Loading...
06/15/2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER June 15, 2010 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice-Chair Frank L. Dame Board Member Doreen DiPolito Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member Absent: Brian A. Barker Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael L. Delk Planning Director Robert Tefft Planning Manager Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: April 20, 2010 Acting Member Carlough moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of April 20, 2010 as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2010-04009 – 220 Tulane Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: 220 Tulane, LLC. Agent: Michael Smith, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC (4805 Independence Parkway, Suite 250B, Tampa, FL 33634; phone: 813-341-0496; fax: 813-341-0498; email: msmith@howardcivilengineering.com). Location: 0.41 acre located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of Drew Street. Atlas Page: 280A. Existing Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-304.G. Community Development 2010-06-15 1 Proposed Use: Expanded parking lot for existing Attached Dwellings. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Skycrest Neighbors. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. See Exhibits: Staff Report: FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Memorandum: FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2010-04009 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2010-03003 – 1802 Belcher Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Karpo Inc. Agent: Charles Rutz (2694 Brattle Lane, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-784-0070; email: jana.balicki@westcare.com). Location: 0.66 acre located on the west side of Belcher Road approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of Belcher Road and Sunnydale Boulevard. Atlas Page: 262B. Existing Zoning: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit a social/public service agency within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District within an existing 5,000 square-foot building with 15 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building height, structure setbacks or building under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC)Section 2-1304.H. Proposed Use: Social/Public Service Agency Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Coachman Ridge Association. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-03003 2010-06-15 Member Adelson declared a conflict of interest. Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Applicant representative Charles Rutz said West Care, a not-for-profit agency, will operate the facility and provide individual and group counseling for non-violent offenders from the court- system. Clients will spend no more than two hours on-site. The facility will be open Monday through Thursday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Acting Member Carlough moved to approve Case FLD2010-03003 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, and Hinrichs, Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Adelson abstained. Motion carried. Community Development 2010-06-15 2 E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2010-03005 – 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Mark and Dorothy LeBlanc Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: Renee@northsideengineering.net). Location: 0.253 acre located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A. Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square-feet, a lot width of 146.79 feet along Lakeview Road and 89.77 feet along Dempsey Street, a front setback (north along Lakeview Road) of 18.1 feet (to existing building), 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a front (south along Dempsey Street) of 30.2 feet (to existing building), one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement), a building height of 25.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof) and 16 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Lake Bellevue Association. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 Member Dame moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. CSF (Community Service Foundation) Executive Director Jerry Spilatro, Michael Matheny, and Kevin Sexton requested Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant Jerry Spilatro, Michael Matheny, and Kevin Sexton Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner III Wayne Wells reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends denial. Attorney John Hixenbaugh, representative for the applicants, said the property owners had purchased additional land to the west and made significant changes to the site plan. He said they Community Development 2010-06-15 3 had invested more than $265,000 in the property in their quest to open a restaurant in this 1920s era building. He said the restaurant would provide jobs and an economic engine for the City. He said the area is near railroad tracks, is not homogenous, and features mixed-uses, including industrial and commercial. He said Dempsey Street is an isolated residential area. He disagreed with staff objections to the traffic analysis, parking lot landscaping, and dumpster. Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, said during a January methodology meeting, staff agreed that Lakeview Grill could be used for a parking study; after the parking study was completed, staff said the sites were not comparable. He reviewed site similarities. He said the Lakeview Grill’s owner said many staff walk or take mass transit; a bus stop also is close to the subject property. He reported the parking study determined that the 14-table restaurant, The Boiling Pot, would require six spaces. He said at the April 1 DRC (Development Review Committee) meeting, staff indicated that each of the restaurant’s maximum of 6 employees would require a parking space. He said the project went beyond those requirements and provides16 spaces. He said at the May 6 DRC meeting he offered to install no-parking signs on Dempsey Street, at residents’ request, to avoid parking impacts on the neighborhood. Party Status Holder Jerry Spilatro expressed concerns that restaurant patrons would park at CSF, raising liability concerns after hours and obstructing the agency’s limited parking during the day. He said the restaurant’s dumpster will abut Dempsey Road and attract rodents. He opposed reductions to setbacks and landscaping requirements. He said the owners should have done their due diligence regarding permitted uses prior to purchasing the property. Party Status Holder Mike Matheny said the application requests a zero-setback for a dumpster in front of his house. He expressed concerns that a dangerous curve fronts the property and many trees will be removed for parking. He said the property’s former use as a four-plex generated little traffic. He submitted a petition opposing the use. Party Status Holder Kevin Sexton supported the application, stating the restaurant would be good for the neighborhood and a beautiful use of the structure. He said he had sold the additional property to the owners. He said the former four-plex often required a police presence. He said the owners own successful restaurants in Texas and contribute generously to those communities. Mr. Wells agreed that the historical building should be developed but said this use is too intense; restaurants need as much parking as possible. Many multi-family developments are within walking distance of the Lakeview Grill; few homes are near the Boiling Pot. No-parking signs would restrict parking on Dempsey Street for residents and their guests. Requested setbacks are due to parking spaces and provide insufficient setbacks adjacent to residences. Party Status Holder Matheny said Lakeside Grill has had a number of owners but few patrons. He said the lack of parking would be exacerbated if the Boiling Pot is successful. Attorney Hixenbaugh said emptying the dumpster 3 times a week will have little impact on Dempsey Street. He submitted a petition in support. He said Mr. Pergolizzi, a parking expert, had testified that the number of parking spaces is within the range in City Code and that staff had approved his methodology before he compiled the study. Attorney Hixenbaugh said the restaurant will not provide access to Dempsey Street. He said the owners have tried to address Community Development 2010-06-15 4 all concerns and worked to incorporate neighbor comments, such as serving only beer and wine and not offering entertainment. He submitted suggested conditions for approval. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides objected to the submission of a petition at this point in the proceedings. Attorney Hixenbaugh said the petition was submitted in rebuttal to Party Status Holder Matheny’s petition. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes opined that the petition could be accepted. Board discussion ensued with concern expressed that insufficient parking is proposed as 56 patrons could be dining at one time while others waited to be seated. It was felt the project does not fit the location and a restaurant could not be successful here without sufficient parking. Support was expressed for the project as the restaurant would be attractive and a positive addition to Clearwater, even though parking would be tight. It was felt the owners could add parking spaces when necessary. Acting Member Carlough moved to deny Case FLD2010-03005 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame and DiPolito, Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Members Coates, Adelson, and Hinrichs voted “Nay.” Motion to deny carried. 2. Case: FLD2010-03004 – 22 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Mathura properties #5, LLC Agent: Tuan Huynh, P.E., Regional Consulting Engineers, LLC (7200 Lake Ellenor Drive, Suite 105, Orlando, FL 32809; phone: 407-812-5480; fax: 407-340-5713; email: tuan@rcefl.com) Location: 0.435 acre located on the north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue. Atlas Page: 258A. Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit two attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square-feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front setback (south) of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of five feet (to building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 10 feet (to building),a building height of 30 feet (to flat roof) and four parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Attached Dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association. Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II. See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 Attorney Michael Foley, representing the Palm Pavilion’s owner, requested Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant Michael Foley Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2010-06-15 5 Member Dame moved to accept Matthew Jackson as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner II Matthew Jackson reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended denial. Member Coates moved to accept Tuan Huynh as an expert witness in the field of civil engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Tuan Huynh, representative for the applicant, said for due diligence he had contacted the City’s Planning staff, who advised him that a three-condo project on this site could be presented to the CDB (Community Development Board) for approval as a Flexible Infill Development. He said the applicant then purchased the property and hired professionals to begin the project. Mr. Huynh said staff raised concerns regarding the side setbacks for the first time at a DRC meeting. He said the project was reconfigured to two-condos as the 50-foot wide lot can only accommodate 4 parking spaces. He said the request to modify the side setbacks is due to life safety code regulations which prohibit landscaping in the 5-foot setbacks on both sides of the building; 40 feet are needed to accommodate four vehicles. He said a gasoline/ convenience store abuts the property to the east. He said out of concern for the hotel, the property owner setback the upper floors an additional 10 feet on the west side to expand the buffer; a 6-foot wall separates the properties. He said the garage’s west elevation is walled to block hotel views of vehicles. He said the applicant has done all possible to work with staff and minimize impacts. He said the plan doubles required front and rear landscaping. He said the site is not zoned for single-family residences. Attorney Ed Armstrong, representing the applicant, said the property owner is trying to make this project work and is entitled to a reasonable use of the land. Discussion ensued regarding the words and/or in 5(a) of Ordinance 7546-06, which amended the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design. Attorney Armstrong said inclusion of the word ”or” means the project must meet only one of three standards of approval, even though the project meets all three. He said landscaped areas exceed the minimum required. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said according to the Planning Department’s interpretation, applicants must meet all three standards of approval before setbacks can be approved. The CDB meeting recessed from 2:47 to 2:53 p.m. Attorney Grimes distributed copies of Ordinance language. Party Status Holder Attorney Michael Foley said the project’s scale and mass are too great. He said the applicant should have known what was permitted prior to purchasing the parcel in February 2010. He said the lot’s size is deficient. He said proposed landscaping does not buffer neighbors as contemplated by Beach by Design; there is no buffering between the project and the hotel. He said the project does not comply with Beach by Design. Mr. Jackson said technically, the project provides more landscaping than required. He questioned if 8 trees could survive in the property’s rear. He said staff never discussed a 3- condo project for this site nor were previously provided copies of a site plan with 5-foot side Community Development 2010-06-15 6 setbacks. He said the project does not provide a buffer between neighbors nor meet the spirit of Beach by Design; there would be no green space between the properties. Attorney Armstrong said the size of the lot is not an issue. He said buffering on the west side would serve no purpose as the hotel's six-foot wall separates the properties. He said this is the least intensive use of this lot possible. He said there is no other practical use for this property that does not require additional parking. He said the project's architectural treatment exhibits flavor and character. He said the south elevation also has landscaping. Mr. Jackson said additional landscaping to the rear was proposed today. With a public parking lot next door, many commercial uses would be permitted. Discussion ensued with comments that the site is too small for the large structure, additional landscaping is not impressive, and other commercial uses would be allowed based on public parking in the area. It was felt the project could be approved if neighbors supported it Support was expressed for the project as the plan will not increase area traffic, the building is the right size, and the property owner has done all possible to provide sufficient landscaping. It was felt the project is aesthetically friendly to the neighbors and area, the addition of more plants meets Beach by Design requiring an improved site plan, and an arborist could recommend trees that would guarantee the anticipated aesthetic. Concern was expressed the Palm Pavilion may also object to a restaurant use due to increased traffic. Member Dame moved to deny Case FLD2010-03004 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. . The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame and Hinrichs, Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye"; Members Coates, DiPolito, and Adelson voted "Nay." Motion to deny carried. F. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Ch 'r Community Development Board st: rd Reporter Community Development 2010-06-15 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 CDB Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-04009 Agenda Item: D.1. Owner/Applicant: 220 Tulane, LLC Representative: Michael Smith, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC Address: 220 Tulane Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-304.G. CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES: ANALYSIS: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Residential Medium (RM) Current Use: Attached Dwellings (4) Proposed Use: Expanded parking lot for existing Attached Dwellings North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Vacant land South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Storage East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Detached Dwellings and Parking for office and commercial uses fronting on Drew Street West: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Detached Dwelling and Vacant land Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of Drew Street. The subject property is currently developed with four attached dwellings and accessory parking. The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road, which is a right-of-way of approximately 30 feet in width that dead ends at the north side of the subject property. The property owner submitted an application for a building permit (BCP2010-02028) on February 2, 2010, to construct parking lot improvements, but was advised that a Flexible Development (FLD) application for a setback reduction would need to be submitted and Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 approved by the CDB prior to the issuance of the building permit. The property owner is also upgrading this site by connecting it to the City sanitary sewer system under BCP2010-03135. The site is currently served by a septic tank. The property to the north is presently zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is presently vacant. Properties to the east across Tulane Road are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with a detached dwelling and a parking lot for the office and commercial uses fronting on Drew Street. The property to the south at 1808 - 1820 Drew Street is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales and storage uses. This property to the south is presently being upgraded under the approval granted on December 15, 2009, under FLD2009-06019. Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with a detached dwelling and are otherwise vacant. Development Proposal: The subject property is presently developed with four attached dwellings that are occupied. While the property owner for the subject property is different than the ownership for the property located adjacent to the south (presently undergoing parking lot upgrades), the managing partner is the same for the subject property, the property to the south and the office building on the east side of Tulane Road. He is presently upgrading or plans to upgrade all three of these properties. The purpose of this application is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit (eight spaces proposed), rather than the 1.5 spaces per unit as was required under prior regulations (six spaces presently provided). One of these parking spaces will be a handicap accessible space meeting current Code provisions. Due to a large healthy tree at the northeast corner of the northern unit restricting the placement of pavement west of the existing northern parking spaces, additional pavement is being added on the east side of the existing parking lot at a minimum front setback of 15 feet. This application is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the ability for front setback flexibility that the attached dwelling use does not afford. The existing driveway is being widened to meet current Code requirements of 24 feet. The site plan will need to be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to include vertical curbing along the edges of the driveway on-site of the subject property. Landscaping consisting of a hedge and shade tree is being installed along the east edge of the parking lot on both sides of the driveway. A dumpster enclosure that will serve the commercial uses to the south (approved through FLD2009-06019), as well as these attached dwellings, is being constructed in the southeast corner of the property. In order to place the dumpster in this location, the property owner is currently undergrounding the overhead utilities within the Tulane Road right- of-way. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Residential Medium (RM) land use category and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-301.1, the maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre would allow for a maximum of six dwelling units on this parcel. There exist four dwelling units on the property (9.756 dwelling units per acre), which is consistent with the Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.45, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area for this parcel is 17,986 square feet (0.41 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for attached dwellings is 100 feet. The lot width along Tulane Road is approximately 131 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for attached dwellings. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum front setback for Residential Infill Projects can range between 10 - 25 feet. The minimum side setback can range between 0 - 5 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 0 - 10 feet. It is noted that for attached dwellings, the minimum required front setback is 25 feet, the minimum side setback is five feet and the minimum rear setback is 10 feet. The proposal exceeds both the minimum side and rear setback requirements. The design of the proposal includes the location of the expanded parking lot at a front setback to the Tulane Road property line of 15 feet. The purpose of this proposal is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit. To do so requires a reduction to the front setback. Pavement for the existing parking lot serving the office and commercial uses across Tulane Road is at a zero front setback. The reconstructed parking lot for the commercial uses to the south of the subject property were recently approved with a front setback to Tulane Road of 10.79 feet, approved under FLD2009-06019 by the CDB on December 15, 2009. Maximum Building Heim Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the maximum allowable height for a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) can range between 30 - 50 feet. The height of the existing one-story residential building is approximately 10 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof, which is less than the allowable height. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum required parking for a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) is two spaces per unit. The purpose of this application is to upgrade the site from 1.5 spaces per unit (six spaces existing) to the current Code requirement of two spaces per unit (eight spaces). One of these spaces will be a handicap space meeting Code requirements. The existing driveway is also being widened to the required 24-foot width. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing driveway on Tulane Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Landscaping- Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.13, there is a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer required along Tulane Road. The proposal exceeds this required perimeter buffer by providing a 15-foot wide area that will be planted with a hedge and a shade tree on both sides of the driveway for screening of the parking area. Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the Residential Medium (RM) land use category and the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District as per CDC Section 2-301.1 and Table 2-304: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 15 dwelling units per acre 9.756 dwelling units per acre X (maximum of 6 dwelling units) (4 dwelling units) Impervious Surface 0.75 0.45 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area Residential Infill Project: N/A 17,986 sq. ft. (0.41 acres) X (Attached dwellings: 10,000 square feet) Minimum Lot Width Residential Infill Project: N/A 131 feet X (Attached dwellings: 100 feet) Minimum Setbacks Front: Res. Infill Project: 10-25 15 feet (to pavement); 25 feet (to Xi feet (Attached dwellings: existing building) 25 feet) Side: Res. Infill Project: 0-5 feet North: 9.08 feet (to pavement), X (Attached dwellings: five 28.8 feet (to existing feet) building) South: 24.9 feet (to existing building) Rear: Res. Infill Project: 0-10 feet 15 feet X (Attached dwellings: 10 feet) Maximum Height Res. Infill Project: 30-50 feet 10 feet X (Attached dwellings: 30-50 feet) (to mid-point of pitched roof) Minimum Res. Infill Project: 2 spaces per unit 8 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (8 required parking spaces) i See analysis in StaffReport Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-304.G (Residential Infill Project): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. Consistent I Inconsistent 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X' project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. i See analysis in StaffReport. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the Xi 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. i See analysis in StaffReport. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 6, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of Drew Street; 2. The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road; 3. The site is currently developed with four attached dwelling units; 4. The purpose of this application is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit (eight parking spaces), rather than the 1.5 spaces per unit under prior regulations (six spaces presently provided); 5. This application is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the ability for front setback flexibility that the attached dwelling use does not afford; 6. The additional pavement necessary to provide the current required number of parking spaces is proposed at a 15-foot front setback, where 10 feet is allowable; 7. The proposal exceeds the required 10-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer along Tulane Road; 8. The reconstructed parking lot for the commercial uses to the south were recently approved with a front setback to Tulane Road of 10.79 feet; 9. The property owner is currently undergrounding the overhead utilities within the Tulane Road right-of-way; 10. The property owner is also upgrading this site to be hooked up to the City sanitary sewer system, where the site is currently served by a septic tank; 11. A dumpster enclosure that will serve the commercial uses to the south (approved through FLD2009-06019), as well as these attached dwellings, is being constructed in the southeast corner of the property; and 12. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-301.1 and 2- 304 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 304.G of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-304.G, with the following conditions: Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-04009 2010-06-15 Conditions of Approval: 1. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; and 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site plan be revised to indicate the following: a. vertical curbing along the edges of the driveway on-site of the subject property; b. turning radii for the driveway be a minimum of 30 feet; and c. accessible parking stall and sign details compliant to City standards. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ? Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: )Planning DepartmentlC D B (FLEX (FLD) (Pending cases) Up for the next CDB7ulane 220 Parking Lot (MDR) 2010.0x- 615. CDB - WW Tulane 220 StaffReport doc Community Development Board - June 15, 2010 FLD2010-04009 - Page 7 of 7 ??-?.?vm??1?0??1 U -- GyO?9 o2o/U-Gfo ?l5 ,611 ?XN MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III r m'/ DATE: June 14, 2010 RE: FLD2010-04009, 220 Tulane Road After discussion with the applicant and the Engineering Department, the Conditions of Approval indicated in the Staff Report are modified (Condition #2.b has been removed, as the proposed 25-foot driveway radius was found acceptable) to the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; and 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site plan be revised to indicate the following: a. vertical curbing along the edges of the driveway on-site of the subject property; and b. accessible parking stall and sign details compliant to City standards. EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03003 2010-06-15 CDB Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-03003 Agenda Item: D. 4. Owner: Karpo, Inc. Applicant: Charles Rutz Address: 1802 North Belcher Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a social/public service agency within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District within an existing 5,000 square foot building with 15 off- street parking spaces and no changes to the building height, structure setbacks or building under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1304.H. CURRENT ZONING: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Industrial Limited (IL) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Office Proposed Use: Social/Public Service Agency EXISTING North: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District SURROUNDING Office ZONING AND USES: South: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Office East: Office (O) District Office West: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Manufacturing ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.66-acre subject property is located on the west side of Belcher Road approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of Belcher Road and Sunnydale Boulevard. Belcher Road serves as a major north-south arterial and is lined with office and industrial development. The immediate area includes a bank to the north and an office development to the east, across Belcher Road. To the west, industrial buildings are clustered in the Clearwater Industrial Park. An office building is located to the south. The site is currently developed with a one-story, 5,000 square foot office building. The exterior of the existing building is brick and stucco similar to the bank to the north. The site includes ingress/egress along Belcher Road and incorporates cross access with the bank Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03003 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03003 2010-06-15 property near the rear (west) of the parcel. An easement and maintenance agreement has been secured with the bank property to ensure perpetual cross access legally continues. In 2001 the subject property obtained Flexible Development approval to construct an office with reductions to the side (north) setback from 15 feet to three feet (to pavement), to reduce the side (south) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to sidewalk) and reduce the minimum lot width from 200 feet to 103 feet. It is noted that subsequent to this approval the CDC was amended to only require a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Development Proposal: On March 1, 2010, a Flexible Development application was submitted for the subject property. The application proposes to establish a 2,000 square foot social/public service agency (counseling center) use within an existing 5,000 square foot office building (the balance of the building will remain as office use). The Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District only provides for this proposed use through the Flexible Development approval process. The existing office building and associated off-street parking area will remain unchanged with the lone exception of the addition of a handicap accessible walkway and detectable warning pavement at the southeast corner of the property. This walkway is exempt from compliance with minimum setbacks and will have a de minimis impact upon the maximum impervious surface ratio. The minimum off-street parking requirement for both the existing office use and the proposed social/public service agency use is three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. As such, there will be no change in the parking requirement for the subject property with this change of use. As there will be no building additions or modifications to the existing site improvements, there will be no impact upon the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, maximum building height, off- street parking and/or minimum setback development standards with this proposal. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility Criteria set forth in CDC Section 2-1304.H: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is X designated as residential in the zoning atlas. 2. The social/public service agency shall not be located within 1,500 feet of another X social/public service agency. With regard to the above criteria, the subject property is adjacent to IRT zoning on the north, south and west, and adjacent to Office (O) zoning on the east. Additionally, the applicant has submitted and aerial site map showing that no other social/public service agencies are located within 1,500 feet of the subject property. Therefore, the proposal has been found to be in compliance with the above criteria. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03003 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03003 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-1301.1 and 2-1304: 1 Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.65 0.18 X I.S.R. 0.85 0.45 X Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 28,556 square feet X Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 103 feet X Maximum Building Height 30 feet 22 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 20 feet East: 72.8 feet (to building) X 20 feet (to pavement) Side 15 feet North: 53.5 feet (to building) X 3 feet (to pavement) South: 7.7 feet (to building) X 5 feet (to sidewalk) Rear: 15 feet West: 74.5 feet (to building) X 36 feet (to pavement) Minimum Off-Street Parking 3 spaces/1,000 sf GFA 15 parking spaces X (15 parking spaces) 1 Figures reflect existing conditions on site that are not being altered or approved by the proposed application. 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. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 6, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03003 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03003 2010-06-15 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 0.66-acre subject property is located on the west side of Belcher Road approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of Belcher Road and Sunnydale Boulevard; 2.That the subject property is located within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District and the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.That the proposal consists only of a change of use from office to social/public service agencies within an existing office building; 4.That a previous approval (FL 00-01-01) granted setback and lot width reductions; and 5.That the proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, setbacks, maximum building height and parking requirements, as they presently exist; 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 2-1301.1 and 2-1304; 2.That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Social/Public Service Agency as per CDC Section 2-1304.H; 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 application to permit a social/public service agency within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District within an existing 5,000 square foot building with 15 off-street parking spaces and no changes to the building height, structure setbacks or building under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1304.H, subject to the following condition: Condition of Approval: 1.That prior to the issuance of a Business Tax Receipt, the handicap accessible walk and detectable warning pavement be installed; and 2.That a building permit be obtained for the handicap access improvements. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03003 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 CDB Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-03005 Agenda Item: D.2. Owners/Applicant: Mark and Dorothy LeBlanc Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Address: 921 Lakeview Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square feet, a lot width of 146.79 feet along Lakeview Road and 89.77 feet along Dempsey Street, a front setback (north along Lakeview Road) of 18.1 feet (to existing building), 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a front (south along Dempsey Street) of 30.2 feet (to existing building), one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement), a building height of 25.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof) and 16 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Attached dwellings (4) with accessory storage Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North:Institutional (I) District Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 SURROUNDING Cemetery ZONING AND USES: South:Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Detached dwellings East: Commercial (C) District Offices West: Commercial (C) District Manufacturing ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue.The property has been zoned commercially for some time. The existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places. The last legal use of the property was as four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the ground floor) with accessory storage on the balance of the ground floor. A complaint was received in August 2004 regarding inadequate fire separation between the storage unit and the dwellings (UNS2004-00088). Building Permit BCP2007-10647 was issued November 9, 2007, for interior renovation and one exterior wall with four windows in response to the unsafe conditions and to secure the site. No use of the site was approved or implied by this building permit approval. There is a driveway on Lakeview Road that provided access to the front of the building, with a small concrete area adjacent to the front of the building that could have been used for parking; otherwise all on-site parking areas are unpaved. On February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board (CDB) denied Case FLD2006-05032 for this same property to permit a restaurant. The property to the north is zoned Institutional (I) District and is developed as a cemetery. To the east and north of the cemetery, properties are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts and developed with detached dwellings. The properties to the east are zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with an office use (adjacent property), vacant land and attached dwellings closer to Ewing Avenue. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with an automotive parts re-manufacturer. The properties to the south on Dempsey Street are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to permit a restaurant within the existing building, with construction of accessory parking, retention, landscaping and trash facilities on the rest of the site. The applicant proposes to utilize the downstairs as the restaurant with an accessory office on the second floor loft. The exterior finish of this commercial building is proposed with stucco painted mellow coral and banana cream trim, with white soffit and fascia. The subject property is a through lot, with street frontages on both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street to the south. While the building and parking lot locations, as well as other site improvements, are similar to the prior restaurant application denied by the CDB in February 2007, this restaurant application is different in the following: Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 2 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 a.Under the prior application (FLD2006-05032) the western 25 feet of the subject property (Lot 17) was owned by the adjacent property owner and the applicant had entered into a Commercial Lease with a 15-year time period and an additional five years for the use of this lot. The applicant has since purchased this 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) in September 2008. b.Under the prior application (FLD2006-05032) the gross floor area of the restaurant was 2,890 square feet. The 975-square foot second floor was indicated to be used as an accessory office for the restaurant. A prior Staff concern was regarding the large size of this second floor office area and how “accessory” it would be to the ground floor area. Through the interior renovation permit to comply with the unsafe circumstances under BCP2007-10647 the applicant has reduced the second floor area to 320 square feet as a loft accessory office. The gross floor area has been reduced to 2,316 square feet. Open joists on the second floor allow occupants views through the joists to the ceiling/roof of the second floor. c.Since the required number of parking spaces is based on the gross floor area, the number of required parking spaces has been reduced from the prior 20-43 spaces to the current 16-35 spaces. The proposal includes renovating the existing building for a small neighborhood specialty restaurant (Cajun seafood) with a parking area with 16 spaces located to the west and south of the building. The parking area is accessed solely from Lakeview Road. In order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the site is restricted in the ability to meet setback and landscape buffering requirements for restaurants. Due to these proposed setbacks to property lines, this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (see discussion below under Minimum Setbacks). Based on the gross floor area for both floors of the existing building, a minimum of between 16 and 35 parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes 16 parking spaces, which is the minimum number of spaces based on the lowest of the parking range. The applicant has submitted a Parking Study that analyzed a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant (Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road) to justify the requested reduction to required parking. While the Study found that adequate parking for the subject property would be available by the 16 provided spaces, Staff disagrees with the Study findings of adequate provided parking, rather that the Code required parking of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be provided (see discussion under Minimum Off-Street Parking below). Re-use of this building should occur. At issue is whether this restaurant proposal is the proper use at this location, given the constraints of providing required parking, setbacks and landscape areas. The result of inadequate provided parking is unacceptable spill-over parking onto adjacent properties and streets that would burden the surrounding residential neighborhood. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal is for a restaurant of a total gross floor area of 2,316 square feet at a FAR of 0.21, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 3 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.69, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for restaurants can range from 3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 11,018 square feet (0.253 acres), which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can range from 35 – 100 feet. The lot width along Lakeview Road is 146.79 feet, while the lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. The proposal exceeds this comparative Code provision along Lakeview Road, but is less than this comparative Code provision along Dempsey Street, while still within the range. This lesser lot width can be attributed to the pie-shape of some of the lots that comprise the subject property and the curvature of the roadway. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setbacks for restaurants can range for front setbacks from 15 – 25 feet and for side setbacks from 0 – 10 feet (through lots have front setback requirements on both street frontages and side setback requirements from the perpendicular lot lines). The proposal includes a front setback (north along Lakeview Road) of 18.1 feet (to existing building), 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a front (south along Dempsey Street) of 30.2 feet (to existing building), one- foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building) and a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement). This proposal includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite some time. As stated in the Staff Report for FLD2006-05032, Staff is supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any proposed use will need setback reductions for this existing building. The proposed use of a restaurant requires more parking than other less intense uses within the Commercial District (such as retail sales, medical clinics or offices). The need to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible produces restrictions to meeting setback and landscape buffering requirements. Other less intense uses requiring fewer parking spaces could provide larger setbacks and buffers, but Staff acknowledges that reductions to setback and buffer requirements to a lesser degree would still be necessary to permit these other less intense uses. With this application, setbacks have been minimalized in order to provide even the minimum number of required parking spaces, which in turn minimizes the ability to provide meaningful landscape planting areas to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. Along Lakeview Road, the smallest provided front setback at four feet is north of the western parking row. Moving eastward, the eastern parking row is at an 8.6-foot setback to the north property line and the sidewalk is at a 13.8-foot front setback, while the existing building is set back 18.1 feet. Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is only at a one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place any landscape buffering on-site at this location to block the headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street. The southern ends of the parking rows are at a 3.5-foot (west) and three-foot (east) setback. The dumpster enclosure has been designed at a zero-foot front setback to the Dempsey Street property line and, given the need to provide as much on-site parking as possible, the site configuration and the existing building location, the Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 4 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 dumpster has been placed in the only location possible. It is not optimal, as it requires the trash truck to traverse Dempsey Street for this dumpster pickup and requires the truck to stage within the right-of-way while collecting the trash. With such orientation, this impacts the detached dwellings to the south. Additionally, since it is at a zero-foot front setback, it is visually more obtrusive as well as bringing unwarranted negative odors closer to the residential neighborhood. The existing building is set back three feet from the east property line. The proposed parking lot is set back five feet from the west property line, which coincides with the required landscape buffer width. The proposed setbacks in this case must be reviewed in light of its affect on other Code requirements as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for restaurants can range from 25 – 50 feet. The existing building height is 25.5 feet (to the existing midpoint of the pitched roof). Whether this existing building is re-used for a restaurant or other uses allowable in the Commercial District, the existing building height is acceptable and compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial buildings. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking for restaurants can range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Based on the 2,316 square feet GFA for both floors of the existing building, a minimum of between 16 and 35 parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes 16 parking spaces, which includes one handicap space, which is the minimum number of spaces based on the lowest of the parking range. All parking spaces are accessed solely from Lakeview Road and are located on the west and south sides of the building. The applicant has submitted a Parking Study to justify the requested reduction to required parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a small neighborhood specialty restaurant (Cajun seafood). The methodology of the Parking Study was to conduct a parking accumulation study of a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant. The Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road was analyzed by the applicant’s consultant as the similar restaurant. That restaurant is on a similarly sized parcel, is of similar floor area, employs 3-4 persons and has 10 on-site parking spaces. The Parking Study found that on the Friday the site was studied the parking demand was from a low of zero occupied spaces (2 pm) to 5 occupied spaces (7 pm), while on the Saturday the site was studied the parking demand was from a low of 2 occupied spaces (8 pm) to a peak of 6 occupied spaces (11 am and 7 pm). The Study determined a parking demand ratio of 2.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the Lakeview Grill. The Study concludes that, transferring this parking demand ratio to this site would result in a need of six spaces and, even if all six proposed employees drove to this site, that a total of 12 spaces would be necessary. This would allow for four overflow spaces of the total 16 spaces proposed. While City Staff approved the methodology for the Study, Staff disagrees with its findings. The location of the Lakeview Grill is on the southern edge of a much larger and more concentrated commercial area that is surrounded by relatively large attached dwelling complexes and detached dwelling subdivisions. Staff found it curious that there were zero occupied spaces on the Friday the site was studied. Staff enquired of the Lakeview Grill management this circumstance, since there would be employees at the restaurant even if there were no customers. The management stated Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 5 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 that many employees and customers walk or take a bus to that restaurant, which could account for zero vehicles in the parking lot. For the subject property, there is not a similar concentration of commercial businesses or a larger population in close proximity. For the subject property, there is a large lake and a City park to the south and southeast, while there is a cemetery to the north and northwest. It is Staff’s position that the Code required parking of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be provided. Staff’s concern with this restaurant proposal for this site is that without adequate number of off-street parking spaces parking demand could result in spill-over parking onto adjacent properties and into the rights-of-way. Such spill-over parking into the surrounding rights-of-way is within residential areas, which would be burdened with nonresidential parking resulting in traffic congestion within the residential neighborhood. Re- using this existing structure is appropriate, but with a lesser intense use that would have a reduced parking demand. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based on the plans submitted, it is unclear of the location of such mechanical equipment, whether such will be placed on the ground or on the roof area outside the second floor accessory office loft. The location and screening of such mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this application be approved by the CDB. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Lakeview Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The existing building is served by overhead utilities. Should this application be approved by the CDB, utilities serving this building must be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. Electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) located on the outside of the buildings should be painted the same color as the buildings they are affixed to reduce their visibility. The location and visibility of such exterior electric equipment would be reviewed at time of any building permit submission. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is a 15-foot wide perimeter buffer required along Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street and a five-foot wide perimeter buffer along the east and west sides of the site. The proposal includes a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent of the vehicular Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 6 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet. The ability to meet the Code requirements for perimeter, interior and foundation landscaping is restricted by the property configuration, building location, stormwater requirements and the provision of the greatest number of parking spaces possible. Given these design constraints, the applicant has designed as much landscaping as possible within the planting areas provided. Turf has been minimized to only the stormwater pond bottoms and side slopes. Along Lakeview Road, the provided landscape buffer is the least north of the western parking row where only a four-foot setback is provided. A minimum of 7.5 feet is provided north of the retention pond north of the building, expanding to a larger dimension north of the eastern parking row and at the northeast corner of the building. The front perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with a dwarf podocarpus, schefflera, Indian hawthorn and Simpson’s stopper as hedge material, with minima jasmine ground cover, and cabbage palms, Japanese privet and winged elm trees. Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is only at a one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place landscaping on-site at this location. The southern ends of the parking rows are at a 3.5-foot (west) and three-foot (east) setback, where a hedge and accent trees are proposed. The front buffer along Dempsey Street will be planted with dwarf podocarpus and schefflera as hedge material, with crape myrtle and Japanese privet trees. The provision of a perimeter buffer along the balance of Dempsey Street is restricted by the dumpster enclosure and the location of the southern retention pond. It is noted that detached dwellings exist across Dempsey Street from the subject property, where perimeter buffering would be needed the most to mitigate negative impacts of the proposal. However, to provide the required perimeter buffer would further reduce provided parking, which would be counterproductive to mitigating parking needs. The reductions to perimeter buffers, especially along Dempsey Street, do not adequately mitigate negative impacts of the proposed use on the residential neighborhood to the south. The applicant has indicated that, should the CDB approve this application, he would seek to place landscaping within the Dempsey Street right-of-way to aid in mitigating visual impacts to the detached dwellings. In such circumstances when landscaping is placed in rights-of-way, any utility work that removes such landscaping requires the property owner to replace the removed landscaping at their expense. In these circumstances, any benefit of the growth of such landscaping providing increased screening is lost when the landscaping is removed, unless the owner replaces the lost landscaping with larger than minimum requirements. Many times, this is cost prohibitive to the property owner. Staff has not relied on such landscaping within the Dempsey Street right-of-way for the reasons discussed. It is noted that the possibility of a fence or wall six feet in height was discussed by the applicant, but Code provisions would not permit such. The proposal includes a reduction to required parking lot interior landscaping from 10 percent to 5.5 percent. The only area counted toward interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This requested reduction is also a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. The purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 7 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 mirrors the other landscape reductions requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with dwarf podocarpus, schefflera, Indian hawthorn and Simpson’s stopper as shrub material and one magnolia tree. The proposal includes a reduction to the required foundation landscaping facing Lakeview Road and facing Dempsey Street from five feet wide to zero feet. On the north side, this reduction is due to the need to provide sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical wall retention pond in the front setback/buffer. On the south side, parking is located adjacent to the building. Foundation landscaping is being provided on the east portion of the north and south sides of the building, consisting of schefflera and Indian hawthorn shrub material and cabbage palms. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X 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 N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A 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 1 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. 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. The applicant has provided tiered landscaping of varied landscape material in as many areas as possible on-site in order to offset the deficiencies of adequate planting areas (perimeter buffers, parking lot interior and foundation). The applicant has also proposed “historical planters” along the edge of the sidewalk from Lakeview Road as a landscape enhancement. Solid Waste: The proposal provides a dumpster enclosure oriented to and accessed from Dempsey Street. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards, including the requirement the exterior of the enclosure to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 8 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 the building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: The proposal does not include any freestanding sign. Submitted building elevations indicate attached signage on the front of the building. While this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use, from a comparative standpoint restaurants requesting flexibility to the Minimum Standards of the Commercial District either as a Level 1 Flexible Standard Development (FLS) or Level 2 Flexible Development (FLD) application have a flexibility criteria requiring a monument-style freestanding sign. Should the CDB approve this request, any freestanding sign is recommended to be monument-style a maximum of six feet in height, unless such sign is part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, and be designed consistent with the exterior building material and color. Landscape design and plantings need to coordinate with any such signage, so as to not shield the signage from view. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows that are boarded up (CDC2010-00638, which has been referred to Building Division). Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 9 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area 0.55 0.21 X Ratio (max. of 6,059 square feet) (2,316 square feet proposed) Impervious 0.95 0.69 X Surface Ratio Minimum Comprehensive Infill: N/A 11,018 sq. ft. (0.253 acres) X Lot Area Restaurant: 3,500 – 10,000 sf Minimum Comprehensive Infill: N/A Lakeview Rd: 146.79 feet X Lot Width Restaurant: 35 – 100 feet (north) Dempsey St: 89.77 feet (south) Minimum Front: Comprehensive Infill: N/A Lakeview Rd: 18.1 feet (to existing X 1 Setbacks Restaurant: 15 – 25 feet building), 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement) Dempsey St: 30.2 feet (to existing X 1 building), one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) Side: Comprehensive Infill: N/A East: three feet (to existing X 1 Restaurant: 0 – 10 feet building) West: five feet (to X 1 pavement) Maximum Comprehensive Infill: N/A 25.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the X Height Restaurant: 25 – 50 feet pitched roof) Minimum Comprehensive Infill: N/A 16 parking spaces X 2 Off-Street Restaurant: 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 sf (7 spaces per 1,000 sf) Parking (Required parking: 16 – 35 spaces) 1 See analysis in Staff Report. 2 Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 10 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1 the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X 1 development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 1 parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, ? pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. ? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. 1 See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 11 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 1 coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X 1 residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1 immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1 visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. 1 See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of April 1 and May 6, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1.The 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2.The subject property has approximately 146.79 feet of frontage along Lakeview Road and approximately 89.77 feet of frontage along Dempsey Street; 3.On February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board (CDB) denied Case FLD2006- 05032 for this same property to permit a restaurant with similar characteristics; 4.This proposal is similar in design to the prior application under FLD2006-05032, but is different in that a western lot is now owned by the applicant (rather than leased), the gross floor area of the building has been reduced and the resultant parking requirements have been reduced; 5.Based on the gross floor area for both floors of the existing building, a minimum of between 16 and 35 parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant and the applicant proposes 16 parking spaces (lowest of the parking range); 6.A Parking Study has been submitted to justify a parking space reduction that analyzed a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant (Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road), finding that adequate parking for the subject property would be available by the 16 provided spaces; 7.Staff disagrees with the Parking Study findings of adequate provided parking, rather that the Code required parking of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be provided; Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 12 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03005 2010-06-15 8.In order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal includes reductions to setback and landscape requirements required for restaurants; 9.With this application, setbacks have been minimalized in order to provide even the minimum number of required parking spaces, which in turn minimizes the ability to provide meaningful landscape planting areas to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification; and 10.There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows that are boarded up (CDC2010-00638, referred to Building Division). 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 inconsistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.C of the Community Development Code; and 3.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. DENIAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square feet, a lot width of 146.79 feet along Lakeview Road and 89.77 feet along Dempsey Street, a front setback (north along Lakeview Road) of 18.1 feet (to existing building), 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a front (south along Dempsey Street) of 30.2 feet (to existing building), one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement), a building height of 25.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof) and 16 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: __________________________________________ Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Lakeview 0921 Boiling Pot (C) 2010.xx - 6.15.10 CDB - WW\Lakeview 921 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03005 – Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 CDB Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-03004 Agenda Item: D.3. Owner/ Applicant: Mathura Properties #5, LLC Agent: Tuan Huynh, P.E., Regional Consulting Engineers, LLC Address: 22 Bay Esplanade CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit two attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of five feet (to building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 10 feet (to building), a building height of 30 feet (to midpoint of roof) and four parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facility High (RFH) Category PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Attached dwellings ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District Government Use; and Off-Street Parking Lot East: Tourist (T) District Automobile Service Station; and Retail Sales and Services West: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations; and Restaurant ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.099 acre site is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue and has 50 feet of frontage on Bay Esplanade. The property is zoned Tourist (T) District and is currently vacant. The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Old Florida” District which is an area of transition Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 1 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 between resort uses to the south and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. The preferred form of development is a mix of uses primarily including new overnight accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. To ensure that the scale and character of development in “Old Florida” provides the desired transition between the adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site design performance is a priority, including greater setbacks. The immediate vicinity is composed of an off-street parking lot, attached dwellings, retail sales and services, restaurants, governmental uses and an automobile service station. Structures in the area vary in height between one and three stories, and generally resemble architecture from the 1950’s. Development Proposal: On March 1, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for a two-unit attached dwelling development on the subject property. The proposed building will have two living floors elevated above the parking area. Each of the living floors will include approximately 2,170 square feet of livable space and will have three bedrooms. An elevator, located in the northwest corner of the building as well as a stairwell located along the north façade, will provide access to the units. The proposed building will have a modern design that is accentuated through the incorporation of architectural elements such as balconies enclosed with glass and by using earth tone building colors. Parking and black barrel solid waste staging area will be located on the ground floor. The proposal includes a reduction to lot area for attached dwellings in the T District from 5,000 square feet to 4,350 square feet. The reduction to lot area amounts to a 13 percent reduction. The proposal also includes a front (south) setback of 15 feet (to building), side (east and west) setbacks of five feet (to building) and a rear (north) setback of 10 feet (to building). Staff has consistently advised the applicant on this proposal that the land area is too small to support the proposed development and lot consolidation would result in a project design that complies with the objectives of Beach by Design and more closely complies with the requirements of the Community Development Code (CDC). Reducing the required 10-foot side setback as per the “Old Florida” District to the proposed side (east and west) setbacks of five feet (to building) are allowed only if an improved site plan, increased landscaping and/or improved design and appearance is provided. With regard to the site plan, the proposed building and site design meets minimum design standards only and does not reflect an improvement upon these minimums. Furthermore, and due to site constraints, the off-street parking layout proposed requires accessing the parking spaces and/or exiting the building to be accomplished through multiple turning movements. The landscaping proposed also meets minimum standards in the front setback, but landscaping provided is minimal due to site constraints and the ingress/egress area needed for vehicular traffic. Due to the Fire Department’s requirement that at a minimum five feet of clearance be provided around the entire building, no landscaping can exist within the side setbacks where it would be most beneficial to buffer the subject property from the gas station to the east and overnight accommodations to the west. Furthermore, while a five foot rear (north) landscape buffer that is not required by Code or Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 2 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 Beach by Design has been provided, it is staff’s recommendation that this does not constitute increased landscaping in a way to directly mitigate the requested reduction of the side (east and west) setbacks. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Resort Facilities High (RFH) land use category and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum density is 30 units per acre. As the lot area is 4,350 square feet (0.099 acres), two dwelling units are allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.58, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for attached dwellings use can range from 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width can range from 50 – 100 feet. The lot width along Bay Esplanade is 50 feet, which is consistent with the Code provisions for attached dwellings. The proposed lot area for this parcel is 4,350 square feet (0.998 acres), which is inconsistent with the Code provisions for attached dwellings. Minimum Setbacks: The “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design, which supersedes those development standards set forth in the CDC, requires a 15 foot front setback as well as 10 foot side and rear setbacks for the subject property. While a 15 foot front and 10 foot rear setback has been provided, only five foot side setbacks are proposed. Pursuant to Beach by Design, the required 10 foot side setback may be reduced to five feet if, and as previously stated, the reduced setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance. It is the determination of staff that none of these objectives would be achieved through the development proposal. As such, staff does not support the reduction of the 10 foot side setbacks required by the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for attached dwellings use can range from 35 – 100 feet. The proposal includes a building height of 30 feet (to midpoint of roof), which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for attached dwellings is two spaces per unit. The proposal provides four parking spaces, which is consistent with the Code provisions for a two-unit development. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The proposal does not include the location of exterior mechanical equipment. Therefore, review for screening was not possible. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 3 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Bay Esplanade, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20 foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The proposal does not indicate the relocation of the existing aboveground utilities underground; as such compliance with this requirement cannot be determined. Landscaping: Pursuant to the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design, a 10 foot front landscape buffer is required. The proposal includes a 10 foot front landscape buffer which is consistent with the Beach by Design requirement. Solid Waste: The proposal provides for black barrel service for each of the units, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803 and the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 30 dwelling units per acre 2 units X (2 dwelling units) (20.2 units per acre) Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.58 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 4,350 sq. ft. (0.099 acres) X 1 Minimum Lot Width N/A 50 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 feet South: 15 feet (to building) X Rear: 10 feet North: 10 feet (to building) X Side: 10 feet East: 5 feet (to building) X West: 5 feet (to building) X Maximum Height N/A 30 feet (to midpoint of roof) X Minimum 2 spaces per dwelling unit 4 spaces X Off-Street Parking (4 spaces required) 1 See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 4 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, ? porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. ? e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 5 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 6, 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 0.099-acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) land use plan category; 2.That the site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Old Florida” District; 3.That the intent of the “Old Florida” District is to provide an area of transition between resort uses to the south and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street using enhanced site design performance such as greater setbacks; 4.That adjacent uses are zoned T District developed with multi-family dwellings generally between one and three stories in height, with the surrounding area a mixture of off-street parking lot, attached dwellings, retail sales and services, restaurants, government uses and an automobile service station; 5.That the subject property is vacant; 6.That the subject property has a lot area of 4,350 square feet; 7.That the proposal includes two attached dwelling units elevated over off-street parking; 8.That the site is permitted two dwelling units (20.2 dwelling units per acre); 9.That based on a parking ratio of two spaces per dwelling unit, a total of four spaces are required; Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 6 of 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03004 2010-06-15 10.That the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design requires 10 foot side setbacks that may be reduced to five feet if an improved site plan, increased landscaping and/or improved design and appearance is provided; 11.That the proposal includes five foot side setbacks with the only justification being a five foot landscape buffer on the north property line that is not required by Code; and 12.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the lot area of the subject property (4,350 square feet) is not consistent with the minimum required for attached dwelling development (5,000 square feet) within the Tourist (T) District as per CDC Table 2-803, and this lot area results in a parcel that is too small for a development at the proposed scale; 2.That the proposal’s reduced side (east and west) setbacks does not comply with the “Old Florida” District’s intent of providing the desired transition between the adjacent tourist and residential areas through site design such as greater setbacks; 3.That the proposal does not comply with the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design where the required 10-foot side setback may be reduced to five feet if the reduced setback results in an improved site plan, landscaped areas in excess of the minimum required and/ or improved design and appearance as none of these objectives would be achieved by the proposal; 4.That the development proposal is not consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code; 5.That the development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 803.C of the Community Development Code; and 6.That the development proposal is not consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. DENIAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit two attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of five feet (to building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 10 feet (to building), a building height of 30 feet (to midpoint of roof) and four parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. Prepared by: Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________ Matthew Jackson, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity; Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Bay Esplande 22 (T) 06.15.10 CDB - MJJ\Bay Esplanade 22 Staff Report 06.15.2010 CDB.doc Community Development Board – June 15, 2010 FLD2010-03004 – 7 of 7 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-F RST NAME-MIDD AME L arr:?. e?5on NAME OF BOARD, COU CIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE learwaur nnm o MAILING ADDRESS -2-(o -70 ?? /h) (n ?O v rt- THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTH ITY OR COMMIT EE ON HICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: C COUNTY II CITY ? COUNTY ? OTHER LOCAL AGENCY ?W J ,(J l NAM OF POLITICAL SUBD I ION* DATE ON ?H VOTE OCCURRED V h t a010 MY POSITIO IS: ? ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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 officers 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) a CE FORM 8B - 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, -r rC _ Ad {?? I /2r? -,hereby disclose that on y1 Q fl.. 20 ? 0 (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, -t- inured to the special gain or loss of 1K a. (-!po ?J- n C by whom I am retained; or / inured to the special gain or loss of 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: ?L-U Coln - 03003 - IgeZ 5-eA cl?r Rd? ., ?t?r a. -N eq-; bee d elo a?a1 er ?i c 0- o G% a>2 ?u 6 er - ?- r- ,ems b o't let- LAY ? . Ql t(C?n,t -? 2C Po(_ W.. r?e. t'` c?.v? G ? ? •,1-- C f r V_. +Az:t e-- ?V ? 15, ? ID Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 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; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. 2. 3. 4 Case: FLD2010-04009 - 220 Tulane Road Yes x No Case: FLD2010-03005 - 921 Lakeview Road Yes 111' No Case: FLD2010-03004 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes V No Case: FLD2010-03003 - 1802 Belcher Road Yes No I have conducted ersonal 'nvesti ation on the personal site visit to the following Prop Signature: 1 Date: PRINT NAME S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BWgendas DRC & CDBICDB12010106 June 15,201M] Cover MEMO 2010.doc Clearwater U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: FROM: COPIES: Community Development Board Members Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2010-04009 - 220 inane Road Yes No ?2. 3 4. Case: FLD2010-03003 - 180211? lcher Road Yes No w Cake: - 921 Lakeview Road eNo Yes Cas FLD2010-03004 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes No PRINT NAME S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB12010106June 15, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LL } 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; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2017 9 - 220 Tulane Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2010-03005 - 921 Lakeview Road Yes No 3. Case: FL 010-0 04 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes No 4. Case: FLD2^ 10-03 -1802 Belcher Road S.• (Planning Department) C D BAgendas DRC & CDB( CDB12010106 June 15, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc N Yes - - o I have condu "ve nal i vesti ation on the personal site visit to the ollowin properties. Signat de:'/ / Date: PRINT N 1 i4 Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2010-04009 - 220 Tulane Road Yes X--, No 2. Case: FLD2010-03005 - 921 Lakeview Road Yes K No 3. Case: FLD2010-03004 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes \ No 4. Case: FLD2010-03003 -1802 Belcher Road Yes No S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BUgendas DRC & CDB(CDB 12010106 June 15,201W1 Cover MEMO 2010.doc fir'-lC L . PRINT NAME .Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2010-04009 - 220 Tulane Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2010-03005 - 921 Lakeview Road Yes No 3. Case: FLD2010-03004 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes No 4. Case: FLD2010-03003 - 1802 Belcher Road Yes - No T have en . u»'i] .ted d?nercnnal ive-. Wa l'ba on the personal Date: A S S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB(CDB12010106 June 15,2010q Cover MEMO 2010.doc Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for June 15, 2010 DATE: June 10, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting April 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2010-04009 - 220 Tula; Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2010-03005 - 921 Lakeview Road Yes No / 3 4. Case: FLD2010-0 004 - 22 Bay Esplanade Yes No Case: FLD2010-03003 - 1802 Belcher oad Yes No al inv Lion, on.the personal site visit to the ollowin prop 1 -? Date: L< PRINT NAME S: (Planning Departmentl C D BMgendas DRC & CDB(CDBI2010106 June 1 S, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc