003). The southern portion
(Parcel 2) of 18.435 acres is proposed to be developed with 243 attached dwellings at a density
of 13.181 units per acre. There is also a companion Development Agreement for the overall
property (DVA2009-00005). This northern portion (Parcel 1) is proposed to be developed with a
total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 70,212
square feet and Restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet). In order to divide the larger mobile home
property into two developable lots, a Division of a Lot of Record will need to be submitted prior
to the issuance of any permits, and be approved and recorded in the public records (including the
recording of a deed to create this parcel). This Parcel 1 also incorporates two smaller parcels on
the west side. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring this Division
of a Lot of Record and the recording of a Declaration of a Unity of Title to tie all three portions
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 2 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
together as one developable lot, as well as a prohibition to creating parcels for tax purposes with
the Property Appraiser’s office.
The proposal meets and/or exceeds required front and side setbacks and perimeter landscape
buffers for buildings, parking and other structures. There are five commercial buildings
proposed. Buildings 10, 11 and 13 are proposed for retail sales and services uses for a total of
70,212 square feet. Buildings 12 and 14 are proposed for restaurant uses of a total of 12,787
square feet. (Note: Buildings 1 – 9 are located on the proposed residential development to the
south on Parcel 2.) Tenant sizes and configurations in Building 11 will be constructed to suit the
individual tenants. The design of this building allows tenant spaces on both the north and south
sides of the building, but would not preclude a tenant from having frontage on more than one
side of this building, provided entry and exits comply with the Building Code and Life Safety
exiting requirements. All buildings are one-story in volume, with the exception of Building 13
(bank) which appears two stories in height. The maximum height of these buildings is 36 feet to
the top of decorative features. Actual building heights to the main flat roofs are much lower. The
height of Building 12 is 32.5 feet to the midpoint of the curved roof. The exterior finishes of
these commercial buildings are a combination of split face block (colors: nuthatch and roycraft
adobe), stucco horizontal bands (color: pacer white) and trim, facia, borders and louvers of
everyday white color, while metal roofs will be offbeat green. The color of doors, signs and
accent panels will be cherry tomato, carnival, cheerful, calypso and inkwell.
The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast corner of the site for
the purpose of a small park area to display public art. Details regarding such small park have not
been outlined on the plans submitted. Prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the
small park to display public art will need to be provided.
There is a provision in the companion Development Agreement allowing the platting of this
Parcel 1 into separate building parcels without having to meet landscaping and parking for each
lot. A recent Code amendment added Section 3-1910.D, which states "When new subdivisions
are being developed at locations where reclaimed water will be available within seven (7) years
from the issuance of the development order, the developer shall provide internal reclaimed water
systems that are constructed to City specifications." Reclaimed water is presently not available
but a reclaimed water main extension from Hercules Avenue may be provided by the City. Any
approval of this application should include a condition requiring such reclaimed water system
should such subdivision be desired in the future.
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must
be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise
specified under this approval.
Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) that must
be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project
and other design considerations.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 3 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
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 Residential/Office/Retail is 0.40.
The proposal is for a total of 82,999 square feet of commercial floor area (retail sales of 70,212
square feet and restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet) at a FAR of 0.164, which is consistent with
the Code provisions. It is noted that the Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) provides
for a maximum of 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area at a FAR of 0.178.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.75, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area for retail sales and restaurant uses can range from 3,500 –
10,000 square feet. The proposed lot area for this Parcel 1 is 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres).
Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales uses can range from 30 – 100
feet and restaurant uses can range from 35 – 100 feet. The lot width along Gulf to Bay
Boulevard is approximately 817 feet and the lot width along S. Belcher Road is approximately
617 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for retail sales and restaurant
uses.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum setbacks for retail sales and restaurant uses can range for front setbacks from 15 – 25
feet and for side setbacks from 0 – 10 feet (corner lots have only front and side setback
requirements). The proposal does not request any setback reductions from that set forth for retail
sales and restaurant uses, as all buildings, pavement and dumpster enclosures meet the minimum
front setback of 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet. As a Developer transportation obligation
outlined in the companion Development Agreement, additional right-of-way will be dedicated
for a right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the intersection with S. Belcher Road. While
this right-of-way dedication is not shown on the plans submitted to the CDB, the front setback
will still need to be maintained after the dedication. Prior to the issuance of any permit, this
right-of-way dedication and front setback from this dedication line should be shown on the site
plan.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for retail sales and restaurant uses can range from 25 – 50 feet. The proposal
has been advertised with a maximum building height of 36 feet. There are five proposed
buildings. Most of the proposed buildings are designed with flat roofs, where the building height
is measured to the top of the main flat roof. However, building elevations have dimensioned the
36-foot building height to the top of small, more decorative features of the building and not to
the lower, main roof (Buildings 10, 11 and 14) and the request reflects this 36-foot height. The
height of Building 12 is 32.5 feet to the midpoint of the curved roof. The height of Building 13
is 28 feet to the flat roof deck. Any approval of this application should include a condition
requiring building heights conform to the elevations approved by the CDB with this application,
with the maximum height of 36 feet for decorative building features. The heights for the five
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 4 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
buildings proposed are comparable to, and compatible with, the existing commercial buildings
within the surrounding area and compatible with the proposed residential buildings to the south
on Parcel 2.
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. 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 the high (based on the top number in the range of the uses) requirement is 508 parking
spaces, and the low (based on the bottom number in the range of the uses) requirement is 343
parking spaces. The proposal includes a parking reduction from the required 508 spaces. The
applicant has prepared a Parking Reduction Study (Study) analyzing this proposal. The Study
indicates that the overall need for parking for the commercial uses, which includes internal
capture with the adjacent attached dwellings proposed to the south on Parcel 2, is 476 parking
spaces. The proposal provides 495 parking spaces. The site is also served by bus transit, with
bus stops located adjacent to this commercial site on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher
Road.
The reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
rather than as “retail sales and services” and “restaurants” uses is due to the inability for the
proposal to comply with a Flexibility criteria for these uses, which states: “The use of the parcel
proposed for development fronts on but will not involve direct access to a major arterial street.”
This Parcel 1 fronts on both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, both major arterial
streets, and does not have any frontage on a collector or local roadway. To mitigate this criteria
concern, access for this commercial development has been minimized by providing only one
driveway on each roadway. The driveway located on Gulf to Bay Boulevard has been aligned
with the intersection of S. Main Avenue. There are Developer transportation obligations
outlined in the companion Development Agreement to effect this driveway connection. The
driveway located on S. Belcher Road has been aligned with the existing traffic light that accesses
the Publix shopping center on the east side of S. Belcher Road. The companion Development
Agreement also outlines the Developer transportation obligations for this roadway, including a
southbound right turn lane. At this driveway intersection, new mast arms and traffic signal
equipment will be installed when this proposed driveway on Parcel 1 is constructed. This
driveway on S. Belcher Road will also provide access to the proposed residential development
on Parcel 2. The residential access drive will be gated to prevent commercial traffic from
entering the residential project. This residential access drive also provides internal vehicular
cross access for the residents to access these commercial uses without the need to access local
roadways. Internal sidewalk access between the residential project and these commercial uses is
also proposed. Existing driveways no longer being used will need to be removed and upright
curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place. It is also noted that under the
companion Development Agreement that a Developer transportation obligation is to dedicate
additional right-of-way for an east-bound right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the
intersection with S. Belcher Road. The developer is unable to construct this right turn lane due
to the existing location of traffic signal poles at the southwest corner of this intersection. In
order to construct this turn lane, new mast arm traffic poles would be required. These new mast
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 5 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
arm traffic poles are unable to be constructed at this intersection, due to inadequate right-of-way,
especially at the northwest corner of this intersection currently developed with an automobile
service station.
The east/west drive aisle on the north side of Building 10 provides for two-way traffic. There are
six angled parking spaces designed on the north side of Building 10 that should be reoriented to
be 90-degree parking or reversed in their angle, as they are angled in the wrong direction to the
traffic flow. The east/west drive aisle directly south of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard driveway east
of Building 14 is designed at only 20 feet in width. This east/west drive aisle is anticipated to
provide two-way traffic flow, necessitating a 24-foot width. These parking and drive aisle
revisions should be shown on amended site plans prior to the issuance of the site development
permit. There exists a 17-foot wide ingress/egress easement along the west property line in the
northwest corner that is not being re-used and should be vacated prior to the issuance of the site
development permit.
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. The
proposal locates exterior mechanical equipment on the roof of the commercial buildings.
Screening of these rooftop mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit
submission to determine if parapets surrounding the roof are sufficient to screen the mechanical
equipment.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, as well as at the intersection
of these roadways, 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 was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found
to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, 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. There exist overhead
utilities on the west side of the adjacent right-of-way of S. Belcher Road. Due to the length of
the site frontages on this roadway, the existing overhead utilities should also be placed
underground as part of this development (also in conjunction with the residential development
proposed on Parcel 2 to the south). Additionally, there exist two power distribution easements
on the subject property (14 feet wide and six feet wide) within blanket easements that will need
to be vacated. Evidence of such easement vacations will need to be provided prior to the
issuance of the site development building permit.
Exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) located on the outside of the
buildings should be painted the same color as the buildings they are affixed to reduce their
visibility. The location and visibility of such exterior electric equipment will be reviewed at time
of building permits.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 6 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
It is noted that the drainage retention pond on the residential Parcel 2 will be the drainage facility
for both this commercial site (Parcel 1) and the residential site (Parcel 2) to the south under Case
No. FLD2009-12045. Additionally, potable water and sanitary sewer systems are interconnected
between Parcels 1 and 2. Easements for drainage, water and sewer lines and vehicular access are
necessary. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring such easements
to be recorded in the public records, with copies to the City, prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are 15-foot wide perimeter buffers
required along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along the south side adjacent to the residential development on Parcel 2 and a five-foot
wide perimeter buffer along the west side. The proposal complies with these required perimeter
buffers and provides for increased perimeter buffers along the street frontages of 25 feet to
coincide with the required structure setbacks. The proposal also exceeds the requirement for
interior landscape area within the parking lot. A minimum of 10 percent of the vehicular use
area is required as interior landscaping and the proposal provides 15.1 percent. Required
foundation landscape area five feet in depth is provided for all commercial buildings except
Building 10. Based on the site design, foundation landscaping compliant with Code provisions
can be located along the north side of this building. Prior to the issuance of the site development
permit, the site and landscape plans should show compliance with the foundation landscaping
requirement, as well as dimensioning all landscape areas.
CDC Section 3-1202.E.1 requires interior landscape islands so that there is a maximum of 10
parking spaces in a row, but allows flexibility to allow up to 15 parking spaces in a row when
necessary due to site circumstances. The proposal includes a parking row on the west side of
Building 10 that is designed with 16 parking spaces without an intervening landscape island.
Prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans should be revised to introduce a
landscape island to this row of parking spaces.
This residential project will be planted with various trees, including Florida elms, southern
magnolia, southern live oak, crape myrtle, sabal palm and Mexican fan palm. Most, if not all, of
the shrubs and groundcover plants are native, drought tolerant landscaping material.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides dumpster enclosures at each of the proposed five buildings.
Prior to the issuance of any permits for this project, details for these dumpster enclosures will
need to be provided on the plans showing compliance with City standards, including the
requirement to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of the buildings. The proposal
has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include any freestanding sign. Any proposed signage will be
required to meet Code provisions. Landscape design and plantings need to coordinate with any
such signage, so as to not shield the signage from view. The companion Development
Agreement requires proposed signage to be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in
accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2-803.I.3.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 7 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
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 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 0.4 (maximum of 202,756 0.164 (82,999 square feet X 1
square feet) proposed)
Impervious Surface 0.85 0.752 X
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 8 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Comprehensive Infill 506,892 sq. ft. (11.637 acres) X
Redevelopment Project: N/A
Retail Sales and Services:
3,500 – 10,000 sf
Restaurant: 3,500 – 10,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width Comprehensive Infill Gulf to Bay Blvd: 817 feet X
Redevelopment Project: N/A S. Belcher Road: 617 feet
Retail Sales and Services: 30 –
100 feet
Restaurant: 35 – 100 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: Comprehensive Infill Gulf to Bay Blvd.: 25 feet (to X 1
Redevelopment pavement)
Project: N/A S. Belcher Road: 25 feet (to
Retail Sales and pavement)
Services and
Restaurant uses: 15 –
25 feet
Side: Comprehensive Infill West: 10 feet (to building, X 1
Redevelopment pavement & dumpster
Project: N/A enclosure)
Retail Sales and South: 10 feet (to pavement)
Services and
Restaurant uses: 0 – 10
feet
Maximum Height Comprehensive Infill 36 feet (to top of decorative X 1
Redevelopment Project: N/A building features)
Retail Sales and Services and
Restaurant uses: 25 – 50 feet
Minimum Comprehensive Infill 495 parking spaces (476 X 3
Off-Street Parking Redevelopment Project: N/A required parking spaces based
on Parking Reduction Study)
Retail Sales and Services: 4 – 5
spaces per 1,000 square feet
Restaurant: 7 – 15 spaces per
1,000 square feet
(Required parking: 343 – 508
2
spaces)
1 See analysis in Staff Report
2 Based on a shared 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 2-704.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.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 9 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X 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
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 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.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 10 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
Consistent Inconsistent
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.
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 meeting of January 7, 2010, 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 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher
Road;
2.The subject property has approximately 817 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and approximately 617 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road;
3.There is a companion proposal to amend the land use designation for this northern portion
(Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and to
rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District (Case No. LUZ2009-
12003);
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) must be approved by City
Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design
considerations;
5.This Parcel 1 is proposed to be developed with a total commercial floor area of 82,999 square
feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 70,212 square feet and Restaurant uses of 12,787
square feet);
6.The proposal meets and/or exceeds required setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers for
buildings, parking and other structures;
7.There are five commercial buildings proposed, where all buildings except Building 12 are
designed with flat roofs with a maximum height of 36 feet to the top of decorative building
features (actual building heights will be less; Building 12 is 32.5 feet in height);
8.The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast corner of the site
for the purpose of a small park area to display public art;
9.Access for this commercial development has been minimized to only providing one driveway
on each roadway; and
10.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 11 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
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 2-701.1 and 2-
704 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit 70,212 square feet of Retail Sales and Services
uses and 12,787 square feet of Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square
feet) in the proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of 506,892 square feet
(11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and along S. Belcher Rd. of 617
feet, a front (north) setback to Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a front (east)
setback to S. Belcher Rd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to
proposed building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to
proposed pavement), a maximum building height of 36 feet and 495 parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a land use
amendment and rezoning (LUZ2009-12003);
2.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00005);
3.That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later
than February 16, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
4.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Division of a Lot of Record and a Declaration of
Unity of Title be approved and recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the
issuance of any permits, the owner shall record a deed creating this parcel in accordance with
the Division of a Lot of Record and request the three existing parcels be combined into one
parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s Office. No parcels shall be created for
tax purposes with the Property Appraiser’s office;
5.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
6.That retail sales and service uses not exceed square footage 70,212 square feet and restaurant
uses not exceed 12,787 square feet (total maximum commercial floor area of 82,999 square
feet at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.164). Square footage flexibility may be granted as a
Minor Revision prior to issuance of the site development building permit so long as the
square footage increase and its resultant increase to required parking do not exceed the 495
parking spaces provided and approved under this application;
7.That the minimum front setback and landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S.
Belcher Road be 25 feet;
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 12 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
8.That the minimum side setback and landscape buffer along the west and south property lines
be 10 feet;
9.That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, the following changes be shown
on the revised site and landscape plans:
a.show the right-of-way dedication and front setback line from this dedication line
for a right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the intersection with S. Belcher
Road;
b.show the angled parking on the north side of Building 10 reversed angle or 90-
degree due to the two-way traffic flow on the north side of this Building 10;
c.increase the width of the east/west drive aisle directly south of the Gulf to Bay
Boulevard driveway east of Building 14 from 20 to 24 feet;
d.provide required foundation landscaping along the north side of Building 10;
e.dimension all landscape areas; and
f.introduce a landscape island to the row of 16 parking spaces on the west side of
Building 10;
10.That, prior to the issuance of building permits for each building, building heights conform to
the elevations approved by the CDB, with the maximum height of 36 feet for decorative
building features;
11.That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, evidence be provided to the City of
the vacation of the 17-foot wide ingress/egress easement along the west property line in the
northwest corner and two existing blanket power distribution easements on the property (14
feet wide and six feet wide);
12.That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, easements for access,
drainage, sanitary sewer and potable water between Parcels 1 and 2 be recorded in the public
records, with copies provided to the City;
13.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, existing overhead utility lines
along S. Belcher Road be undergrounded;
14.That proposed signage be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program;
15.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site development plans indicate where existing
driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard are no longer being used, such driveways be removed
and upright curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place;
16.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, dumpster enclosure details be provided on the
plans showing compliance with City standards, including consistency with the exterior
materials and color of the buildings;
17.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the small park to display public
art at the northeast corner of this Parcel 1 be provided;
18.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, screening of rooftop outside mechanical
equipment comply with Code provisions;
19.That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building, exterior electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be painted the same color as the building;
20.That, any future subdivision of this Parcel 1 comply with the provisions of Section 3-1910.D
regarding the installation of an internal reclaimed water systems constructed to City
specifications;
21.That open space/recreational impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit;
22.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 13 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12046 2010-02-16
23.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General 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\Gulf to Bay 2165 Commercial (C) 2010.xx - 2.16.10 CDB -
WW\Gulf to Bay 2165 Commercial FLD Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-12046 – Page 14 of 14
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case Numbers: FLD2009-02009
Agenda Item: D.2.
Owner/Applicant: Louis Developments, LLC,
Representative: Terri Skapik
Address: 443, 460, 462 and 463 East Shore Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval in the Tourist (T) District to permit
the construction of a 7,142 square foot 50-slip dock of which 32
slips will be used as a marina facility to be rented to the public and
the remaining 18 slips will be used as commercial dock accessory
to existing attached dwellings under the provisions of Community
Development Code Sections 2-803.E, 3-601 and 3-603.
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: Vacant and Attached Dwellings
Proposed Use: Marina and Attached Dwellings
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING
Overnight Accommodations
ZONING AND USES:
South: Tourist (T) District
Overnight Accommodations
East: Preservation (P) District
Intracoastal Waterway
West: Tourist (T) District
Attached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.25 acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya
Street 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. Twenty attached dwellings currently operate on the northern portion of
the property, while the southern portion of the property is vacant. The two existing docks with a
total of 13 slips are proposed to be completely removed.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 1 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
To the east of the subject property is the intracoastal waterway. Overnight accommodations exist
to the north and south and attached dwellings are to the west. The overall site appearance in this
area is fair with several vacant lots and non-conforming structures.
Development Proposal:
The marina is proposed as a 50-slip, 7,142 square foot dock with 16 off-street parking spaces. 32
of the slips will be available to the public for rent and the other 18 slips will be an amenity for
the tenants of the attached dwellings. The 16 surface parking spaces are available to those
individuals renting the 32 spaces.
There are no buildings on the southern property and restroom facilities for the marina will be
located in the existing attached dwelling development. Those renting the slips will have access
via a key coded gate. The slips are proposed to accommodate 50 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 (CDC) is discussed below.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Table 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The proposed ISR for the southern property is 0.30, which meets this Code requirement.
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 southern property consists of 28,980 square feet
and has a lot width of 315 feet.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.D, corner lots shall have two front and two
side setbacks. As the subject property is located on the northeast corner of East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street, the subject property has two front setbacks along East Shore Drive to the west and
Papaya Street (south). The north and east property lines are the side setback lines. Pursuant to
CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for marina facilities can range between 10-15 feet
and the minimum side setbacks can range between zero and 10 feet. The proposal includes a
north setback of 46 feet, a south setback of 67 feet, an east setback of 10 feet and a west setback
of 62 feet all of which either meet or exceed the minimum standards noted above.
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 only the 32 slips for rent to the public are
required to provide off-street parking (the balance is accessory to the adjacent attached dwelling
use), a total of 16 parking spaces are required, and have been provided.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist (T) District. 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. Further, as this proposal
is located in the Beach by Design Marina District, vehicular use areas must be screened from view
of rights-of-way as well as from Clearwater Bay with landscaping. The proposal includes the
required interior island landscaping along the west edge of the vehicular use area and along the
east property line which abuts the Clearwater Harbor. The buffers will be planted with both live
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 2 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
oak and cabbage palm trees. Along with the trees will be continuous shrubs and groundcover. This
design of landscape buffers will provide enhanced landscape design.
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 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Maximum FAR 1.0 0.0 X
Maximum ISR 0.95 0.30 X
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 square feet 28,980 square feet X
Marinas and Facilities
Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 315 feet X
Marinas and Facilities
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10-15 feet South: 19 feet (to pavement) X
Marinas and Facilities
West: 46 feet (to pavement) X
Side: 0 - 10 feet North: 46 feet(to pavement) X
East: 11 feet (to pavement) X
Minimum 1 spaces per 2 slips 16 off-street parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking (16 off-street parking spaces)
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
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 – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 3 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
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: N/A
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 N/A
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
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 4 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (CDC SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
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:
Consistent Inconsistent
a. Use and Compatibility:
i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, N/A N/A
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 X
adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general; and
iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general X
vicinity.
b. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities: The use of the proposed dock X
shall 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 X
have a detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation,
transportation, recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on Marine Environment:
i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine X
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas; and
ii) Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass X
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:
i) All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area X
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, X
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:
i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of X
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, X
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.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 5 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands: The dock shall not have a material X
adverse affect upon the uplands surrounding.
COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
The dimensional standards criteria
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 315
feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from both the north and south property line a
minimum of 31.5 feet. As proposed, the dock and tie poles will be set back from the north
property line a distance of 45 feet and will be set back 48 feet from the south property line.
The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the
proposed dock cannot exceed 236.25 feet. The dock and tie poles have a proposed width of 220
feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved.
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 236.25 feet.
As proposed, the dock has a length of 236 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 1,517 feet; therefore tie poles may extend up to 379 feet, approximately 144 feet
beyond the dock. The proposal has tie poles extending beyond 40 feet 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
proposed dock as it fits in with the existing dock development pattern.
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 property (31.5 feet) North: 45 feet X
(Minimum)
10% of the width of the subject property (31.5 feet) South: 48 feet X
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject property (236.25 feet) 236 feet X
(Maximum)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject property (236.25 feet) 220 feet X
(Maximum)
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 the proposal is 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.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 6 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
Restrooms are provided landside (within the apartments to the north) 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 X
be 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 GENERAL STANDARDS:
As previously discussed, the development
proposal has been found to be consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of
adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity.
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.
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 7 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
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 X
of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of X
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent
properties.
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 oak trees, cabbage palm
trees and Indian Hawthorne. The proposal is in compliance with both criteria.
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 five-foot wide landscape buffer has been provided to screen
the surface parking area from the adjacent rights-of-way (East Shore Drive and Papaya Street).
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 December 3, 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.That the 1.25 acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street;
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 8 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. That the use of the associated properties is attached dwellings;
4.That the subject property is located in the Marina District of Beach by Design;
5.That the existing dock and slips are to be removed;
6.That the site has approximately 315 feet of waterfront frontage on Clearwater Harbor
between the north and south property lines;
7.That the proposal consists of the construction of a 7,142 square-foot, 50 slip dock to be used,
in part, as a marina, and as accessory slips for existing attached dwellings;
8.That based on a parking ratio of one parking space per two slips and there being 36 proposed
slips for rent, a total of 16 parking spaces are required;
9.That the upland development will consist of 16 parking spaces for use by those utilizing the
32 docks for rent;
10.That there are no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed dock; and
11.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 to permit the construction of a
7,142 square- foot 50-slip dock of which 32 slips will be used as a marina facility to be rented to
the public and the remaining 18 slips will be used as commercial dock accessory to existing
attached dwellings under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-803.E, 3-
601 and 3-603, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all 16 parking spaces are dedicated
for marina use only and labeled as such;
2.That prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title combining parcels
08-29-15-16434-003-0080, 08-29-15-16434-003-0100 and 08-29-15-16434-002-0100 be
recorded in the public records and a copy of said recorded document be provided to the
Planning and Development Department;
3.That prior to the issuance of any permits, all outstanding Landscape, Storm Water, Traffic
Engineering and Engineering conditions are met;
4.That the method of informing the dock patrons of available restroom facilities in the motel
immediately adjacent to the north is provided;
5.That no tenants conduct any commercial business from any slip in this marina;
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 9 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
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: ______________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 10 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-02009 2010-02-16
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\East Shore 443-463 Louis Developments (T) - 01.10.09 CDB -
MJ\East Shore Drive 443-463 Louis Developments (T) - Staff Report - 01.10 - MJ.docx
Community Development Board – February 16, 2010
FLD2009-02009 – Page 11 of 10
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010
Case #: CPA2009-12001
Ordinance #: 8134-10
Agenda Item: E-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REQUEST: Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments to the five
adopted maps in the Public School Facilities Element in
response to changes in public school facilities enacted by the
Pinellas County School District.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Large-scale
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item involves text amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, specifically
to the five adopted maps in the Public School Facilities Element. The amendments will
replace the five adopted maps in the Element with revised maps in order to reflect final
information regarding school closures, mergers, program changes, and the expansion of
existing and the addition of new charter* schools as per the Pinellas County School
Board’s Five-Year Facilities Work Program (a 39-page document) that was approved by
the School Board on September 15, 2009 and amended on November 10, 2010. The
School Board’s Level of Service (LOS) Report that included changes to assign charter
schools to individual school concurrency service areas was approved on January 12,
2010.
The following adopted maps in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan need to be updated
and replaced based on the School Board’s changes.
?
Map #: J-1 Public School Facilities
?
Map #: J-2 Public Elementary Schools
?
Map #: J-3 Public Middle Schools
?
Map #: J-4 Public High Schools
?
Map #: J-5 Ancillary Facilities and Land Banked Sites
Using information provided by School District staff pursuant to the School Board’s
adopted changes, the tables and summaries below describe the proposed changes that
have been made to the adopted countywide school maps for all affected communities in
Pinellas County, including the City of Clearwater.
*Charter schools are independent public schools operating under a contractual agreement with the Pinellas County School Board.
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
1
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendments involve the replacement of the existing Maps #: J-1 through J-
5 contained in the Public School Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan which are being made pursuant to Florida Statutes (F.S.) Section 163.3177(12),
163.3177(6)(a), 163.31777(2)(c), 163.3180(13)(g), 1013.33(10)-(14) and Rule 9J-
5.025(3)(a), 9J-5.025(3)(b)2, 9J-5.025(3)(b)4, 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, 9J-5.025(3)(c)3, and 9J-
5.025(3)(c)4, F.A.C.
The proposed amendments are discussed below (the schools located within the City of
Clearwater are noted for reference purpose only):
?
Changes to the Public School Facilities Map: #: J-1:
Map #: J-1 includes all public school facilities that are located within the City of
Clearwater, taken from the countywide information from Maps #: J-2 through J-5.
Changes to this map have been made in accordance with the changes being made below
to the Maps #: J-2 through J-5.
?
Changes to the Elementary School Map #: J-2:
Remove the following elementary schools:
Last Scheduled Year Open School Name
2007/2008 Largo Central Elementary School
South Ward Elementary School – located in
2007/2008 Clearwater
2007/2008 Norwood Elementary School
2008/2009 Clearview Avenue Elementary School
2008/2009 Gulf Beaches Elementary School
Kings Highway Elementary School – located in
2008/2009 Clearwater
North Ward Elementary School – located in
2008/2009 Clearwater
2008/2009 Palm Harbor Elementary School
2008/2009 Rio Vista Elementary School
2008/2009 Tyrone Elementary School
Modify the following elementary schools:
1. Madeira Beach Elementary School combined with Madeira Beach Middle School
and Southside Fundamental School to establish the Madeira Beach Fundamental
th
School (K-8 Grade).
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
2
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
Add the following new elementary schools:
1. New Heights Elementary – public school
2. Alfred Adler Elementary – charter school
3. Imagine School at St. Petersburg – charter school
4. Life Force Arts and Technology – charter school (located at 1390 Sunset Point
Road, Clearwater, FL 33755)
?
Changes to the Middle School Map #: J-3:
Remove the following middle schools
Last Scheduled Year Open School Name
2007/2008 Riviera Middle School
Coachman Fundamental Middle School (merged with
Kennedy Middle School to create Clearwater
2008/2009 Fundamental Middle School) – located in Clearwater
2008/2009 Kennedy Middle School – located in Clearwater
Southside Fundamental Middle School (merged with
Madeira Middle School and Madeira Elementary
2008/2009 School to create Madeira Beach Fundamental School)
Modify the following middle schools:
1. Madeira Beach Middle School is combined with Madeira Beach Elementary School
and Southside Fundamental School to establish the Madeira Beach Fundamental
th
School (K-8 Grade).
2. Thurgood Marshall has become Thurgood Marshall Fundamental Middle School.
Add the following new middle schools:
1. Imagine Middle School – charter school
2. Athenian Academy – charter school
3. Plato Academy – charter school (located at 401 Old Coachman Road, Clearwater,
FL 33765)
4. Clearwater Fundamental Middle – public school (located at 1660 Palmetto Street,
Clearwater, FL 33755)
?
Changes to the High School Map #: J-4:
Modify the following high school:
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
3
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
1.Osceola High School is changed to Osceola Fundamental High School.
Add the following new high schools:
1. Mavericks in Education – charter school
2. Life Skills Center North – charter school
?
Changes to the Ancillary Facilities and Land Banked Sites Map #: J-5:
Pinellas County School Board presented this revised map to the participating
communities reflecting the availability of buildings and lands due to recent school
closures and a few teardowns of closed schools. The numerous changes to this map were
not itemized by the School Board.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following
standards:
1.The amendments will further implementation of the comprehensive plan
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives contained in the plan.
The proposed text amendments to the Public School Facilities Element of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are consistent with and will further the
implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) in the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan by ensuring that statutory requirements are reflected in the
Public School Facilities Element. Staff finds that the proposed amendments to the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are consistent with the following adopted goals,
objectives, and policies, of the Comprehensive Plan:
Public School Facilities Element
J.1 GOAL - THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND EFFECTIVE
COLLABORATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND BECAUSE OF A
SHARED COMMITMENT TO EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE,
ALL STUDENTS OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
HIGH STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH THE
AVAILABILITY OF HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES.
(Rule 9J-5.025 (3) (a), F.A.C)
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
4
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
J.1.2 Objective – The City, through implementation of its concurrency
management system for public school facilities, and in
coordination with the School District, shall ensure that there is
available public school capacity to support the anticipated
students from residential site plans and final residential
subdivision approvals (“Residential Approvals”) consistent with
the adopted level-of-service standard for public school
concurrency throughout the five years covered by the Five-Year
Work Program, as amended, and the period of the long-range
planning program contained in the Public School Facilities
Element.
(Rule 9J-5.025(3)(b)2, F.A.C.)
Policies
J.1.2.4School concurrency shall be measured and applied on the
basis of Concurrency Service Areas, as established by the
School Board and as documented in the data and analysis
support section of the Public School Facilities Element.
(Rule 9J-5.025(3)(c)1, F.A.C.)
J.1.4 Objective – The City shall practice effective intergovernmental
coordination with its partner local governments and the School
District to ensure that land use plans, development approvals,
and capital facilities planning are coordinated with the
availability of public school facilities.
(Rule 9J-5.025 (3)(b)4,
F.A.C.)
Policies
J.1.4.4 Amendment of the Public Schools Facilities Element shall
occur according to the procedure in Section 10 of the
Public Schools Interlocal Agreement to ensure that the
Element within the local government comprehensive plans
remains coordinated and consistent with one another and
with the plans of the School Board. (Rule 9J-5.025 (3)(c)3,
F.A.C. & Section 163.3177(12), F.S.)
J.2: GOAL – THE CITY SHALL COORDINATE WITH ITS PARTNER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ON
PROJECTS THAT ENCOURAGE COHESIVE
NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT CONTRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY
BUILDING, AND THAT PROVIDE FOR LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY.
(Rule 9J-5.025 (3) (a), F.A.C)
J.2.1 Objective – The City shall support efforts that facilitate
coordination of planning between Pinellas County and the
School District for the location and development of public
educational facilities.
(Rule 9J-5.025(3)(b)4, F.A.C. & Sections
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
5
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
163.3177(6)(a), 163.31777(2)(c), 163.3180(13)(g), 1013.33(10)-
(14).
Policies
J.2.1.1 – The City shall participate with the School District in the
process of evaluating potential school closures,
significant renovations to existing schools, and school
site selection before land acquisition in accordance with
Section 4 of the existing Public Schools Interlocal
Agreement, filed on April 24, 2007. (Rule 9J-
5.025(3)(c)4, F.A.C.)
2.The amendments are not inconsistent with other provisions of the comprehensive
plan.
The proposed text amendments are consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan. They update the Public School Facilities Element maps to
reflect changes made by the Pinellas County School Board.
3.The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate
to the property in questions and compatible with existing and planned uses in the
area.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
4.Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
5.The amendments will not adversely affect the natural environment.
The proposed amendments seek to provide consistent and coordinated efforts
pursuant to the Pinellas County School Board’s projects and programs. The proposed
amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property
development and therefore will not adversely affect the natural environment.
6.The amendments will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate
area.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
6
Page -
CPA2009-12001
Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
:
The proposed text amendments comply with Florida Statutes and rules by making
necessary corrections and modifications to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Public
School Facilities Element. These amendments are made pursuant to the Pinellas County
School Board’s recently adopted changes to their five-year work facilities program and
level of service report.
APPROVAL
The Planning Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8134-10 that
amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Sandra E. Herman
Planner III
ATTACHMENT:
Ordinance No. 8134-10
0210 Exhibit Staff Report CPA2009-12001 2010-02-16
7
Page -
CPA2009-12001
CURLEW PD
SR
D
v
Cf?f OLDSMAR
NORTySIDE
of
1IcICHIGAN BLVD C
cc
DR.
Mexico i
?
v o
m DUNEDIN SOLON,4VE °?
g
a
`? w 0
SR-580
SAN CHRISTOPHER. DP,
?a
SR-580
................. ET m ....,
r 0 c°?N ?
q
VIRGINIA ST mi WOOD
G RD ?E.
a ENTERPRISE
>
Rlydla GR?? °
w
m
...............
W
w ;W
or > m
> w
.... ............... .?............................. ?NIONST.... . w O'IONST
C2
ti Q w LAND BANKS-5
Q ?e r w ONT.-LAIR RD
(b 0 Y O
Q m
Q W SDNSET CO/[UT RD MA IN S7
0 SUNSET POINT P.D.
1 z LU
° m w
O o cc
y z 2 V SR-590
BAYM0IVT R'00
w ?o ...................................
Q
Q PALMETTO PALMETTO W w
0 > CL? m G?CpP 0 0
??o Q OP
0 s 0 W 0
s ?
?W DREW ST P DREH' ST
ALE , ELAfdC' ST
S ti
0 V
1RT
Q
SR-60 COURTST GULF TO BAY [BLVD. - SR-60
Cle° v NET N,,T
H sdlCJor > U
ASR DRUID RD-CL? 0J h LU ? w > d
........... - ...z m
Q LAKEVIEW RD. m tiN m
> G W W W 2
N h Z > 2 N BLVD. m
o h Q Q w v o N
N W N _ m
BELLEV1W m Z 0 Y W
C'? T m a
NURSERY RD. W E
BELLEAIR eELLEAIR RD-
5.n :: ...........y ........; ..........
.... .. LARGO ........................................................ Scale: N.T.S.
Public School Facilities
Map #: J-1, 2010 ADDENDUM
Date: 11812010
Source: Pinellas County I Jan 2010
Legend
Schools
0-1 COLLEGE
ELEMENTARY
MIDDLE SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
Pinellas County Ancillary School Sites
ANCILLARY SCHOOL SITE
* LAND BANK SITE
Clearwater Planning Area
Outside Clearwater City Limits
Staff Exhibit
CPA2009-12001)-1
2010-02-16
Prepared by:
a
° Clearwater Engineering Department
}} Geographic Technology Division
Fm 100S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)5264755
' - www.MyClearwater.com
Disclaimer:
Public information data is furnished by the City of Clearwater Engineering
Department and must be accepted and used by the recipient with the
understanding that the data received was collected for the purpose of
developing a graphic infrastructure inventory. As such, the City of Clearwater
makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of this data for any other particular
use. Furthermore, the City of Clearwater assumes no liability whatsoever
associated with the use or misuse of such data.
ManC COUNTY
4
IIiE ?dS
Area D Schools
??
1. Sunset Hills
,
2. Tarpon Springs
3. Brooker Creek 70 3
Figure 1
C
ypress
5. sr d? ELEMENARY SCHOOLS
6. Highland Lakes IN PINELLAS COUNTY
7.Ozona 4 2809-2018 school Year
6
8. San Jose
9. Gaelson-Jones i
10. Lake St. George Area C Schools
D
11. Curlew Greek 16. Lelia G. Davis
12- Forest Lakes +
17. McMullan-Booth
13 Oldsmar 18. Safely Harbor
*1
14 Dunedin
10 19. Eisenhower
15. Sandy Lane 75 1 1E 20 Skyereat
21. Beleair
8 1 22. Plumb
23. Ponce De Leon
78 r a 24. Belcher
1 ao
4
18
17
?±,,,rr
G% f
1s
v
ru
a
1 t
0fdTampa Oay
24
Area B Schools
25. Mildred Helms naoacrsT
26
28. Po
st' *30
ona
27. Anon.
28. Fuguit W "°
29. Frontier 7
30. High Point 34
31.Oak hurel 31 e w
32. Bauder Dena 38
33
,am Oak
: =
32
34. Walsingham
38
36
35. Starkey w
41
36. Badmoor w'"c?
37. Crass Bayou 43
48
38. Pinellas Central ° 41
39. S 88 Amu A Schools
40. Seminole 45. New Heights
3M AVE " 54
41, Orange Grove
51 46. Blanton
42. Pinellas Park 47. Sawgrass Lake
43. Ralvlhhgs
53 48. L ch
Yn
44. LeaIman Avenue
49. Shore Acres
e 50. Seventy-Fourth Street
a 8 51. Westgate
Countywide Schools S7 52. Northwest
69. Madeira Beach Fundamental 6 53. Mount Vernon
$
54. North Shore
70. Tarpon Springs Fundamental
71. Curtis Fundamental as 55. Woodlawn
72. Pasadena Fundamental 6B 56. Azalea
78. LakwAuw Fundamental 65 57. Bear Creek
74. Bay Vista Fundamental 58. Gulfport
59. Fairmount Park
Charter Schools 60. Doug Jamerson
75. The Athenian Academy-Area D 61. Campbell Pak
78. Academy Da Vlncl - Area D r 62. Melrose"
77. Plato Academy - Area C 83. Parkins'
78. Pinellas Preparatory Academy- Area B 84. James Sarderiln
79.AtkedAdler -Area A I TampaOay 65.Ma>amo
N
80. Imagine School at St Petersburg -Area A I 66. Lekewacd
81. Llfe Force Arts & Technology - Area D b 2 67. Bay Point"
68. John M. Sexton W E
'Countywide end Zane Seste
S
Scale: N.T.S.
Public Elementary
Schools
Map #: J-2,2010 Addendum
Date: 11712010
Source: Pinellas County / Aug 2009
Staff Exhibit
CPA2009-12001)-2 2010-02-16
Prepared by:
a
° Clearwater Engineering Department
}} Geographic Technology Division
Fm 100S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)5264755
' - www.MyClearwater.com
Disclaimer:
Public information data is furnished by the City of Clearwater Engineering
Department and must be accepted and used by the recipient with the
understanding that the data received was collected for the purpose of
developing a graphic infrastructure inventory. As such, the City of Clearwater
makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of this data for any other particular
use. Furthermore, the City of Clearwater assumes no liability whatsoever
associated with the use or misuse of such data.
PABCD COUNTY
nelldl
RD
RAw s Figure 2
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
° IN PINELLAS COUNTY
ALDERMAN RD a 2909-2110 School Year
•
C 3
a ' Area G Schools
1. Tarpon Springs
2. Carwise
3. Palm Harbor
' w 4. Dunedin Highland
5. Safety Harbor
0. Oak Gram
r,
• 5
Nr
Gulf 1
22 1
Of
-,gyp
" TO BA BLVD
W
61 ?
,
a OfdTavTa Bay
20
rawaLVar ?p
7
B Bo
?
rr
AN R7 W r
1 DAWN
B
0
d PARK BLVD
Area B schools 11 13
7. Largo a
L Seminole
9. Flt gerald
7a. 06owla NTH AVEN
11. Pinellas Park
16
+
N
2
CEWNTMROY A Area A Schools
m
12- Azalea
4
Countywide Schoole X 19 14 13. Mandowlawn
'
17. Clearwater Fundamental Middle 19. Jahn
15. Bay PHobe
alyd'
Madelre Beach Fundamental
Z
1& Tyrone
Thurgood Marshall Fundamental Middle
Charter Schools
20. Pinellas Preparatory Academy -Ana B
21. Athenian Academy - Area C Y
22, Plato Academy -Area C
23. Imagine Middle at St. Petersburg -Area A
=
N
m Tampa Bq
f?
W E
'Countywide and Zone Seats
S
mb.r woBw.A.r Scale: N.T.S.
Public Middle Schools
Map #: J-3,2010 Addendum
Date: 11712010
Source: Pinellas County / Aug 2009
Staff Exhibit
CPA2009-12001)-3
2010-02-16
Prepared by:
° Clearwater Engineering Department
}} Geographic Technology Division
u- 100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)5264755
' - www.MyClearwater.com
Disclaimer:
Public information data is furnished by the City of Clearwater Engineering
Department and must be accepted and used by the recipient with the
understanding that the data received was collected for the purpose of
developing a graphic infrastructure inventory. As such, the City of Clearwater
makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of this data for any other particular
use. Furthermore, the City of Clearwater assumes no liability whatsoever
associated with the use or misuse of such data.
4
inel'd5
{Qu7ty
Figure 3
r €
ffiGH SCHOOLS
8
IN
PINELLAS COUNTY
3 2009-2010 school Year
' A
a
4 5
' r9
IM Lu- u 0 21
Gtdf
Of
P?ICO
u To BLP BLVD
ofd7atnpa0ay
T
20 17
L" -RTON RD
N
9 1.
rrnxa<w
9
WrW
AVE N
A N 10 11
d ' P9MAYEN
a 1
High Schools 19
1. Tarpon Springs 1
2. East Lake 13 1
3. Palm Harbor UnNerslly
4. Dunedin fNCAYEe Charter Schools
5. Countryside (Districtwide)
6. Clearwater 18. Life Skills Center South
7. Largo 19. St. Petersburg Collegiate High
8. Pinellas Park 1 20. Mavericks in Education
9. Seminole 21. Life Skills Center North
10. Dixie Hollins Countywide Schools"
11. Northeast 16.0sceola Fundamental
12. St. Petersburg 17. Bayslde
13. Boca Gaga Tampa Bay
14. Gibbs N
15. Lakewood m
I'
W E
ACour>ywide and Zone Seats
,,,, ,,,,@medq S
Scale: N.T.S.
Public High Schools
Map #: J-4,2010 Addendum
Date: 11712010
Source: Pinellas County I Sep 2009
Staff Exhibit
CPA2009-12001)-4
2010-02-16
Prepared by:
En
gineering Department
Geographic Technology Division
° Clearwaterjo
a 0 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)5264755
' - www.MyClearwater.com
Disclaimer:
Public information data is furnished by the City of Clearwater Engineering
Department and must be accepted and used by the recipient with the
understanding that the data received was collected for the purpose of
developing a graphic infrastructure inventory. As such, the City of Clearwater
makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of this data for any other particular
use. Furthermore, the City of Clearwater assumes no liability whatsoever
associated with the use or misuse of such data.
PASCOCWNIY
1
1 ANCILLARY FACILITIES
20 1. Tarpon Springs Bus Compound
2. Region 2 OIAes
r A Oldsmar Service Canter
4. Robinson Service Center
0. Sernlca Johnson Student Sorvlcon
Center
AUHRU MaO O. Clearwater Bus Compound
- 7. Pinellas County School Administration
Building and Center for Prolesslonal
' . 15 Education
• _ & Weller Pownell Service Center
• 9. Herds TIPS Canter
81 10. Leslman Sw Compound
11. 49th St. Bus Compound
' vs 12. Title One Cantor
• 13. Coachman Service Center
Gidf It Region 8 Office
x
:
7
e 32
4
r 8
refr?
' ?r
1 m Cp
Ofd7ampa Bay
NaaeYLLT
our 3
W
S e?de
? ?
@ g 4 r
I AVEN
s
'J Punra<w
a
AMAVEY
14
S 1
JM AVEx
ANCILLARY FACILITIES e"' s
1'A Palm Harbor
10. Kings Highway
17. North Word 11 AVE
"
LAND BANKED SITES
1
0. South Ward
10. Rio Vista
27
2P-4
'
20. Gulf Beaches 20
B-2
21. Norwood 80. P-6
22. North Ward -St Pate 31. PA
28 Euclid 32.8£
24:C laervtewArenue 33. V-6
25. Dlsston Annex 30. High Point Service Center
20. Dn Id 35. Belcher Road Pend SIQ
27. Seulhekle 3& Sawgrass Lake Elemantery
37. Salety Harbor
> 3& Riviera
Figure 12
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT ANCILLARY FACILITIES N
AND Tampa Bay
LAND BANKED SITES w E
2009.2010 SCHOOL YEAR
"
S
Scale: N.T.S.
Ancillary Facilities
and Land Banked Sites
Map #: J-5,2010 Addendum
Date: 11712010
Source: Pinellas County / Aug 2009
Staff Eshibit
CPA2009-12001)-5
2010-02-16
Prepared by:
° Clearwater Engineering Department
}} Geographic Technology Division
a rtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Fm 100 S. My
Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)5264755
' - www.MyClearwater.com
Disclaimer:
Public information data is furnished by the City of Clearwater Engineering
Department and must be accepted and used by the recipient with the
understanding that the data received was collected for the purpose of
developing a graphic infrastructure inventory. As such, the City of Clearwater
makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of this data for any other particular
use. Furthermore, the City of Clearwater assumes no liability whatsoever
associated with the use or misuse of such data.
Staff Exhibit CPA2009-12001)-MAP 2010-02-16
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
~2JI
C~Y -e\\0
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
OlD 0 ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
13n~
B~~
, hereby disclose that on
re-bo
lb
, 20 -.lQ:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
X inured to the special gain or loss of~ r S i \.?~+ ~ t
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
,
~ ~k~6.rva.~ 9~y
, which
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
L-U =l ~O 0 q - \ ~c!) 0 L\-) a.. +' v+u..re. t a..-J u.A.Q.. ~ ()... ~
,*AL"2.~ ~ ~ eY\8\V'1ee...o,VC3 +\'~^'"' ~ ~V\IL-
-l- ~ ~(o~. W\t\ ~v-~J.a ~alYlee'~a
,erv'~ }br ~ -proOCt::o
f 055 ih Iy
~.e- ~,
(~) ?--O 10
~L-
Signature
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOllOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVil PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
; Clearwater
()
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: February 11,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting(s):
January 05, 2010 & January 19, 2010
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1-2) (Continue to March 16, 2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 -1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD~009-12045 - 2165 Gulfto Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
'\.\j
Yes
No
2. Case: FL:D.~009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005'~d FLD2009-12045)
Yes ~ No
3. Case: FLD~-02009 - 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive
Yes ""-J No
S:IP/anning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010\02 Febnwry 16,2010\1 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
~
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes
No
2. Case: LUZ2009-12003 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DV AZ009-00005,
FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
.."
",
"--.J
Yes
No
Signature:
N C; l.? i'1i1 /t,
PRINT NAME
Date: d-.1 ((, I (:
,/~-Z~( c (),' //~--'
S:IPlanning Depar/men/IC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010102 February 16,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
~
~ Clearwater
o
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: February 11,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting(s):
January 05,2010 & January 19, 2010
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1-2) (Continue to March 16, 2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 -1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2009-12045 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
f
No
2. Case: FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045)
Yes
)(
.
No
3. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive
Yes
R-
,
No
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010\02 February 16, 2010\1 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes
No
~
2. Case: LUZ2009-12003 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DV A2009-00005,
FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
~
No
erties.
Signature:
Date:
~113/;?/
F~A+M:. L. ~~c..
PRINT NAME
s: IPlanning DeparlmenllC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI201 0102 February 16, 201 all Cover MEMO 201 O.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: Agenda Items for
DATE: February 11,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting(s):
January 05, 2010 & January 19, 2010
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1-2) (Continue to March 16.2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 -1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2009-12045 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
No
L/'
2. Case: FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045)
Yes
No
\/
3. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive
Yes
No
\/
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\20IOI02 February 16, 2010\1 Cover MEMO 20IO,doc
"1
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to t Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes
No
2. Case: LUZ2009-12003 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DV A2009-00005,
FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046/,
Yes No
Date: ~ \ \ V \ '0
, \
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010102 February 16,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.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: Agenda Items for
DATE: February 11,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting(s):
January 05, 2010 & January 19, 2010
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1-2) (Continue to March 16.2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 -1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2009-12045 - 2165 GulftO Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
No
.x
2. Case: FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045)
Yes
No
X
/
3. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive
Yes
No
X
/
S:IPlanning DeparlmenllC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010\02 February 16,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS atems 1-2):
1. Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
X
I
2. Case: LUZ2009-12003 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DV A2009-00005,
FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
No
Yes
No
x
Signature:
erties.
I have conducted a
Date: ~/;~O
-;jr/~ 11
PRINT N E
$~Y'l<er
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI20IOlO2 February 16.201011 Cover MEMO 20IO.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: Agenda Items for
DATE: February 11,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting(s):
January 05, 2010 & January 19, 2010
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1-2) (Continue to March 16. 2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-12044 -1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard
2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2009-12045 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
x
No
2. Case: FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2009-12003,
DV A2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045)
Yes
X'
No
3. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443-460-462- 463 East Shore Drive
\
Yes
No
s: I?ianning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBI CDB\20 10\02 Febnwry 16, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doe
r'
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: CPA2009-12001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes
"x/
No
2. Case: LUZ2009-12003 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DV A2009-00005,
FLD2009-12045 and FLD2009-12046)
Yes
x
No
Signature:
Da'e: i' t L/6
I
'[i1(1/J.J41Z1J Ap/'V;ofJ
PRINT AME
S:IPlanning DeparlmenrlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010\02 February 16,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc