The URL can be used to link to this page

03/16/2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER March 16, 2010 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice Chair Frank L. Dame Board Member Doreen DiPolito Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Brian A. Barker Board Member Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: February 16, 2010 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of February 16, 2010 as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. D. WELCOME BOARD MEMBER HINRICHS E. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Member Coates moved to reappoint Nicholas C. Fritsch as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. Member Dame moved to reappoint Thomas Coates as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. F. 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 - 4) 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 – 387½ Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner: Richard C. Homer, President, Homer Properties, Inc. Community Development 2010-03-16 1 Applicant/Agent: Andrea N. Brvenik, Art and Wine Gallery (387½ Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 904-535-0873; email: brveniklaw@aol.com). Location: 0.18 acre located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 feet north of the Causeway Boulevard roundabout. Atlas Page: 267A. Proposed Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Nightclub (wine sales) in conjunction with existing Retail Sales and Services in the Tourist (T) District within an existing 1,512 square-feet shopping center tenant space with no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Nightclub (wine sales) in conjunction with existing Retail Sales and Services. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II. See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 See Page 3 for motion of approval. 2. 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 application to permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of one attached dwelling unit (where only 0.37 dwelling units is permitted today) in the Commercial (C) District, under the provisions of CDC Section 6-109, to permit a Mixed-Use (Retail Sales and Services and one Attached Dwelling) with a lot area of 6,204 square-feet, a lot width of 121 feet (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), 158 feet (San Remo Avenue), a building height of 20.2 feet (to roof deck), a front (west) setback of 3.2 feet (to existing building) 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., 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 Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., and a two-year development order. 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. Community Development 2010-03-16 2 See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2009-12043 and FLD2009-12044 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. 3. Level Three Application Case: LUZ2009-12004 – Multiple lots (28) 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: 5.21 acres located south of the main church site at 110 N. McMullen-Booth Road. Atlas Page: 292A. Request: Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the Institutional (I) category; and 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. See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 Member DiPolito moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2009-12004 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. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Alternate Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. 4. Level Three Application Case: TA2010-01001 Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater, Legal Department. Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code to amend the sign regulations. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney. See Exhibit: Staff Report: TA2010-01001 2010-03-16 Community Development 2010-03-16 3 Member Barker moved to recommend approval of Case TA2010-01001 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote. G. CHAIR ITEM: (Item 1) 1. ONE BAY Presents: A Congress of Regional Leaders The Chair encouraged members of the board and public to register for and attend the free event, ONE BAY Presents: A Congress of Regional Leaders, on Friday, April 16, 2010, at the Tampa Convention Center. The ONE BAY: Livable Communities initiative has drawn upon thousands of citizens over the past 2 1/2 years to create a shared regional vision. H. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1 :20 p.m. ~~) air C munity Development Board Community Development 2010-03-16 4 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 CDB Meeting Date: March 16, 2010 Case Number: FLD2009-12043 Agenda Item: D. 1. Owner: Richard C. Homer Applicant: Andrea Bruenik Address: 387 ½ Mandalay Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a nightclub (wine sales) in conjunction with existing retail sales and services within the Tourist (T) District within an existing 1,512 square feet shopping center tenant space with no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT LAND USE Resort Facilities High (RFH) PLAN CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail Sales and Services Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services / Nightclub EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services ZONING AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.18-acre subject property is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 feet north of Causeway Boulevard, which is within the “Retail/ Restaurant” District of Beach by Design. The site is currently developed with an 8,115 square foot shopping center that is divided into four tenant spaces with no off-street parking spaces. It is noted that the building is nonconforming with regard to the minimum required setbacks and there is no off-street parking available; however the site does currently meet all other development standards. Development Proposal: On December 1, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. The application proposes to establish a nightclub use within an existing 1,512 square foot tenant space where there is presently a retail sales and services use. It should be noted that while the proposed use is technically described as a nightclub, the actual function Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 1 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 of the proposed use would be more consistent with that of an art gallery that offers wine tastings and purchase of wine by the glass. The existing shopping center building will remain unchanged. Therefore, as there will be no building additions or modifications to these existing site improvements, there will be no impact upon the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, maximum building height, and minimum setback development standards. The development proposal’s compliance with those remaining applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum required parking for nightclubs is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 15 required parking spaces. The existing building and site has no on-site parking with no ability to provide any such parking. The proposal provides zero on-site parking spaces similar to many properties along Mandalay Avenue that do not have any on-site parking of their own. The proposed nightclub is located within walking distance of numerous motels, hotels and businesses within this area that rely on the existing metered on-street parking and metered parking lots. Most people park and then walk to businesses, usually visiting more than one business. The Beach Trolley also presently provides bus service from downtown to properties along Mandalay Avenue. The proposed parking reduction is another reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. As such, it is requested that the additional off-street parking requirements for the proposed nightclub be waived. It should be noted that the proposed nightclub is not intended to be a nightclub in the traditional sense, but instead more of an art gallery with wine tastings and purchase of wine by the glass. As such, the demand for off-street parking should not be as intense as it would be for a traditional nightclub and will not likely result in intensification from the existing retail sales and services use. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-803, the uses allowed within the Tourist (T) District are subject to the standards and criteria set forth in this Section. Among those criteria established for the review of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects is the following: 6.Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a.The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b.The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c.The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d.In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 2 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, ? porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. ? e.The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. As previously noted, the proposal does not contain any changes to the existing shopping center building, and while the proposal will meet some of the above criteria, it cannot meet others without being required to modify the existing architectural elevations of the shopping center. However, to require such changes simply to accommodate a proposed change of use for an existing tenant space would be impractical and inappropriate. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2- 801.1 and 2-803: Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 1.0 0.83 X 1 I.S.R. 0.95 0.94 X 1 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 square feet 8,115 square feet X 1 Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet Mandalay Avenue: 75 feet X 1 Maximum Building Height 25 – 50 feet 20 feet X 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 feet West: Four feet (to building) X 1 Zero feet (to pavement) Side: 10 feet North Zero feet (to building) X 1 South: Zero feet (to building) X 1 Rear: 20 feet East: 4.5 feet (to building) X 1 Zero feet (to pavement) Minimum 15 parking spaces Zero parking spaces X 2 Off-Street Parking 1 Figures reflect existing conditions on site that are not being altered or approved by the proposed application. 2 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 3 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 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 above discussion with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 4 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 7, 2019, 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 0.18-acre subject property is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 feet north of the Causeway Boulevard; 2.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Retail/ Restaurant” district; 4.That the subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the provision of an adequate number of off-street parking spaces; 5.That the subject property is presently nonconforming with respect to the existing shopping center building not meeting the minimum required setbacks; 6.That the proposal consists only of a change of use from retail sales and services to nightclub within an existing shopping center building; 7.That the proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height, as they presently exist; 8.That the proposed will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming setbacks for the shopping center building; and 9.That the subject property is developed with a total of zero off-street parking spaces, which does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirement for the property as currently occupied, and with the proposed change of use this nonconformity would be increased. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 5 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12043 2010-03-16 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 has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803; 2.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Section 2-803.C; and 3.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning and Development APPROVAL Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to permit a nightclub (wine sales) in conjunction with existing retail sales and services within the Tourist (T) District within an existing 1,512 square feet shopping center tenant space with no changes to the building or structure setbacks, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That this use (art gallery and wine bar) be limited to this tenant space only, and that any desired relocation within this shopping center or enlargement of floor area shall require a new application for re-review by the CDB; 2.That on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages be limited to beer and wine (2-COP); 3.That there shall be no enticing alcoholic drink specials, such as, but not limited to, ladies night, sink or swim, or quarter beer night; 4.That there be no music played loud enough to impede low decibel conversation; and 5.That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: __________________________________________ Matthew Jackson, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Mandalay 0387 Art and Wine Bar (T) 2010.03 - MJ\Staff Report 03.16.2010.doc Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12043 – Page 6 of 6 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 CDB Meeting Date: March 16, 2010 Case Number: FLD2009-12044 Agenda Item: F.1. Owner/Applicant: Terry R. Kyle, Jeffrey L. Kyle, Mary L. Kyle, Barbara M. Kyle, C/O Cobb, Jerry ESQ Representative: Northside Engineering Services, Inc Address: 1454 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of one attached dwelling unit (where only 0.37 dwelling units is permitted today) in the Commercial (C) District, under the provisions of CDC Section 6-109, to permit a Mixed Use (Retail Sales and Services and one Attached Dwelling) with a lot area of 6,204 square feet, a lot width of 121 feet (Gulf to Bay Boulevard), 158 feet (San Remo Avenue), a building height of 20.2 feet (to roof deck), a front (west) setback of 3.2 feet (to existing building) 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., 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 facade and San Remo Avenue facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., and a two-year development order. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT LAND USE: Central Business District (CBD) Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 1 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CHARACTER DISTRICT: East Gateway PROPERTY USE: Current Use:Vacant Proposed Use: Mixed Use EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Day Labor Facility ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales/Services East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Overnight Accommodations West: Commercial (C) District Attached Dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.14-acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and San Remo Avenue. Located in the East Gateway District of Downtown, the District struggles with a negative image of crime due to the location of problematic uses such as day labor facilities, old motels and social service agencies that provide services to the homeless population. The commercial sector, where the subject property is located, is burdened with a declining business base, an array of deteriorating infrastructure, a mismatch of uses, and an increasing number of vacant storefronts. The subject property is shaped as a triangle and has two fronts and one side and is completely paved with the two-story building only about three feet from the front and side property lines. The existing 3,841 square foot structure was constructed in 1951 and contains 3,041 square feet of commercial space and an 800 square foot dwelling unit on the second floor. The building has been vacant since fall of 2003. To the north of the subject property is a day labor facility; to the east are overnight accommodations; to the west are attached dwellings; and to the south are retail sales/services. The overall site appearance is average and is targeted for redevelopment within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Development Proposal: The proposal is to re-establish a retail sales/services use along with allowing the existing dwelling unit to remain through the termination of status of nonconformity for density. From 1975 to 2003 the subject property operated as a retail clock shop with one dwelling unit on the second floor. In 2004 the property was sold and has been vacant since. In 2009 the previous owner of the clock shop received the property back through the foreclosure process. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-102.E, if the use of a nonconforming structure Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 2 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 is abandoned for a period of six consecutive months, the future use of the structure shall be brought into full compliance with all the requirements of the Development Code; thus the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application. The proposal includes extensive landscaping on the east side along San Remo Avenue and on the north adjacent to the day labor facility. The structure will be pressure cleaned and repainted. Awnings or other approved architectural details will be installed prior to the building being occupied to further improve the façade. No code compliant parking is located on the site and there is insufficient area to provide any code compliant parking. Currently, the site is using the paved area within the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way and the paved area on the property adjacent to San Remo Avenue to park vehicles. The paved area within the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way will remain until it is redeveloped as part of the streetscape improvement project envisioned in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; however the pavement located along San Remo Avenue will be removed for landscaping. It is noted that the City anticipates the streetscape project to begin in the East Gateway area in 2016; however there has been community discussion about accomplishing the streetscape improvements closer to the original timeline of 2012. With this major project scheduled for the near future, staff has concurred that it would serve no purpose to require the pavement to be removed in the Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard right-of-way at this time. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. The site is located within the East Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This being the case the proposal is governed by Commercial District zoning with regard to intensity, density and setbacks while also having to be consistent with the East Gateway Character District policies. This area is envisioned to be a vibrant, stable, diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural base and mixed land uses. It will continue to be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices concentrated along the major corridors of Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Missouri Avenue. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes criteria against which proposals to be located within the Plan boundaries are measured and are discussed below. The proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan including: 1.Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The proposed use is such, as it will be a mixed use involving retail and a residential component. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 3 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 2.Vision: The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. This proposal will allow a building that has been vacant since 2004 to be occupied and will include site improvements to upgrade the East Gateway character district. 3.Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The proposal will provide a living and employment component. 4.Objective 1 E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. This proposal provides an opportunity for businesses to relocate and may create employment opportunities in Downtown. 5.Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. The proposal is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application and meets the district vision of providing neighborhood commercial and residential uses. 6.East Gateway Policy 7: Attract and assist existing retail and personal service establishments in order to create neighborhood employment opportunities. Retail uses are envisioned at street level and provide an opportunity for neighborhood employment. Downtown Design Guidelines: The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown. A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were identified: Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines require clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways between streets, parking areas and buildings. The proposal provides two direct, landscaped pedestrian pathways to the ingress/egress areas on the San Remo Avenue façade. Landscaping: The Downtown Design Guidelines require plant species that are appropriate to the space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs, growth rates, size, etc. in order to conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health. The proposal includes some native species with appropriate maturity size to limit maintenance and conserve water. Building Placement: The Downtown Design Guidelines require that buildings maintain the build-to line or the setback of the developments block. As previously noted, the existing building is nonconforming with regard to those setbacks established for the Commercial (C) District. However, the existing Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 4 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 building is consistent with the guidelines established for development within the Downtown Plan area. As such, the requested reductions in setbacks can be supported. Primary and Corner Facades: The Downtown Design Guidelines state all façades shall utilize a change in plane, building wall projection or recess, variation in building height, storefront display windows and canopies and awnings. The existing building provides distinctive step backs, a variation in height, and storefront display windows on the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard frontage and to provide additional architectural details awning are proposed on the storefronts. Community Development Code: A mixed use project is subject to the relevant review criteria of CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704.C. Intensity: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Sections 2-701.1, the maximum allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 0.49. Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Sections 2-701.1 the Density: maximum density for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 24 dwelling units per acre. The mixed use calculation yielded 0.37 permissible dwelling units which would equate to zero dwelling units, currently one dwelling unit exists.The applicant is requesting Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to maintain the one dwelling unit in a conforming manner (see discussion below). Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (one dwelling unit; where 0.37 dwelling units are permitted today). The criteria for Termination of Status of Nonconformity, as per CDC Section 6-109 and outlined in the table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. Consistent Inconsistent 1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3-1202.D of the X Community Development Code shall be installed. 2. Off-street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established N/A in Section 3-1202.E of the Community Development Code. 3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory N/A use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with this development code. 4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to X satisfy the requirements of this section. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard frontage requires a 15-foot landscape buffer, the San Remo Avenue frontage requires a 10-foot landscape buffer and a five- foot landscape buffer on the north side. As discussed further, any opportunity to install landscaping has been utilized. There are no off-street parking lots nor nonconforming signs, Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 5 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 lighting, accessory structures or uses located on the parcel. A Comprehensive Landscape Program has been submitted to satisfy the landscape requirements. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.77, which is consistent with the above. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the minimum lot area for mixed use can range between 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The overall site is 6,204 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width can range between 50 – 100 feet. The width of the lot along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is 121 feet and 158 feet along San Remo Avenue. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the minimum front setback for mixed use can range between 15 – 25 feet and the side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 3.2 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), a front (east) setback of 2.4 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement) and a side (north) setback of five feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement). The side (north) setback falls within the flexibility range of 0 – 10 feet while both fronts do not; however it is consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment provisions as well as the Building Placement Design Guidelines as set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. As mentioned previously, the building presently occupies the majority of the site. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the maximum building height for mixed uses can range between 25 – 50 feet. The height of the existing building is 20.2 feet (to the roof deck). The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the minimum required parking for mixed use is two spaces per dwelling unit and 4 - 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the one dwelling unit will require 2 parking spaces and the 3,041 square feet of retail sales/ services use will require 15 spaces for a total of 17 required parking spaces. The applicant has provided a parking demand study to substantiate the reduction by showing 27 on-street parking spaces within 1,000 feet. Additionally it showed that the peak parking demand in these spaces occurred at 4:00 PM with 11 percent occupied at that time. Additionally, over 20 percent of the households in the East Gateway have no car, the average number of households with no car in the county is nine percent; thus it is anticipated that with a variety of retail uses possible that there will be walk-up customers patronizing the site. The on- street parking spaces coupled with the anticipated walk-up customers substantiates the requested reduction. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways, 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 triangle. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangle. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 6 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize two black barrels for refuse located at the northwest corner of the site. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, this site is required to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along San Remo Avenue and a five-foot wide landscape buffer along the north side. There is no opportunity for a landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard as the building is located three feet from the property line. The proposal does provide for a generous buffer, up to 15 feet, along San Remo Avenue absent the area for trash staging and the area where the structure abuts the property line. Only 16 podocarpus are proposed along the north side as there is limited space for planting. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided within a five-foot wide landscape area along both the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and San Remo Avenue facades. Shrubs and weeping yaupon holly is proposed for the San Remo Avenue foundation façade but there is no opportunity for foundation planting on the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard façade. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Table 2-701.1: Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 7 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 24/dua (2) 1 dwelling unit X FAR 0.55 0.49 X Maximum ISR 0.90 0.77 X Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 sq. ft. 6,204 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard: 121 feet X San Remo Avenue: 158 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet West: 3.2 feet (to existing building) X 1 0 feet (to existing pavement) East: 2.4 feet (to existing building) 0 feet (to existing pavement) Side: 0 – 10 feet North: 5 feet (to existing building) X 0 feet (to existing pavement) Maximum Height 25 – 50 feet 20.2 feet (to roofdeck) X Minimum 2.0 spaces per unit 0 parking spaces X 1 Off-Street Parking 5/1,000 sq ft gfa (17 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- 704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 8 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 Consistent Inconsistent 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, ? porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. ? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 9 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of 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.That the 0.14 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and San Remo Avenue; 2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) land use plan category; 3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan as the property is located within the East Gateway character district; 4.That the existing site has no off-street parking spaces; 5.That the existing building and pavement is non-conforming with regard to setbacks and no changes are proposed to the location of the building; 6.The structure has a height of 20.2 feet to roof deck; 7.The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 – 25 feet to 3.2 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), a front (east) setback from 15 – 25 feet to 2.4 feet (to existing building) and aero feet (to existing pavement), and a reduction to the side (north setback from 0 – 10 feet to five feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement; 8.The proposal includes reductions to the landscape buffer on the front (east) from 15 feet to zero feet and the side (north) setback from five feet to zero feet; 9.The proposal includes a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from five feet to zero feet; Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 10 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 10.That the existing structure contains one dwelling unit where only 0.37 is allowed today; 11.The submitted Parking Demand Study demonstrates the requested parking space reduction from 17 spaces to zero spaces is adequate; and 12.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 district vision of the East Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.C of the Community Development Code; 4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; 5.The development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of Community Development Code; and 6.That the development proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Termination of Status of Nonconformity criteria as per Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of one attached dwelling unit (where only 0.37 dwelling units is permitted today) in the Commercial (C) District, under the provisions of CDC Section 6-109, to permit a Mixed Use (Retail Sales and Services and one Attached Dwelling) with a lot area of 6,204 square feet, a lot width of 121 feet (Gulf to Bay Boulevard), 158 feet (San Remo Avenue), a building height of 20.2 feet (to roof deck), a front (west) setback of 3.2 feet (to existing building) 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., 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 facade and San Remo Avenue facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., and a two-year development order with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That a building permit be obtained to stripe the required ADA compliant handicap parking space; 2.That a building permit be obtained for the proposed awnings; 3.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee must be paid; Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 11 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-12044 2010-03-16 4.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all applicable Parks and Recreation fees must be paid; 5.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; 6.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, the building and all utility and meter boxes located on the building shall be painted; and 7.inal design and color of the building is consistent with the plans approved by the That the f CDB. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ____________________________ A.Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity ? S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending Cases\Up For The Next CDB\Gulf To Bay 1454 Kyle Retail (C) 2010.03 - SK\1454 GTB Staff Report 2010 03-16.Docx Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 FLD2009-12044 – Page 12 of 12 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 CDB Meeting Date: March 16, 2010 (continued from Feb. 16, 2010) Case Number: LUZ2009-12004 Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church Address: 110 N. McMullen Booth Road Agenda Item: F-2 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION REQUEST: (a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) Classification to the Institutional (I) Classification. (b) Rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District. SITE INFORMATION PROPERTY SIZE: 227,053 square feet or 5.21 acres (total) 28 parcels south of the applicant’s main church site PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Single Family and Vacant Proposed Use: Institutional (Church and Accessory Uses) PLAN CATEGORY: Current Category: Residential Urban (RU) Proposed Category: Institutional (I) ZONING DISTRICT: Current District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) – City R-2 and R-3 – County (4 lots being annexed) Proposed District: Institutional (I) Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 1 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 EXISTING SURROUNDING USES: North: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. (main site), Eddie C. Moore Park (across Drew Street from main church site) West: Vacant residential property (MDR zoned) and Tourist (RV Park) South: Single-Family Dwellings and vacant land, Commercial East: Single-Family Dwellings and vacant land, Office, Place of Workshop, Social and Community Center ANALYSIS: This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves 28 parcels of land, comprising approximately 5.21 acres in area, located generally southwest of the intersection of McMullen Booth Road and Drew Street. Fifteen (15) of the subject parcels are vacant and 13 are occupied by detached dwellings. They are all owned by the applicant, First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church, located on the adjacent large parcel of land to the north. Four of the 28 parcels are located in Pinellas County and the applicant has submitted an annexation application (ANX2009-12017) which is scheduled for public hearing at the same City Council meeting as the public hearing for this land use plan amendment and rezoning application (March 18, 2010). All parcels have an existing Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and zoning designations of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) in the City and R-2 and R-3 (single-family residential zoning) in the County. The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan classification of these parcels to the Institutional (I) category and to rezone them to the Institutional (I) District to consolidate the church’s holdings into the appropriate land use category and zoning district. While no site plan application has been filed, the applicant has indicated the property will be used for drainage purposes and outdoor recreation such as athletic fields for church/school use. 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 density of the parcel, 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] Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 2 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 Recommended Findings of Fact Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below: 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.2.1 Objective – Public institutions, such as hospitals, parks, utility facilities and government facilities, shall be provided sufficient land area to accommodate identified public needs. 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. Recommended Conclusions of Law Amending the Future Land Use Plan classification and zoning designations on the subject parcels would provide sufficient land area to accommodate identified public demands and needs and promote infill development and/or a planned development at an appropriate location within the City. The development of expanded church support facilities on the adjacent property to the south of the main church site at the corner of Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road is consistent with and will be compatible with the surrounding environment. The neighborhood land uses include another existing church, an office site, a civic club use, single family residential, a tourist recreational vehicle park and vacant multiple-family property. 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 Institutional (I) category, as specified in Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now used, or appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource features. This category is generally appropriate to those locations where educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are required to serve the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their relationship with surrounding uses and transportation access. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 3 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 The site, which consists of twenty-eight (28) parcels, is located adjacent to the applicant’s main church site on Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road. There is another existing church, an office site, a civic club use, single family dwellings, a tourist RV park and vacant multiple- family property within close proximity of the subject parcels. The future proposed expansion use of church support facilities is compatible with the surrounding properties and is consistent with the purposes of the Institutional (I) category. In addition to the existing principal church property, three of the 28 parcels included in this application, having addresses of 3042, 3043 and 3053 Cherry Lane, are located within 500 feet of a segment of McMullen Booth Road that has been designated a Scenic/Non-commercial Corridor with a Corridor Subclassification of Residential. According to the Countywide Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Plan Element, the Residential Subclassification areas are characterized by low density residential uses and classified as Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low (RL), or Residential Urban (RU) on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. While the Corridor Subclassification would normally be changed to Mixed Use concurrently to be consistent with the change from Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I) Countywide Plan Map categories, Section 4.2.7.1.3 of the Countywide Rules allows this amendment to be considered to be an exception to the concurrent change to the Corridor Subclassification based upon a finding that the size and configuration of the three lots within the corridor are de minimus in relationship to its frontage on the affected Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor. The subject 3 lots with a total of 0.64 acres have no direct frontage along McMullen Booth and are of an insignificant size and configuration relative to the current 27 acre main church site that has 920 feet of frontage on this road. Additionally, the request to amend the land use plan category to Institutional (I) 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 use on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor if it is a logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an existing and adjoining 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. 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 Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 4 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 The site, made up of 28 parcels, is located adjacent to the applicant’s main church site on Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road. There are a variety of uses within close proximity of the subject parcels including another church, a civic club use, an office site, single family dwellings, a RV park, and vacant multiple-family property. Also, there are existing commercial uses along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to the south of the area. The future proposed expansion use of church and support facilities is compatible with the surrounding properties. Institutional (I), Residential Urban (RU), Resort Facilities High (RFH), Residential Medium (RM), Residential Office/Limited (R/OL), and Commercial General (CG) future land use classifications exist in the vicinity of the multi-lot property. The proposed Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations will allow church and support facilities at a density and scale that is consistent with the existing institutional and mixed 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 The proposed Future Land Use Plan designation of Institutional (I) and rezoning to the Institutional (I) District are in character with the overall Future Land Use Plan and zoning designations in the area. The Institutional (I) future land use classification requested is consistent with the surrounding Institutional (I), Residential Urban (RU), Resort Facilities High (RFH), Residential Medium (RM), Residential Office/Limited (R/OL), and Commercial General (CG) future land use classifications that exist in the vicinity of this property. The proposed Future Land Use Plan designation and rezoning 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 subject site is approximately 5.21 acres in area and has been occupied by single family residences and vacant property. The current future land use category and zoning designations permit residential dwellings at a density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre or nonresidential uses at a 0.40 floor area ratio (FAR). Based on a maximum permitted development potential in the proposed Institutional (I) Future Land Use Plan category, a maximum floor area of 147,515 square feet could potentially be constructed on the land (5.21 acres) at a 0.65 floor area ratio, or a maximum of 65 residential dwelling units at twelve and one- half (12.5) units per acre density could be constructed on the site. It should be noted the Community Development Code only allows residential equivalent uses in the Institutional Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 5 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 District. The applicant has indicated the new property will be used for drainage purposes, outdoor recreation such as athletic fields for church/school use and accessory church uses. 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 the subject site based on the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories. At this time, no site plan proposal or specific traffic impact study has been submitted for this property; therefore the Planning Department is relying upon the projected trip distribution used in the traffic impact study provided by the applicant as part of the land use plan amendment and rezoning for the main church site and multiple residential properties in the vicinity of the current property in 2000. This study was also submitted to and relied upon by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Pinellas County as part of that request. The PPC’s traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories and distributed to Drew Street, McMullen Booth Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard as follows: 50% to / from west on Drew Street 20% to / from west on Gulf to Bay Boulevard / Bayview Avenue 15% to / from north on McMullen Booth Road 10% to / from south on McMullen Booth Road 5% to / from east on Drew Street MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC Drew Street (US 19 to McMullen Booth Road) Current Existing Proposed Net New 12 55% Situation Plan Plan Trips Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 195 298 103 Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 19 28 9 Volume of Drew Street from US 19 to McMullen 20,030 20,225 20,328 103 Booth Road LOS of Drew Street between US 19 to McMullen C C C C Booth Road McMullen Booth Road (Gulf to Bay Boulevard Current Existing Proposed Net New 12 to Main Street) 25% Situation Plan Plan Trips Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 89 136 47 Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 8 13 5 Volume of McMullen Booth Road – Between Gulf 62,761 62,850 62,897 47 to Bay and Main Street LOS of McMullen Booth Road – Between Gulf to F F 4 F 4 F 4 Bay and Main Street Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 6 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Bayshore Boulevard to Current Existing Proposed Net New 12 US 19) 20% Situation Plan Plan Trips Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 71 108 37 Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 7 10 3 Volume of Gulf to Bay Boulevard Between 62,500 62,571 62,608 37 Bayshore Boulevard and US 19 LOS of McMullen Booth Road – Between Gulf to F F 4 F 4 F 4 Bay and Main Street N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service 1 = Based on PPC calculations of 68 trips per day per acre in the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use. 2 = Based on PPC calculations of 104 trips per day per acre for “religious/civic facilities” in the Institutional (I) Future Land Use 3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095. 4 = Volume of traffic remains within one percent of existing traffic so the LOS remains the same. “The Rules” of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Facility Level of Service Report (Pinellas County Format) (Peak Hour Source:and the Directional) Pinellas County MPO Year 2009 LOS Analysis with Existing Conditions, Final (8-31-09) C. Traffic generated by this plan amendment is projected to be less than a 1% increase and would not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road network as the number of trips that may possibly be generated by this application are minimal. The applicant will be responsible for a traffic impact study with a schedule of any required transportation improvements at the time of site plan submittal to the City. Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the level of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Manual. Net Square PM Net Increase Daily Increase of Uses Footage/Dwelling Peak of PM Peak Trips Average Units Trips Trips Daily Trips Existing Zoning/Future Land Use Plan Existing Use Single Family Residences 39 373 N/A 29 N/A and Vacant Land Proposed Zoning/Future Land Use Plan Permitted Uses 147,515 sq. ft. 1,343 970 81 52 Religious/Civic Facilities GFA = gross floor area Mass Transit The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be negatively affected by the proposed plan amendment. The subject site is located directly within one existing “looped” transit route that runs along McMullen Booth Road, Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Drew Street and Bayview Avenue. Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 7 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 Water Under the current Future Land Use Plan category, approximately 10,155 gallons per day could be used for residential on the property. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, water demand could approach approximately 14,751 gallons per day for the maximum gross floor area of non-residential use. The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has confirmed, however, that the proposed land use will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for potable water. Wastewater The current Future Land Use Plan category for this property could produce up to 9,140 gallons per day. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, the proposed demand could approach approximately 11,801 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 98 tons of solid waste per year. Under the proposed Future Land Use Plan category, the proposed demand could potentially approach approximately 258 tons of solid waste per year. The City of Clearwater Solid Waste Department has confirmed that the proposed land use will not negatively affect the City’s current LOS for solid waste disposal. Recreation and Open Space The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will not impact the LOS of recreational acreage or facilities due to available capacity. Should the site be redeveloped, Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. This will be determined as part of the development review process. Schools The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations will not result in new residential development and therefore according to the School Board’s program, there is no concurrency impact associated with the change. Recommended Conclusions of Law Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the adjacent roads. Further, there is a minimal impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service as each has adequate Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 8 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 capacity to handle the maximum potential increase in demand generated by this proposed amendment. Open space and recreation facilities, schools, and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan category. 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. VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.] Recommended Findings of Fact The location of the proposed Institutional (I) District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of the subject parcels, which are generally rectangular. The proposed Institutional (I) District is compatible with the surrounding institutional uses. The location of the proposed Institutional (I) zoning district boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into the appropriate zoning district. The Institutional (I) zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent Institutional (I) zoning located to the immediate north, south, and east. 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 Urban (RU) classification to the Institutional (I) classification for the subject site and rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District is requested. The proposed site is Community Development Board – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 9 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2009-12004 2010-03-16 currently single family and vacant single family parcels. The request makes the Future Land Use Plan classification and zoning designation for these parcels consistent with the surrounding property and consolidates the church-owned property into the appropriate categories. Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: ACTION: APPROVAL Recommend of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) classification to the Institutional (I) classification and rezoning request from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) designation (City) and R-2 and R-3 residential designations (County) to the Institutional (I) District designation. Prepared by Planning Department staff: _______________________________ Sandra E. Herman, 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 – March 16, 2010 – Case LUZ2009-12004 Page 10 of 10 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2010-11001 2010-03-16 : CDB Meeting Date March 16, 2010 Case Number: TA2010-01001 Agenda Item: H.1. CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance No. 8158-10 INITIATED BY: City Attorney’s Office BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In The Complete Angler, LLC, et al. v. The City of Clearwater, Florida, Case No. 8:09- cv-346-T-27EAJ, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an Order [Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction] addressing constitutional issues in two areas of the City’s sign code. Specifically, the Court found that, as applied, the distinction between “art work” and “sign” which turns on whether a painting or other work is displayed in connection with a commercial enterprise is an impermissible restriction on non-commercial speech. Additionally, the Court’s discussion of the exemption from permitting for “holiday decorations”, combined with the Eleventh th Circuit’s opinion in Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11 Cir. 2005), indicate that the current exemption could be construed by the Court as an unconstitutional content-based provision. Review of the ruling by the City Attorney’s Office led to the determination that amendments to the Community Development Code are appropriate in order to comply with the Court’s Order and prevent further litigation regarding these issues. It should be noted that the remaining language in the definition of “sign” setting forth the “designed to convey information to the public” criterion was not discussed by the Court, and legal staff believe that language is currently still enforceable. ANALYSIS: Proposed Amendments: Proposed Ordinance No. 8158-10 includes the following amendments: 1.Amendment to Section 3-1805, Signs permitted without a permit, to delete category D., Holiday decorations, from those signs allowed as of right without any development review. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 16, 2010 - TA2010-01001 1 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2010-11001 2010-03-16 2.Amendment to Section 8-102, Definitions: a.to remove the language regarding identification of product or business and display in conjunction with commercial, for-profit, or nonprofit enterprise from the definition of “art work”; b.to exclude art work and murals from the definition of “sign”; c.to delete the definition of “sign, holiday decoration”, since it will no longer be referenced in the Code. 3. This Ordinance contains a severance clause, recommended for sign code amendments and included in past amendments because of the frequency of litigation regarding such provisions. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: Community Development Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. Section 1-103E.13. provides that it is the purpose, inter alia, of the Community Development Code to [c]oordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions relating to … signs…and like supplementary requirements designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water within the city. The Comprehensive Plan provides in part as follows: Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 16, 2010 - TA2010-01001 2 Exhibit: Staff Report TA2010-11001 2010-03-16 A.3.1 Objective – All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. Policy A.3.1.1 Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for highway safety, and to allow the identification of business locations. Policy A.3.1.2 Proliferation of billboards along major collector and arterial streets shall be prevented as is currently provided. * * * * * The Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and promotes the above-referenced Objectives and Policies of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and meets the other applicable criteria for text amendment adoption. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL The City Attorney’s Office recommends of Ordinance No. 8158-10 amending the Community Development Code in the manner described above. ATTACHMENT: Proposed Ordinance No. 8158-10 Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 16, 2010 - TA2010-01001 3 DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED ~ r. 7tL 2..(\ COUNTY 'P; r\e.-1..l4.6 J..() \ 0 o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Bc:~ Bo..reu- , hereby disclose that on M(J..~ 1~ 20 10. '-' (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, X inured to the special gain or loss of D e u.. €. t ...J A-s ~ c ~ a::Ga4 whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , by , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: FL 1) ..1ooq _ I~~ bll~,,1 r Assocl",fe-, /"5 rrlJi/li!y r~.J/~;;I~"'~B otfc.. 5"'V/Ce.-5 ~r C-</J"It/')I 6C<fft:Sf- dlfrc.4 ~ . 3//t!rtJ Date Filed ~~~ Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES g112.317, 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. 112000 PAGE 2 y ~ 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 March 16,2010 DATE: March 11,2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-12044 1454 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes )(J No 2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road 'y ! Yes No Level Two Application (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 3871/2 Mandalay Avenue Yes _~ No Level Two Application (Item 1): TA2010-01001 I have conducted a personal investil!ation on the personal site visit to the followinl! properties. Signature: ~ air~~ Date: :;'/16//0 R. ((.,l~A ~p A t?~UofJ PRINT NAME . S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010\03 March 16, 201011 Cover MEMO 20JO.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 March 16, 2010 DATE: March 11,2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: Utems 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-12044 1454 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No x 2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road Yes No y Level Two Application (Item 1) 387 1/2 Mandalay Avenue X 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 Yes No Level Two Application (Item 1): TA2010-01001 Signature: Date: 3/;S-/J() 15J'lI~ Yl 1Jo.-rke-r PRINT NAME S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010103 March 16, 201011 Cover MEMO 20lO.doc T ~ 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 March 16,2010 DATE: March 11,2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-12044 1454 Gulfto Bay Boulevard Yes ~ No 2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 MultiR,le lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road " Yes No "J Level Two Application (Item 1) 387 1/2 Mandalay Avenue "~" i 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 Yes No Level Two Application (Item 1): TA2010-01001 Signature: I i / ~"-) uK (1'1 /4- PRINT NAME Date: 3' (\- ! () I?( (j L/ C f(- I have condu S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\20l0103 March 16, 2010\1 Cover MEMO 20l0.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 March 16, 2010 DATE: March 11, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-2044 1454 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No 2. Case: LUZ2~":12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road Yes ~ No Level Two A 1. 387 1/2 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application atem 1): TA2010-01001 I have conducted a ersonal investi ation on the Signature: Date: ~I() o~ 16 PRINT NAME - ~ / ,I'; I ~\ Drf' t o~ , S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI2010\03 March 16, 2010\1 Cover MEMO 2010. doc y ; 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 March 16, 2010 DATE: March 11,2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: Utems 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-12044 1454 Gulf to Bay Bonlevard Yes ~ No 2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple lots (31) 110 N McMullen Booth Road Yes K No Level Two Application (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 3871/2 Mandalay Avenue Yes ~ No Level Two Application (Item 1): TA2010-01001 Signature: .>------ Ff::-4rtI<' L. .~.~ L PRINT NAME S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2010\03 March 16, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc c ......,... ~ 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 March 16, 2010 DATE: March 11,2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Continued items: Utems 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2009-12044 1454 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No 1./ 2. Case: LUZ2009-12004 Multiple l~ts (3}l1l0 N McMullen Booth Road Yes No ,/ Level Two Application (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2009-12043 Yes No 387 t~dalay Avenue Level Two Application (Item 1): TA2010-01001 Signature: PRINT NAME S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010103 March 16, 201011 Cover MEMO 20lO.doc