07/20/2010COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 20, 2010
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch
Thomas Coates
Frank L. Dame
Doreen DiPolito
Richard Adelson
Brian A. Barker
Norma R. Carlough
Absent:
Also Present:
Kurt B. Hinrichs
Gina Grimes
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Michael L. Delk
Gina Clayton
Robert Tefft
Patricia O. Sullivan
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Acting Board Member
Board Member
Attorney for the Board
Assistant City Attorney
Planning & Development Director
Planning & Development Assistant Director
Development Review Manager
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: June 15, 2010
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of June 15, 2010 as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Items 1-2) (Continue both items to August 3, 2010)
1. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rupple & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365).
Location: 131.05 acres located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard approximately
900 feet east of S. Bayshore Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 292B.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (1), Commercial General (CG),
Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Residential Low (RL), and Water Categories
to Institutional (1), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and Water Categories;
and
Community Development 2010-07-20
b) Zoning Atlas amendment from the Institutional (1), Commercial (C), Preservation (P), and
Open Space/ Recreation (OS/R) Districts to Institutional (1), Preservation (P) and Open Space/
Recreation (OS/R) Districts.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Educational Facilities.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner 111.
See Exhibit: Memo LUZ2010-06002 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to continue Case LUZ2010-06002 to August 3, 2010. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rupple & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365).
Location: 131.05 acres located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard approximately
900 feet east of S. Bayshore Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 292B
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc. (the property owner) and the City of
Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Proposed Use: Educational Facilities uses of up to 170,000 square-feet of non-residential floor
area (0.149 Floor Area Ratio) and up to 750 Dormitory Beds/Residents (12.5 dwelling units per
acre) at a maximum height of 50 feet
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Memo DVA2010-06001 2010-07-20
Member Barker moved to continue Case DVA2010-06001 to August 3, 2010. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-4)
Community Development 2010-07-20 2
1. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen-Booth Road
Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church.
Representative: Harry S. Cline, Esq. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-
441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470).
Location: 0.219 acres located on the south portion of the main church site at 110 N.
McMullen-Booth Road.
Atlas Page: 292A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the
Institutional (1) category; and
b) Zoning Atlas amendment from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the
Institutional (1) District.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Church and support facilities.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager.
Member Barker declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2010-05001 on today's
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, Chair
Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted "Aye"; Member Barker abstained. Motion carried.
2. Level Three Application
Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department.
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan supporting the
outdoor display of bicycles for properties along the Pinellas Trail and expanding the allowable
uses for certain property located east of the Pinellas Trail in the Old Bay Character District.
Neighborhood Associations: Country Club Addition; East Gateway; Harbor Oaks; Hillcrest; Old
Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association; Mediterranean; Pierce 100 Condominium
Association; Skycrest Neighborhood Association, Lake Bellevue, North Greenwood and
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning and Development Director.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case LUZ2010-05001 on today's
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2010-07-20 3
3. Case: FLD2010-03007 - 1934 N. Hercules Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: McDonalds Corporation.
Agent: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL
33756; phone: 727-723-3771; fax: 727-723-7150; email: bgraialesghpe-fl.com).
Location: 1.471 acres located on west side of N. Hercules Avenue, approximately 195
feet north of Sunset Point Road.
Atlas Page: 253A.
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 607 square-foot expansion for an existing
restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 64,083 square-feet, a lot width of 160
feet along Hercules Avenue and 100 feet along Sunset Point Road, a front setback (east along
Hercules Avenue) of 12.6 feet (to existing pavement) and 71.7 feet (to proposed building), a
front setback (south along Sunset Point Road) of 84 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north)
setback of 10.1 feet (to existing pavement), 16.6 feet (to dumpster enclosure) and 63.8 feet (to
existing building), a side (south) setback of 8.4 feet (to existing pavement) and 59.4 feet (to
existing building), a side (east) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback
of 5 feet (to dumpster enclosure), 8.2 feet (to pavement) and 95.8 feet (to existing building), a
building height of 20 feet (to highest architectural feature) and 38 off-street parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Hercules
Avenue from 15 feet to 12.6 feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearview Lake Estates and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2010-03007 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.
4. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. Missouri Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Retail Group, LTD.
Agent: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL
33756; phone: 727-723-3771; fax: 727-723-7150; email: bgraialesghpe-fl.com).
Location: 1.367 acres located at the southwest corner of Druid Road and Missouri
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 296A.
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a new building with 7,225 square-feet of
retail and 1,575 square-feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 59,554
square-feet, a lot width of 237.66 feet along Druid Road and 162.74 feet along Missouri Avenue, a
front setback (north along Druid Road) of 13.3 feet (to pavement) and 61.1 feet (to building), a
front setback (east along Missouri Avenue) of 15 feet (to pavement) and 86 feet (to building), a
side (south) setback of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 25 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of
Community Development 2010-07-20 4
4.2 (to dumpster enclosure), five feet (to pavement) and 103.6 feet (to building), a building height
of 19.16 feet (to flat roof) and 62 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C,
with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Druid Road from 15 feet to 13.3 feet, a
reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the south property line from five feet to 3.3 feet
and the removal of foundation plantings along the north building facade as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant and Retail Sales and Services.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft 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.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed Code requirements to shield views
of mechanical equipment installed on a roof.
Concern was expressed that the building appears to be an ordinary strip mall and does not
reflect City efforts to enhance the Missouri Avenue corridor.
Applicant architect Robert Gregg said the building features metal awnings. He said the
property owner had requested a simple design. He said a parapet wall or louvered material would
screen rooftop equipment. He said additional building materials would enhance the attractiveness
of the building's facade.
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes referenced Development Code Section 2-703.C.6(a),
which requires Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects to be visually interesting and
attractive by incorporating a number of design elements.
Suggestions were made for the motion to reference the Code, require that the project
incorporate listed design elements, and that elevations reflecting Board direction be submitted
to the Board for approval. Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said requested
changes are considered minor. Staff will expect that final submissions reflect Board direction to
screen roof equipment and enhance the facade with trim and other materials. Staff will provide
the Board with information regarding enhancements.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2010-05002 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed plus a condition that the building's design meet requirements in Clearwater
Development Code Section 2-703.C.6(a)(2) and (3), for enhanced architectural detail and use of
a variety of materials, colors, and textures. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates,
Dame, DiPolito, Barker, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted "Aye"; Member
Adelson voted "Nay." Motion carried.
F - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-3)
Community Development 2010-07-20 5
1. Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2010 Drew Street Level Two Application
Owner: Equities Holdings Group, Inc.
Applicant: Tampa Bay Art, LLC d/b/a Tampa Bay Ink.
Agent: Robert Gregg (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-796-8774
x331; fax: 727-791-6942; email: arch reg aol.com).
Location: 0.415 acre located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue,
approximately 150 feet east of N. Hercules Avenue.
Atlas Page: 280B.
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent
cosmetics studio) and Retail Sales within an existing tenant space in the Commercial (C) District
located adjacent to residentially zoned property with no changes to the existing setbacks or
landscape buffers, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent cosmetics studio) and Retail Sales and
Services.
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
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.
Planner III Wayne Wells reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends denial. The owner
of the adjoining property had emailed a letter of opposition. It was noted that the CDB
(Community Development Board) had denied a problematic use at this site in 2003. Mr. Wells
said the tattoo shop on Clearwater beach had moved one block due to construction and is not
adjacent to residential property.
Representative Robert Gregg reviewed the request, stating that tattoo shops should not be
considered problematic uses as people do not loiter outside and the types of people who obtain
tattoos have changed. He said the shop also will exhibit art for sale; parking is not an issue. He
said a tattoo shop had opened in Countryside Mall and Florida's Health Department will begin to
regulate tattoo businesses next month. He presented a petition of support. He said the business
owner is willing to mirror Subway's hours or close earlier at 9:00 p.m. He requested that the
Board consider a temporary six-month approval.
One person spoke in opposition to the request.
Applicant Eric Mitchell said he is the father of two, has invested significant money in the
shop, and intends to create a nice business. He said displayed artwork will cost from $200 to
$20,000. He said tattoo art will be applied by appointment only at a cost of $100 per hour. He
said 70% of the store's floor area will be dedicated to artwork and 30% will be used for tattoo and
makeup applications. He said all tattoo and makeup staff will be certified. He said inebriated
people will not be allowed on the premises.
Community Development 2010-07-20 6
It was commented while the business of tattooing has changed, the Code continues to
treat it as a problematic use. It was felt the shop will be upscale and the cost of tattoos will
eliminate visits by problematic people. Discussion ensued with suggestions that the Code is out
of date and may need to reclassify tattoo shops. Concern was expressed the proposed use is
next to residential property.
Mr. Delk said the City cannot control or regulate the cost of art sold at a store. Assistant
City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides concurred that approval of a tattoo shop use would remain with
the property in perpetuity. Code Enforcement only could enforce adherence to an agreement
regarding the percentage of floor area dedicated to art vs. tattoo.
Acting Member Carlough moved to deny Case FLD2010-05003 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, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member
Carlough voted "Aye"; Member Coates voted "Nay." Motion carried.
2. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2009-02006 - 3100 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Owner/Applicant: Donald Aze Culbertson, Successor Trustee for Pinellas 3100 Trust.
Agent: Pete Alfonso, Pete Alfonso Jr. Architect (5001 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, FL
33603; phone: 813-231-5800; fax: 813-231-5810; email: alfonso169(a-aol.com).
Location: 0.43 acre located at the northeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
McMullen-Booth Road
Atlas Page: 292A.
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development Application to permit Major Vehicle Service and Limited Vehicle
Sales and Display in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 18,556 square-feet, a lot width
of 118 feet (along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) and 150 feet (along McMullen-Booth Road), a building
height of 15.5 feet (to flat roof), a front (south) setback of eight feet (to canopy) and 10 feet (to
pavement), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 42 feet (to building), a side
(north) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and 37.75 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 2.9
feet (to pavement) and 21.4 feet (to building) and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
704.C. and a reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 0.94 percent, a
reduction to the foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet on the south facade and zero
feet on the west facade, a reduction to the west landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, a
reduction to the south landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12.2 feet, and a reduction to the east
landscape buffer from five feet to 2.9 feet as Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Major Vehicle Service and Limited Vehicle Sales and Display.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2010-07-20 7
Planner III Scott Kurleman reviewed the Staff Report. Staff recommends denial.
Applicant Donald Aze Culbertson said he became Successor Trustee for Pinellas 3100
Trust on January 15, 2010. He suggested sections of Ordinance 6348-99 that sunset
nonconforming uses are unconstitutional. He said the previous property owner, mortgagee and
tenant never were advised of that ordinance prior to closing. He said the property owner and
tenant need to run a business similar to those that operated on site prior to 1999. He requested
approval of a business on this site that provides small engine repair and the sales of all terrain
vehicles, lawn equipment, mopeds, motorbikes, cycles, scooters, and personal water craft.
Mr. Culbertson said a gasoline service station was built on the subject property in 1961
and condominiums to the rear were constructed in 1974. He said other uses of the property
would not provide sufficient rental income. In response to questions, he said his family trust had
invested $330,000 in the property; the business paid the remainder. Mr. Culbertson said Scott
Bitman previously held title to Pinellas 3100 Trust. He reviewed problems related to the removal
of fuel tanks and concrete and requested permission to construct a fence and install pavers to
improve the site's appearance and traffic flow.
Mr. Culbertson requested that the City release all code enforcement fines related to the
property and that the Board determine that Ordinance 6348-99 does not apply to this property.
It was stated that violations at the business date back to 2008; the subject ordinance
was adopted in 1999. Attorney Dougall-Sides said the Board does not have the power to set
aside an ordinance or reduce fines. The MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) is
responsible for liens.
Mr. Delk reviewed the history of the site. When Mr. Bitman first applied for a BTR
(Business Tax Receipt), staff advised him that vehicle sales and repairs were not permitted
uses at this site; Mr. Bitman has been operating a business without a license since then. Mr.
Delk said this case represents one of the most egregious examples of a lack of due diligence
prior to the purchase of property. Staff has spent hundreds of hours dealing with the illegal
business on this property. The City will continue to use every effort to mitigate this use and will
continue to tow illegal vehicles.
Pete Alfanso, representing the applicant, said the original size of the property had been
reduced after the widening of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and McMullen-Booth Road. He said even
the canopy does not meet setback requirements. He said the site has insufficient room for
required landscaping and parking.
One person spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Kurleman said this business is prohibited in this zoning district and is inappropriate
for this scenic corridor, which is the gateway to Clearwater. He said the proposal fails to meet
the criteria of the Code.
Mr. Culbertson said he had tried to do a friendly eviction but the tenant would not vacate
the premises. He said he is trying to make the business work. He said the business could
create nine jobs. He requested that the business be grandfathered.
Community Development 2010-07-20 8
Acting Member Carlough moved to deny Case FLD2009-02006 based on the evidence
and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Case: FLD2010-05001 - 113 N Betty Lane Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: SP Country Club Homes, LLC.
Agent: Sean Cashen, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 ICOT Blvd, Suite 605,
Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090; email:
scashen gulfcoastconsultinginc.com).
Location: 2.21 acres located on the south side of Drew Street between Fredrica Avenue
and Betty Lane.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Existing Zoning: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development Application to permit 33 attached dwellings (town-homes) in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot area of 96,239 square-feet, a lot width
of 310 feet (along Drew Street), 310 feet (along Fredrica Drive) and 310 feet (along Betty Lane), a
front (north) setback of 15 feet to building), five feet (to pavement and wall) where 10 feet is
allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to
building), five feet (to wall) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility
criteria, a front (west) setback of 20.33 feet (to building), 10.07 (to wall) where 10 feet is allowable
but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a side (south) setback of 1.36 feet (to pavement
and wall) where zero feet is allowable, a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of roof) and 78
parking spaces as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2.404. F and a reduction to the north landscape buffer from 15 feet to seven feet, a
reduction to the east landscape buffer from 10 feet to seven feet and a reduction to the south
landscape buffer from 10 feet to 1.36 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Country Club Addition Neighborhood Association and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
Member Dame 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.
Planner III Scott Kurleman reviewed the Staff Report. He said Condition 9 addresses a
Fredrica Avenue resident's concerns. Staff recommends approval.
Applicant representative Sean Cashen agreed with the conditions of approval.
Robert Herberich requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Robert Herberich Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2010-07-20 9
Party Status Holder Robert Herberich opposed the project as parking from the
development will spill onto his street, traffic accidents in front of the property are common, oak
trees will be destroyed, and landscaping will not be maintained.
Mr. Kurleman said the site is in the East Gateway District; the project is built closer to the
street to create street life. The two-story buildings will be compatible with nearby structures.
Acting Member Carlough moved to approve Case FLD2010-05001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with
conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G - LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2)
1. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department.
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan to add plan classification
categories for transit oriented development and to add an objective and policies pertaining to
the new categories.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Cate Lee, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2010-06001 2010-07-20
Planner II Cate Lee reviewed the Staff Report. Typos were discussed.
In response to questions, Planning Manager Tammy Vrana said zoning categories and
regulations for transit stations will be applied on a case by case basis; each location will be
unique and listed on the master plan. Ms. Lee said the plan discourages surface parking near
transit stations as it would encourage sprawl and discourage public transit. Structured parking
will be phased in. Ms. Vrana said parking lots would impede the comfort of pedestrians in
pedestrian oriented areas and break up the urban fabric. Planning & Development Assistant
Director Gina Clayton said park and ride lots will be located in north Pinellas County and in
Pasco County.
Support was expressed for these planning efforts that will move the City and County into
the 21St century. It was recommended that a footnote clarify that the master plan will identify the
unique zoning applied to each transit station location.
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2010-06001 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 a
recommendation that a footnote clarify that the master plan will identify the unique zoning
applied to each transit station location. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Community Development 2010-07-20 10
2. Case: LUZ2010-06001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Bank of America/Belleair Development Group, LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (P.O. Box 6015, Palm
Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 888-977-1179).
Location: 1.23 acres, located on the south side of Sunset Point Road approximately 150
feet west of North Highland Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Map amendment from Residential/Office General (R/OG) Category and
Residential Urban (RU) Category to Commercial General (CG) Category; and
b) Zoning Atlas amendment from Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), to
Commercial (C) District.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: None.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearview Lake Estates and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Cate Lee, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
Member Coates moved to accept Cate Lee 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 Cate Lee reviewed the Staff Report. Staff recommends denial.
Representative Todd Pressman said the former bank building on this large property has
been vacant for three years; it is in disrepair and attracts transients. He said a derelict gasoline
station on the corner next door has been vacant for five years. He said abutting residential
neighbors signed a petition supporting this request. He said significant commercial activity
exists at the nearby intersection of Sunset Point Road and Highland Avenue. He said
commercial properties on the west side of Highland Avenue back up to the same residential
neighborhood as the subject property. He said commercial uses have been successful in the
area but office uses have not. He said a busy Mexican convenience store is west of the site.
He expressed concern that the site will become more blighted if changes are not made. He said
the request would attract investment and revitalization. He said there is a good chance that the
owners of the subject property and gasoline station will work together.
One person spoke in support of the request.
Ms. Lee said the commercial property west of the site is a non conforming use. The few
commercial uses on Sunset Point Road west of Highland Avenue are located at intersections;
most are in the County. Office uses generate less traffic than commercial. The north side of the
Sunset Point Road/Highland Avenue intersection features single-family residences.
Discussion ensued with comments that Sunset Point Road is very narrow in this area.
Concern was expressed that no use was proposed. It was felt that nearby residents signed the
petition in hopes of ending this blight in their neighborhood.
Community Development 2010-07-20 11
Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend denial of Case LUZ2010-06001 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, Adelson, Chair Fritsch, and Acting
Member Carlough voted "Aye"; Members Coates, DiPolito, and Barker voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
H - DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1)
Appoint CDB representative to the Clearwater Greenprint Steering Committee.
Member Dame moved to endorse the appointment of Member Adelson to the Clearwater
Greenprint Steering Committee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Dame reported a major motion picture about the dolphin Winter will begin
filming at the Clearwater Aquarium in late September.
I - ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m
Ch
Community Development Board
Community Development 2010-07-20 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF MEMO LUZ2010-06002 2010-07-20
rwater
To: Community Development Board Members
From: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III
Date: July 15, 2010
RE: LUZ2010-06002 (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Due to an advertising error, the Planning and Development Department request a continuance of
LUZ2010-06002 to the August 3, 2010 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at
562-4547.
EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM DVA2010-06001 2010-07-20
rwater
To: Community Development Board Members
From: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III
Date: July 15, 2010
RE: DVA2010-06001 (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Due to an advertising error, the Planning and Development Department request a continuance of
DVA2010-06001 to the August 3, 2010 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at
562-4547.
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Number: LUZ2010-05001
Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church
Address: 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Agenda Item: E-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
SITE INFORMATION
(a) Future Land Use Map amendment from the Residential
Urban (RU) Classification to the Institutional (I)
Classification; and
(b) Rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District.
Property Size: 9,540 square feet or 0.219 acres
Portion of Property
Subject to Amendment: 9,540 square feet or 0.219 acres
Property Use: Current Use: Vacant land
Proposed Use: Church support facilities
Future Land Use
Map Category: Current Categories: Residential Urban (RU)
Proposed Category: Institutional (I)
Zoning District: Current Districts: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Proposed District: Institutional (I)
Surrounding
Existing Uses: North: Church (Calvary Baptist Church)
South: Vacant (Institutional future land use and
zoning), single family dwelling (Institutional
future land use and zoning)
East: Vacant (Institutional institutional future land
use and zoning)
West: Retention pond (Institutional institutional
future land use and zoning)
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 - Page 1 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Future Land Use Map and rezoning amendment involves 0.219 acres of land
located at the northeast corner of Virginia Avenue and Meadow Lark Lane, approximately 335
feet east of Bayview Avenue. The subject property is part of a larger parcel owned and occupied
by First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church. The subject property is
vacant (undeveloped).
The amendment request is to change the current Future Land Use Map classification of
Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I) and the current zoning designation of Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) to Institutional (I). No site plan application has been filed in
conjunction with the amendment request; however, the applicant has indicated that the property
will be used for church support facilities at some point in the future. The applicant's intent is to
consolidate the subject property with other church property holdings under the appropriate future
land use and zoning designations. The applicant recently received approval for Institutional land
use and zoning designations for 28 adjacent parcels of land.
In accordance with the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, the proposed Future
Land Use Map amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of
County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the density
allowed under the proposed Institutional (I) future land use classification (12.5 units per acre),
review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
L CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602.F.1
and 4-603.F.1]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which support
the proposed amendments include:
Goal A.2 A sufficient variety and amount of Future Land Use categories shall be provided to
accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
Objective A.2.1 Public institutions, such as hospitals, parks, utility facilities and government
facilities, shall be provided sufficient land area to accommodate identified public needs.
Policy A.62.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments
that are compatible.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed amendment is not in conflict the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. The designation of the
subject property under the Institutional (I) future land use and zoning classifications provides
additional land for planned development to meet public demand and need. The consolidation of
the subject property with the larger Calvary Baptist Church parcel under common future land use
and zoning designations will facilitate infill development in an appropriate location in the City.
Church support facilities on the subject property would be compatible with the surrounding
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 2 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
environment and envisioned character of the neighborhood.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN RULES
Recommended Findings of Fact
Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Plan Rules states that the purpose of the Institutional (I)
future land use classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now used, or
appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas
consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses,
transportation facilities and natural resource features. Section 2.3.3.7.3 also states that the
Institutional (I) future land use classification is generally appropriate to those locations where
educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are required to serve
the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their relationship with
surrounding uses and transportation access.
The subject property is the southerly part of the main Calvary Baptist Church campus, which is
located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road. The subject property
is surrounded on all sides by church-owned properties that have Institutional land use plan and
zoning designations, some of which still have existing nonconforming single family dwelling
uses. Zoning districts in the vicinity of the subject property include Institutional (I) and Low
Medium Density Residential. Future use of the subject property with church support facilities is
consistent with the purposes of the Institutional (I) future land use category and zoning
designation and compatible with surrounding properties and the neighborhood. The church
campus is located on several PSTA bus routes.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational
characteristics of the Countywide Plan Rules.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2, 4-602.F.3, 4-602.F.4, 4-603.F.3 and 4-
603.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property is vacant land located on the northeast corner of Virginia Avenue and
Meadow Lark Lane. Existing uses of surrounding properties (church-owned) consist of the
Calvary Baptist Church main campus, nonconforming single family residential and vacant land.
The future land use designation of surrounding properties is Institutional (I). Surrounding zoning
includes the Institutional (I) District on adjacent church-owned properties and Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) northeast of the subject property accessible from McMullen Booth
Road. The future expansion use of church support facilities on the subject property is compatible
with the surrounding properties and neighborhood.
The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre and a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65. The Institutional (I) zoning district primarily permits school,
church, public office and hospital uses. The proposed Institutional (I) future land use and zoning
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 3 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
designations are in character with the overall Future Land Use Map and zoning designations in
the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Institutional (I) future land use
classification requested is consistent with the surrounding Institutional (I) future land use
classifications that exist in the vicinity of the subject property.
The proposed future land use and zoning designations will allow church support facilities at a
density and scale that is consistent with existing institutional and residential uses in the vicinity
of the subject property. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is in
character with the surrounding area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed future land use and zoning designations are in character with the overall Future
Land Use Map and zoning designations in the area. Further, the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the surrounding properties and
neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.5 and 4-603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property consists of approximately 9,540 square feet (0.219 acres). The current
Residential Urban (RU) future land use category permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre or 0.40 floor
area ratio. Under this category, the subject property could yield a maximum of one dwelling unit
or 3,816 square feet of nonresidential floor area. The current Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning district primarily permits residential uses.
The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12 dwelling units per acre or a
nonresidential floor area ratio of 0.65. Under this designation, the subject property could yield a
maximum of two dwelling units or 6,201 square feet of nonresidential floor area. It should be
noted that the Clearwater Community Development Code only allows residential equivalent uses
in the Institutional (I) zoning district. The proposed Institutional (I) zoning district primarily
permits institutional uses with a public interest.
The proposed amendment to the Institutional (I) future land use category would provide for an
increase of one dwelling unit or 2,385 square feet of nonresidential floor area on the subject
property. The applicant has indicated the subject property will be used for church support
facilities such as drainage features and athletic fields.
Roadways
Table 1: Maximum Potential Traffic indicates the traffic characteristics of the subject property
based on the current and proposed future land use categories. The table indicates the maximum
potential trips generated by future land use category based on the traffic generation rates in the
Countywide Plan Rules. The table also shows the potential roadway level of service impacts to
Gulf to Bay Boulevard under each scenario. Note: The Countywide Plan Rules traffic generation
guidelines are the accepted methodology for reviewing the roadway impacts of proposed Future
Land Use Map amendments.
Gulf to Bay Boulevard from Bayshore Boulevard to US 19 currently operates at a level of
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 4 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
service F, peak hour according to the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009
Level of Service Report. Trips generated by the proposed future land use category would not
lower the operating level of service, peak hour. The adopted level of service standard for the
roadway segment is D, peak hour.
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation indicates the estimated trip
generation for a specific use allowed in the current and proposed zoning districts based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation 8`h Edition. The analysis compares
trips generated by a single family residential use that would be probable under the existing
zoning designation to a use representing the maximum development potential under the proposed
zoning district, in this case a church.
Table 1: MAAINWNI POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
Gulf to Bay Blvd
(Bayshore Boulevard to US 19) Existing
Conditions Current
FLUM' Proposed
FLUM2 Net New
Trips
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 15 23 8
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips3 N/A 1 2 1
Roadway Volume 62,500 62,515 62,523 8
Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour F F4 F4 F4
Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour
Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable.
FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
1. Based on PPC calculations of 68 trips per day per acre in the Residential Urban (RU) future land use category.
2. Based on PPC calculations of 104 trips per day per acre for "religious/civic facilities" in the Institutional (I) future land
use category
3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
4. Based on the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Table 2: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON BY ZONING DESIGNATION
Avg. Net Change PM Peak PM Net
Land Use Development Daily Average Trips Peak Change
Potential Trips Daily Trips Average Trips PM Peak
Rate Trips
EXISTING DESIGNATION: "LMDR" Zoning District ( "RU" Future Land Use Category)
Single-Family Detached
Housing' 1 DU6 10 N/A 1.01 1 N/A
(9.57 trips/unit)
PROPOSED DESIGNATION: "1" Zoning District ("1" Future Land Use Category)
Church-
6 201 SF4
,
56
46
0.55
3
2
(9.11 trips 1000 SF GFA)
Notes:
GFA = Gross floor area SF = Square foot DU = Dwelling unit N/A = Not applicable
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8t` Edition Land Use 210.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8t` Edition Land Use 560.
3. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the current RU future land use category is 0.40.
4. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the proposed I future land use category is 0.65.
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 5 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
Mass Transit
The citywide level of service for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed amendment.
The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject property is proximate to high
frequency bus service via routes on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Drew Street and McMullen Booth
Road.
Potable Water
For the current future land use designation, potable water demand is estimated at 260.4 gallons
per day. Under the proposed future land use designation, potable water demand is estimated at
620.4 gallons per day, an increase from current estimated demand.
Wastewater
For the current future land use designation, wastewater demand is estimated at 234.6 gallons per
day. Under the proposed future land use designation, wastewater demand is estimated at 496.06
gallons per day, an increase from current estimated demand.
Solid Waste
Under the current future land use designation, is estimated that 2.53 tons of solid waste would be
generated per year. Under the proposed future land use designation, it is estimated that 4.96 tons
of solid waste would be generated per year, an increase from estimated current demand.
Recreation and Open Space
The City has sufficient parkland or recreational facility capacity to serve future development
under the proposed amendment. Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact
fees may be required for future development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Impact
fees will be determined as part of the development review process.
Public School Facilities
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the subject property as
currently designated under the Residential Urban (RU) future land use category could generate
the following number of students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 1 unit = 0.15 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 1 unit = 0.07 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 1 unit = 0.10 students
TOTAL = 0.32 students
Under the proposed Institutional (I) future land use and zoning designations, demand for public
school facilities would not be generated by the subject property. Future use of the property will
not result in new residential development; therefore, impacts to public school facilities are not
anticipated.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it its determined that the traffic generated by the proposed
amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on Gulf to Bay
Boulevard. There is a minimal impact to potable water, wastewater and solid waste service as
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 6 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
City facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the
proposed amendment. Furthermore, parkland, recreation facilities, public school facilities and
mass transit will not be affected by the proposed amendment.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
There are no apparent wetlands on the subject property, which is currently undeveloped and
covered by predominantly turf grass.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, there are no wetlands on the subject property. The intent of the
owner is to use the property in the future for a church support use. Any future development of
the property would require compliance with all applicable regulations, including the City's tree
preservation and stormwater management requirements.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The location of the proposed Institutional (I) zoning district boundary is consistent with the
boundary of the subject parcel, which is rectangular in configuration. The proposed Institutional
(I) District is compatible with the surrounding institutional and nonconforming residential uses.
The location of the proposed Institutional (I) zoning district boundaries are is logical and
consolidates the subject property into the appropriate zoning district. The proposed zoning
district is compatible with adjacent Institutional (I) zoning to the immediate north, west and
southeast.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Institutional (I) zoning district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to
location and classifications of streets, property ownership, existing improvements and the natural
environment.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Section 4-602.F.1]
The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits a floor area ratio of 0.65 while the
existing Residential Urban (RU) category permits less intensive floor area ratio of 0.40. The
subject property is part of a larger parcel that meets the minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet
and lot width of 100 feet required for minimum standard uses in the Institutional (I) zoning
district. Any development of the property that does not meet minimum standard requirements
will be subject to the use criteria in the Flexible Standard Development process or Flexible
Development process.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 7 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20
The request for amendment to the Future Land Use Map involves a change from the Residential
Urban (RU) future land use categories to the Institutional (I) future land use category. The
request also includes a rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to
the Institutional (I) District. The subject property is vacant (undeveloped) and is surrounded by
institutional and nonconforming residential uses and vacant land. The proposed amendment is
compatible with surrounding properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change is compatible with the low intensity uses in the
surrounding area and consolidates the applicant's property holdings under the appropriate land
use designations. Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets the purpose and locational
criteria for the Institutional (I) future land use category in the Countywide Plan Rules.
Approval of the subject land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop the
subject property. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested, including transportation concurrency provisions of the
city's Concurrency Management System.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning & Development Department recommends the following
action:
ACTION:
Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Future Land Use Map amendment from the
Residential Urban (RU) classification to the Institutional (I) classification and rezoning from
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff:
Tammy Vrana, AICP
Long Range Planning Manager
Attachments:
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Future
Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-05001 -Page 8 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-05001 2010-07-20c.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
July 20, 2010
Downtown Plan Amendments
8192-10
E. 2.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
City Council directed to staff to
Two issues relating to the Downtown have been raised by City Council that require
revisions to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. One was raised by a
business owner relating to the Code's
When did Council want us to consider bike stuff and then revisions
During discussion about the potential location of health clinic, concerned was raised
about limiting language for gas property ....
On May 13, 2008 the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approved the East
Gatewav District Five-Year Action Program. The Action Program responded to public.
input on the issues of drug dealing, prostitution and street crime by includin(y an action
item for an increased police presence in the East Gatewav. As Florida Statutes allow for
the use of tax increment financing (TIF) funds for conm'1unity policing innovations, the
CRA entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Police Department on August 27,
2008 to provide for additional police presence beyond current activity levels. The Tax
Increment Financing Section of the Cleai•icaler 1)ow lowli 1zcdc vc lopincw Ph/// needs to
be revised to recognize that TIF is a source of finding for additional community policing
innovations. The Planning- Department is also recommending that minor amendments be
made to the Mali to support the location of a performing arts theater in Downtown.
The Community Development Board is reviewing the proposed amendments in its
capacity as the Local Planning Agency and is requested to make a recommendation
regarding the amendments to the City Council. The CRA is requested to make a
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
5th Downtown Plan Amendments - Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-07-20
recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendments to the Plan. Once the
City Council approves these amendments, they will be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval as amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. They will also
be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority for
approval as amendments to the Special Area Plan governing Downtown.
ANALYSIS:
Two amendments are proposed to the Plan to address City Council directives. Both
amendments make changes to Chapter 3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan. One
applies to the downtown area as a whole while one is specific to the Old Bay Character
District. Below is a summary of each proposed amendment.
The first amendment adds a new Policy 11 to the overall Plan Goals, Objectives and
Policies section of the Plan (page 52) which supports the outdoor display of bicycles for
retail bicycle uses abutting the Pinellas Trails. The proposed amendment is very targeted
to better support an alternative mode of transportation within the Downtown area which
has a major trail that traverses a significant portion of the area. Since the Downtown Plan
is the official policy statement for downtown and because of the limited nature of the
proposed allowable outdoor display, the Planning and Development Department supports
the provision in the Plan instead of in the Community Development Code.
The other proposal amends the Uses provisions of the Old Bay Character District with
regard to the property in the vicinity of the Clearwater Gas property (see page 64 of
Plan). Concern was raised about the very limiting language regard, therefore staff has
reevaluated the entire area east of the Pinellas Trail/CSX lines in the District as this area
is not addressed in its entirety. The amendment would allow a variety of uses to be
located in this area including governmental uses, medical facilities, retail, etc. The
proposed amendment provides more direction than the current provisions since not all
property within this small area was even addressed.
The proposed amendment support several principles found in the Vision of the Plan
including:
• Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential,
office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential
projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a
revitalized Downtown.
• The Pinellas Trail is a unique resource for recreation and economic development
within Downtown;
The proposed policies also support Goals and Objectives currently found in the Plan
including regarding business and the Pinellas Trail:
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
5th Downtown Plan Amendments - Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-07-20
• Goal 1 (People Goal) - Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living
employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will
attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and
shopping destination.
• Objective lE: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in
Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment
opportunities for Downtown residents.
• Objective 2D: The Pinellas Trail shall be maintained and improved as both a
recreational amenity and alternative mode of transportation. The Trail presents
the opportunity to bring people into Downtown and as such is a unique source of
economic development. The Trail shall assist in creating connections within
Downtown, between the balance of the Trail countywide and from Downtown to
Clearwater Beach.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Please find below a selected list of objectives and policies from the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the proposed amendments to the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
• Objective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or
obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of
redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects,
city investment, and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards.
• Policy A.6.1.8 - The City shall continue to support and implement approved
community redevelopment area plans, such as the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan adopted in 2004 and Beach by Design adopted in 2001.
• Objective A.6.2. - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative
planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to
promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment.
• Policy A.6.5.1 - The City shall support the Pinellas Trail and examine opportunities
for Trail extensions or spurs to connect regional attractions and employers.
• Policy A.6.5.3 - All proposed development/redevelopment initiatives shall be
reviewed for opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle access and consider the
integration of bicycle and pedestrian transportation modes in all phases of
transportation planning, new roadway design, roadway construction, roadway
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
5th Downtown Plan Amendments - Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-07-20
resurfacing and other capital projects consistent with the City's Shifting Gears
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2006. On Clearwater Beach, pedestrian and
bicycle improvements should adhere to the policies and design guidelines set forth in
Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan focus on
supporting a variety of uses at a visible intersection within the Old Bay District as well as
certain businesses which support an alternative mode of transportation. The outdoor
display of bicycles along the Pinellas Trail allows very targeted support for the Trail
without opening up the entire Downtown to the outdoor display of general merchandise.
The proposed amendments support existing objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Ordinance No. 8192-10 makes limited amendments supporting a variety of uses
within specific area of Downtown. The amendment further the Goals and Objective of
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and is also consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following action on the request:
Recommend APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8192-10 which amends the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department Staff:
Gina L. Clayton,
Assistant Planning &
Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 8192-10
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
5th Downtown Plan Amendments - Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-03007
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner/Applicant: McDonalds Corporation
Representative: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering
Address: 1934 N. Hercules Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 607 square foot
expansion for an existing restaurant in the Commercial (C) District
with a lot area of 64,083 square feet, a lot width of 160 feet along
Hercules Avenue and 100 feet along Sunset Point Road, a front
setback (east along Hercules Avenue) of 12.6 feet (to existing
pavement) and 71.7 feet (to proposed building), a front setback
(south along Sunset Point Road) of 84 feet (to existing pavement),
a side (north) setback of 10.1 feet (to existing pavement), 16.6 feet
(to dumpster enclosure) and 63.8 feet (to existing building), a side
(south) setback of 8.4 feet (to existing pavement) and 59.4 feet (to
existing building), a side (east) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing
pavement), a side (west) setback of 5 feet (to dumpster enclosure),
8.2 feet (to pavement) and 95.8 feet (to existing building), a
building height of 20 feet (to highest architectural feature) and 38
CURRENT ZONING:
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE:
EXISTING
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND USES:
off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the
perimeter landscape buffer along Hercules Avenue from 15 feet to
12.6 feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Commercial (C) District
Commercial General (CG)
Current Use: Restaurant
Proposed Use: Restaurant
North: Office (O) District
South: Pinellas County C-2
East: Open Space/Recreation
(O S/R)
West: Institutional (I) District
Offices
Vacant Automobile Service
Station
Parks and Recreation Facility
Nursing Home
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.471-acre subject property consists of two parcels. One parcel has 160 feet of frontage on
the west side of N. Hercules Avenue, and the other has 100 feet of frontage on the north side of
Sunset Point Road. The parcel fronting on Hercules Avenue is currently developed with a 3,130
square foot McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru and associated off-street parking. The parcel
fronting on Sunset Point Road consists of additional associated off-street parking and a detention
pond.
The subject property is bordered on its north side by an office development; on the west by a
nursing home; and at its southeast corner by a vacant automobile service station that is in
unincorporated Pinellas County.
Development Proposal:
On March 31, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to
renovate and expand the existing McDonald's fast food restaurant as follows:
¦ Enclose the existing outdoor seating area on the east side of the building within a 575 square
foot addition and construct a new 32 square foot addition on the north side of the building;
¦ Reconfigure existing drive-thru lane from a single order point to side-by-side ordering;
¦ Replace existing double-dumpster enclosure with a new 10-foot by 24-foot enclosure; and
¦ Constructing a new architectural facade.
In addition to the above, the number of existing off-street parking spaces will be reduced from 43
to 38 (a reduction of 5 spaces) in order to accommodate the reconfiguration of the drive-thru
system. However, the majority of the existing site improvements will remain unchanged with
this proposal. Among the site improvements that are not changing is the location of the existing
off-street parking adjacent to Hercules Avenue which has a setback that varies between 12.5 and
13.9 feet. As a result of this existing setback, the development proposal is being reviewed as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Commercial
General (CG) land use category and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55,
which would allow for a maximum development size of 35,245 square feet on this parcel. The
proposed would expand the existing development to 3,737 square feet or an FAR of 0.058, which
is far below what may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.598, which is less then what may be permitted based upon the
above 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
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for restaurants is 10,000 square feet. The
existing lot area for the subject property is 64,083 square feet (1.471 acres). For comparative
purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for restaurants is 100 feet. The lot widths along
Hercules Avenue and Sunset Point Road are 160 feet and 100 feet, respectively. The
development proposal either meets or exceeds these comparative Code provisions for restaurants.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for a restaurant can range between 15 and 25 feet; and the
side setback can range between zero and 10 feet.
With regard to both the existing building and the proposed building additions, the minimum
required setbacks will all be greatly exceeded. In addition, the required side (north) setback will
also be met for all existing and proposed improvements. There are also three existing
nonconforming setbacks (to pavement) that will continue to remain, and are as follows:
¦ The 12.6-foot front (east) setback from Hercules Avenue to the existing parking lot;
¦ The 8.4-foot side (south) setback to the existing parking lot; and
¦ The 5.5-foot side (east) setback to the existing parking lot.
Each of the above setbacks have existed for many years and are mostly within the allowable
range for a restaurant use in the Commercial (C) District. Further, requiring these existing
improvements to be brought into full compliance with the Code would likely do more harm than
good as established landscape materials and substantial amounts of off-street parking would be
eliminated.
The setbacks proposed for the new dumpster enclosure and reconfigured drive-thru are five feet
and 8.2 feet, respectively; and are both within the allowable range set forth by the Code for a
restaurant use in the Commercial (C) District. These setbacks, as well as the existing setbacks,
can be supported based upon positive findings made with regard to CDC Section 2-704.C.
Maximum Building Heim Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for restaurants can range between 25 and 50 feet. Following the
completion of the proposed architectural facade, the height of the flat roof will remain at 17.92
feet; however a new architectural detail on the buildings east elevation (facing Hercules Avenue)
will have a height of 20 feet. In either instance the height is well below that which may be
permitted based upon the above Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
requirement for restaurants is between 7 and 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
which for a 3,737 square foot restaurant would result in a requirement between 26 and 56 spaces.
The subject property is currently developed with a total of 43 off-street parking spaces; however
this will be reduced to 38 (10.16 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) in order to
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
accommodate the proposed drive-thru reconfiguration. The applicant prepared a parking demand
study which through on-site analysis of the existing use has demonstrated that the proposed 38
off-street parking spaces will be adequate to meet the demand of the remodeled and expanded
restaurant during all periods. As these 38 spaces are well within the acceptable range for
restaurants, positive findings can be made with regard to the requested off-street parking
reduction.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
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 15-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along Hercules Avenue. The existing site improvements (i.e. off-street parking) are set
back only 12.5 feet from the property line. As such, the minimum buffer width has not been
provided along the entire east perimeter of the property, and the applicant has requested a
reduction to this width as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X
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.
As previously noted, the existing off-street parking is set back only 12.5 feet from Hercules
Avenue. Repositioning these parking spaces to meet Code and enable compliance with the
minimum buffer width would also require the relocation of the adjoining drive aisle,
modifications to other landscape islands, and would result in a conflict with the existing cross-
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
access point with the office development to the north. Therefore, the development proposal
retains the existing landscape buffer width as well as those materials already planted within and
which exceed the minimum requirements of the Code.
In addition to the above, the development proposal includes a new foundation planting area
along the east building elevation that is twice the width required by the Code. This area will be
planted with Chinese hibiscus and variegated flax lily, as well as groupings of cabbage palms at
both ends of the foundation planting area. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made
with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program.
Signage: Pursuant to CDC Section 6-104.A, in the event a building permit is required for the
redevelopment of a principal use/structure, signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be
brought into compliance. No information with regard to signage was submitted as a part of this
proposal so it is unclear at this time as to whether the existing signage is in compliance with
Code. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permit
information is provided with regard to the existing signage and that if that signage is found to be
nonconforming that it is brought into full compliance with the Code.
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 Commercial General (CG) land use category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC
Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.058 X
ISR 0.90 0.598 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 64,083 sq. ft. (1.471 acres) X
Minimum N/A Hercules: 160 feet X
Lot Width Sunset Point: 100 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A Hercules: 12.6 feet (to pavement) X
71.7 feet (to building)
Sunset Point: 84 feet (to pavement) X
Side: N/A North: 10.01 feet (to pavement) X
16.6 feet (to dumpster)
63.8 feet (to building)
South: 8.4 feet (to pavement) X
59.4 feet (to building)
East: 5.5 feet (to pavement) X
West: 8.2 feet (to pavement) X
5.0 feet (to dumpster)
95.8 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 20 feet X
Minimum 7-15 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 38 parking spaces X'
Off-Street Parking (26-56 spaces) (10.16 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA)
i See analysis in StaffReport
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.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 - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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. The 1.471 acre subject property consists of two parcels, one fronting on N. Hercules Avenue
and the other fronting on Sunset Point Road;
2. The subject property has 160 feet of frontage along N. Hercules Avenue, and 100 feet of
frontage along Sunset Point Road;
3. The subject property is currently developed with a 3,130 square foot McDonald's restaurant
with drive-thru, associated off-street parking and a detention pond;
4. The purpose of this application is to enclose the existing outdoor seating area and construct a
new 32 square foot storage addition (a total of 575 square feet of new building area), as well
as to reconfigure the drive-thru area, and provide a new architectural facade;
5. This application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due to
the ability for front setback flexibility for existing improvements that the restaurant use does
not afford;
6. The proposed building additions will comply with all setback requirements;
7. The proposed drive-thru reconfiguration and dumpster enclosure require side (west) setbacks
of 8.2 and five feet, respectively, where zero feet may be otherwise permissible; and
8. 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:
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-03007 2010-07-20
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per
Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit a 607 square foot expansion for an existing
restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 64,083 square feet, a lot width of 160
feet along Hercules Avenue and 100 feet along Sunset Point Road, a front setback (east along
Hercules Avenue) of 12.6 feet (to existing pavement) and 71.7 feet (to proposed building), a
front setback (south along Sunset Point Road) of 84 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north)
setback of 10.1 feet (to existing pavement), 16.6 feet (to dumpster enclosure) and 63.8 feet (to
existing building), a side (south) setback of 8.4 feet (to existing pavement) and 59.4 feet (to
existing building), a side (east) setback of 5.5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback
of 5 feet (to dumpster enclosure), 8.2 feet (to pavement) and 95.8 feet (to existing building), a
building height of 20 feet (to highest architectural feature) and 38 off-street parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Hercules Avenue
from 15 feet to 12.6 feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, evidence of filing a Declaration of Unity of Title in
the public records of Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be
submitted to and approved by the Planning and Development Department;
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permit information is provided with regard to the
existing signage and that if that signage is found to be nonconforming that it is brought into
full compliance with the Code; and
3. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved
right-of-way permit from Pinellas County for sidewalk improvements proposed in Sunset
Point Road (C.R. 588) and N. Hercules Avenue (C.R. 425).
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map, Zoning Map, Existing Surrounding Uses Map, and Photographs
S: )Planning DepartmentlC D B (FLEX (FLD) (Pending cases) Up for the next CDBWercules N 1934 McDonalds (C) 2010.07 - RPStaff
Report. docx
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-03007 - Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-05002
Agenda Item: D. 3.
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Retail Group, LTD.
Representative: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering
Address: 810 S. Missouri Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a new building with
7,225 square feet of retail and 1,575 square feet of restaurant in the
Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 59,554 square feet, a lot
width of 237.66 feet along Druid Road and 162.74 feet along
Missouri Avenue, a front setback (north along Druid Road) of 13.3
feet (to pavement) and 61.1 feet (to building), a front setback (east
along Missouri Avenue) of 15 feet (to pavement) and 86 feet (to
building), a side (south) setback of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 25
feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 4.2 (to dumpster
enclosure), five feet (to pavement) and 103.6 feet (to building), a
building height of 19.16 feet (to flat roof) and 62 off-street parking
spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, with
a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Druid Road from
15 feet to 13.3 feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer
along the south property line from five feet to 3.3 feet and the
removal of foundation plantings along the north building facade as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services / Restaurant
EXISTING North: Office (O) and Attached Dwellings and Retail
SURROUNDING Commercial (C) Districts Sales and Services
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Restaurant
East: Commercial (C) District Vacant Automobile Service
Station
West: Commercial (C) District Attached Dwellings
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.367-acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Druid Road and Missouri
Avenue. The property has approximately 237 feet of frontage on Druid Road and 162 feet on
Missouri Avenue. Currently, the property is vacant and overgrown, but previously the property
was developed as a VisionWorks.
At its meeting of October 18, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved a
Flexible Development application (FLD2005-07076) for a 32-unit attached dwelling
development with substantial flexibility to setbacks and landscape code requirements. This
approval has since expired with no development having occurred on the site.
The subject property is bordered on its north side across Druid Road by a retail sales and service
use and a nonconforming duplex; on its south side by a restaurant; on its east side across
Missouri Avenue by a vacant automobile service station; and on its west side by a private road
and stormwater pond associated with an attached dwelling development that principally lies
further to the southwest. It is noted that easements exist allowing for the subject property to have
ingress/egress upon this private road as well as cross access with the off-street parking area for
the adjacent restaurant to the south.
Development Proposal:
On May 4, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to
obtain approval to develop the existing vacant property over two phases. The first phase consists
of the construction of a 4,075 square foot retail sales and services building along with 39 off-
street parking spaces and a dumpster enclosure. The second phase consists of the construction of
an additional 3,150 square feet of retail sales and services floor area, 1,575 square feet of
restaurant floor area, 23 additional off-street parking spaces (a total of 62 spaces), and additional
dumpster enclosure space. It is noted that the first phase will have adequate parking and refuse
facilities to stand alone should the second phase not be developed.
The proposed building has been located so as to comply with all setback requirements; however
the applicant has requested flexibility with regard to setbacks measured to pavement, specifically
with respect to the setback along Druid Road where the proposal provides for 13.3 feet from the
property line to the parking stall at the northeast corner of the site. While the setback does
become larger toward the west of the site (16.6 feet), this setback does not meet the flexibility
provided for a Flexible Development application for restaurants/retail sales and services uses;
therefore the development proposal is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Proj ect.
The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-. Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Commercial
General (CG) land use category and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55,
which would allow for a maximum development size of 32,754 square feet on this parcel. The
proposed 8,800 square foot building represents an FAR of 0.148, which is far below what may
be permitted based upon the above Code provisions.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.784, which is less then what may be permitted based upon the
above 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 requirement for restaurants and retail sales and services is
10,000 square feet. The subject property is 59,554 square feet (1.367 acres). For comparative
purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for restaurants and retail sales and services is 100
feet. The lot widths along Druid Road and Missouri Avenue are 237.66 feet and 162.74 feet,
respectively. The development proposal either meets or exceeds these comparative Code
provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for restaurants and retail sales and services can range
between 15 and 25 feet; and the side setback can range between zero and 10 feet.
With regard to the proposed building, the minimum required setbacks will all be greatly
exceeded; however flexibility has been requested with regard to the setbacks to the off-street
parking area (pavement). Along Druid Road there would be a setback of 13.3 feet at the
northeast corner of the property; however this would increase to 16.6 feet at the northwest
corner. Along Missouri Avenue the setback would be 15 feet near the southeast corner, but
would be as much as 29 feet near the northeast corner of the property. The setback along the
south side of the property would be 3.3 feet; however this is consistent with the setback having
already been provided by the adjacent property. The setback along the west side of the property
is 4.2 feet for the dumpster enclosure and 5 feet for the off-street parking area. There is little
concern with this setback as the adjoining property is a private road providing ingress/egress
between Druid Road and the subject property, the adjacent restaurant to the south, and the
attached dwelling development further to the south.
All of the above setbacks are within the allowable range set forth by the Code for restaurant and
retail sales and services uses in the Commercial (C) District, with the exception of the setback of
13.3 feet along Druid Road. As noted, however, this setback does increase toward the northwest
corner of the property to a distance that is within the allowable range for these uses. Allowing
further flexibility of this setback, as well as the requested flexibility for all other setbacks, would
seem supportable based upon positive findings made with regard to CDC Section 2-704.C.
Maximum Building Heim Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for restaurants and retail sales and services can range between 25
and 50 feet. As proposed, the height of the flat roof will be at 19.16 feet with an additional 2.66
feet for a parapet wall, both of which are well below that which may be permitted based upon the
above Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
requirement for restaurants is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for a
1,575 square foot restaurant would result in a requirement of 24 spaces. The off-street parking
requirement for retail sales and services is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
which for 7,225 square feet of retail floor area results in a requirement of 36 spaces. Therefore
the total off-street parking requirement for the development would be 60 spaces.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1405, when any land, building or area is used for two or more uses
that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall
be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the appropriate
percentages listed in the table. The following table depicts the development proposals parking
requirement as per the shared parking table:
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Use: Midnight 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 9 A.M. 6 P.M.
6A.M. 4 P.M. Midnight 4 P.M. Midnight
Retail (36) 5% = 1.8 70% = 25.2 90% = 32.4 100% = 36 70% = 25.2
Restaurant (24) 10% =2.4 50% = 12 100% = 24 50% = 12 100% = 2.4
Totals: 4.2 37.2 56.4 48 27.6
Based upon the above, the development proposal requires a minimum of 56 parking spaces. As
proposed, a total of 62 parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds
its parking requirement.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties. The plans
do not depict the location of the air conditioning equipment for the individual tenant spaces, and
while this equipment will no doubt be mounted on the roof of the building, its exact location is
unknown. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that, prior to the issuance of any
building permits, the architectural plans shall be revised or an additional sheet provided that
clearly depicts the location of all roof-mounted mechanical equipment and the means by which it
will be adequately screened from view from public streets and abutting properties.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found
to be acceptable.
Landscaping- Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where a non-residential property abuts an
arterial or collector right-of-way a 15-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer with trees 35 feet on
center is required. Druid Road is adjacent to the north side of the subject property; however the
width of the buffer is only 13.3 feet for a portion located toward the northeast corner of the
property.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where two non-residential uses abut one another, a five-
foot wide perimeter landscape buffer with trees 35 feet on center is required. The subject
property abuts another non-residential uses along the south property line; however the width of
the buffer provided is only a 3.3 feet.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided along the entire
building facade with frontage along a right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building
ingress/egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent
trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square
feet of required landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the
remainder to be groundcover. The development proposal does not include the provision of the
required foundation plantings along the north building facade.
Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the approval of a Comprehensive Landscape
Program with the above referenced reductions to the perimeter landscape buffer widths, and
elimination of the north foundation plantings.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X
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.
In response to the above criteria pertaining to Architectural Theme, the applicant has indicated
that the proposed landscape plan is demonstrably more attractive than what otherwise could be
approved as it provides the following:
¦ A balanced design for the landscape buffers along Missouri Avenue and Druid Road that
mixes accent flowering trees, palms, shrubs, and small plants/groundcover;
¦ A balanced design for the interior landscape islands that mixes shade trees, palms, flowering
shrubs and small plants/groundcover;
¦ A balanced design for the building foundation landscape that mixes palms, grass and small
plants/groundcover;
¦ Phase I of the project will use Florida Grade #1 plant materials in the proposed landscape
treatment including 12 live oaks, 14 little gem southern magnolias, 10 crepe myrtles, 18
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
washingtonia palms, 18 sabal palms, 155 sandanqua viburnum, 45 sand cord grass, 96 indian
hawthorne, variegated flax lily, evergreen giant liriope, and bahia sod.
¦ Phase II of the project will use Florida Grade #1 plant materials in the proposed treatment
including 12 yaupon hollys, 115 sandanqua viburnum, 56 indian hawthorn, 35 sand cord
grass, evergreen giant liriope, and variegated flax lily.
With regard to the remaining criteria, the applicant had indicated that the lighting has been
designed to meet Code; however it is not indicated that the lighting will be automatically
controlled so that it is turned off when the businesses are closed, as required by the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria. This item has been attached as a condition of
approval. The number, size, quality of the proposed plant materials and the balanced design will
offer upgraded and positive value to the immediate vicinity. Based upon the above and subject
to the attached conditions of approval, a positive finding can be made with regard to compliance
with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria.
Signage: No signage has been proposed, nor is any signage approved as a part of this
development proposal.
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 Commercial General (CG) land use category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC
Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.148 X
ISR 0.90 0.784 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 59,554 sq. ft. (1.367 acres) X
Minimum N/A Druid: 237.66 feet X
Lot Width Missouri: 162.74 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A Druid: 13.3 feet (to pavement) X
61.1 feet (to building)
Missouri 15 feet (to pavement) X
86 feet (to building)
Side: N/A South: 3.3 feet (to pavement) X
25 feet (to building)
West: 4.2 feet (to dumpster) X
5 feet (to pavement)
103.6 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 19.16 feet X
Minimum Retail: 5 / 1,000 SF 62 parking spaces X'
Off-Street Parking Restaurant: 15 / 1,000 SF (7.04 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA)
(60 spaces)
i See analysis in StaffReport
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.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 - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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 June 3, 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 1.367 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Druid Road and Missouri
Avenue;
2. The subject property has 237.66 feet of frontage along Druid Road, and 162.74 feet of
frontage along Missouri Avenue;
3. The subject property is currently vacant and overgrown;
4. The proposal is to construct a 8,800 square foot building for restaurant (1,575 square feet)
and retail sales and service (7,225 square feet) uses;
5. The proposed building will meet all required setbacks;
6. The proposal requires a front (north) setback of 13.3 feet (to pavement), and a front (east)
setback of 15 feet (to pavement);
7. The proposal requires a side (south) setback of 3.3 feet (to pavement), and a side (west)
setback of 4.2 feet (to pavement);
8. The proposal includes a Comprehensive Landscape Program for reductions to the north
perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 13.3 feet, and the south perimeter landscape buffer
from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, as well as the elimination of the foundation landscape along the north
facade of the building; and
9. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per
Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704;
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05002 2010-07-20
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A; and
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program
criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit a new building with 7,225 square feet of retail and
1,575 square feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 59,554 square feet,
a lot width of 237.66 feet along Druid Road and 162.74 feet along Missouri Avenue, a front
setback (north along Druid Road) of 13.3 feet (to pavement) and 61.1 feet (to building), a front
setback (east along Missouri Avenue) of 15 feet (to pavement) and 86 feet (to building), a side
(south) setback of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 25 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 4.2 (to
dumpster enclosure), five feet (to pavement) and 103.6 feet (to building), a building height of
19.16 feet (to flat roof) and 62 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, with a reduction
to the perimeter landscape buffer along Druid Road from 15 feet to 13.3 feet, a reduction to the
perimeter landscape buffer along the south property line from five feet to 3.3 feet and the removal
of foundation plantings along the north building facade as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the architectural plans shall be revised or
an additional sheet provided that clearly depicts the location of all roof-mounted mechanical
equipment and the means by which it will be adequately screened from view from public
streets and abutting properties;
2. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the paved area (refuse vehicle turnaround)
located toward the rear of the proposed building (measuring 28.8 feet by 18 feet) be reduced
in size and replaced by landscape materials to the maximum extent practicable;
3. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the electric panels and boxes on
the outside of the building shall be painted the same color as the building;
4. That all lighting will be automatically controlled so that it is turned off when the businesses
are closed; and
5. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the elevations
approved by the CDB.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map, Existing Surrounding Uses Map, and Photographs
S: )Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD) (Pending cases)Up for the next CDBIMissouri S810 The Crossings at Renaissance Square (C)
2010.07 - RPStaffReport 2010 07-20.docx
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05002 - Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
Owner:
Applicant:
Representative:
Address:
July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003
D.1.
Equities Holdings Group, Inc.
Tampa Bay Art, LLC d/b/a Tampa Bay Ink
Robert Gregg
2010 Drew Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Problematic Use
(tattoo/permanent cosmetics studio) and Retail Sales within an
existing tenant space in the Commercial (C) District located
adjacent to residentially zoned property with no changes to the
existing setbacks or landscape buffers, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C.
CURRENT ZONING
DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT LAND USE
CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Restaurant and vacant tenant space
Proposed Use: Restaurant and Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent
cosmetics studio)/Retail Sales
EXISTING North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
SURROUNDING Detached Dwelling
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) and Institutional (I) Districts
Vacant Retail Sales and Place of Worship
East: Commercial (C) District
Offices
West: Commercial (C) District
Automobile Service Station
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.415 acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue,
approximately 150 feet east of N. Hercules Avenue. On March 19, 2002, the Community
Development Board (CDB) approved Case Number FL 01-12-36, with five conditions of
approval, for the redevelopment of this property with the current commercial building with two
tenant spaces (Subway restaurant [2006 Drew Street] and a retail sales and service use for Fritz's
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
Skate Shop [2010 Drew Street]). This application included a parking reduction for the restaurant
to seven spaces per 1,000 square feet and a reduction to four spaces per 1,000 square feet for the
retail sales use, with a condition of approval stating: "That any change in tenant mix be evaluated
for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the
Community Development Board." The property was developed under Building Permit BCP2002-
05596. A Subway Restaurant is located within the southern tenant space. On August 19, 2003,
the CDB denied a request to permit a Problematic Use (Amscot Financial) in the subject 2010
Drew Street tenant space (FLD2003-05022).
The property to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed
with a detached dwelling. To the east across Patricia Avenue on property zoned Commercial (C)
District and is developed with office uses. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C)
District and is developed with an automobile service station. Across Drew Street there is a vacant
retail sales building zoned Commercial (C) District and a church zoned Institutional (I) District.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal is to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo parlor and permanent
cosmetics) along with a retail sales art gallery within the existing northern tenant space. The
applicant indicates the retail sales of art work involves, but is not limited to, various mediums,
prints, paintings, photographs, sculpture and jewelry. Problematic Uses are defined by the CDC
as "commercial retail and service uses, including but not limited to, day labor, tattoo parlors,
body piercing, pawn shops, check cashing centers and blood plasma centers which are typically
characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neighborhood
deterioration or urban blight."
Under CDC Section 2-704(M) for Problematic Uses, there are two locational criteria:
a. The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is
designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas;
b. The use is not located within 500 feet of another problematic use.
This application would conform to the second flexibility criteria for Problematic Uses under
CDC Section 2-704(M). There are no other Problematic Uses within 500 feet of the subject
property. However, the subject parcel is adjacent/contiguous to residentially-zoned property. The
property to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with
a detached dwelling. The sole reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project is due to this locational issue of being adjacent to residentially-
zoned property. It is important to note that the approval of a use at a particular location vests that
right to continuing at that location so long it is in conformance with the regulations. Staff does
note that the subject property was developed with a new building in 2002 and is still well
maintained. While the applicant may argue that this particular site and tenant may not exhibit
some of the characteristics listed in the definition, ownership of property and tenants do change
over time while the "use" may still be vested.
The above locational criteria for Problematic Uses are included in the flexibility criteria to
preclude negative impacts on residentially-zoned property and to avoid a saturation of like uses
within a geographic area. This proposal is not consistent with the general purpose, intent and
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
basic planning objectives of this Code, specifically the following General Purposes of CDC
Section 1-103:
a. To enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods;
b. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the
value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and
redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties;
c. Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through
the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial
development of land within the city;
d. Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and
improvements upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and
buildings;
e. Establish permitted uses corresponding with the purpose and character of the respective
zoning districts and limit uses within each district to those uses specifically authorized;
f. Establish use limitations for specified uses consistent with the zoning district in which
they are allowed and the particular characteristics of such specified uses;
This proposal is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Commercial (C) District of
CDC Section 2-701, which states: "The intent and purpose of the Commercial District is to
provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services
throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods,
diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient
movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater." (underlining added for
emphasis). Additionally, the adjoining property could suffer substantial detriment as a result of
the proposed use due to its characteristics. Based on the established locational criteria, the
proposal is not compatible with, nor consistent with the character of, the adjacent residential use.
It is the Staff s position that the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use should not be
used to circumvent these locational criteria.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Under Case Number FL 01-12-36, parking was reduced for the
retail sales use from five to four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (from 11 to nine
spaces) and reduced for the restaurant from 15 to seven spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area (from 27 to 13 spaces). There are 22 parking spaces provided on-site. This parking
reduction was justified based on a Parking Study that looked at parking needs, comparisons at
other similar businesses and the operational characteristics of the proposed tenant mix. That
prior Staff Report noted that future tenants will need to verify similar business operations and
parking demand ratios. The approval of Case Number FL 01-12-36 included the following
condition: "That any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complementary operational
characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development
Board."
With this proposal, there is no change to the existing Subway restaurant use and their
characteristics/parking needs. The tattoo parlor and retail art gallery is proposed to operate
Monday through Thursday and Sunday from 1:00 pm to 11:00 pm and Friday and Saturday from
1:00 pm to 12:00 am, with much of their business in the later afternoon and evening hours.
Subway's peak hours are from 10:30 am to 1:30 pm. The applicant has submitted information
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
from other similar Problematic Uses (tattoo parlors) regarding the number of clients and time of
day. From a parking standpoint, based on the information submitted, Staff has determined the
proposed use would have complementary operational characteristics and parking demand as
originally approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36 and its condition of approval.
Landscaping- Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.13, there is a 15-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along Drew Street, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer along Patricia Avenue, a five-foot
wide perimeter buffer along the west side of the site and a 12-foot wide perimeter buffer along
the north side adjacent to the detached dwelling. Buffers were modified under FL 01-12-36 and
there are no proposed changes from that which exists. It is noted that under this prior approval a
six-foot high masonry wall was required along the north property line with landscaping on the
commercial side of the wall for buffering to this existing detached dwelling. This wall and
landscaping was constructed/installed and there is no change to the buffer along the north side.
Signage: There exists a monument-style freestanding sign at the intersection of Drew Street and
Patricia Avenue that has an area reserved for the northern tenant space. There are no proposed
changes to this freestanding sign. This sign is in compliance with the flexibility criteria for
Problematic Uses. Attached signage would need to meet Code requirements.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The property was developed in
accordance with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 for the Commercial
(C) District and the flexibility approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36. The proposal does not
seek to change any of the existing conditions of the developed site.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
Consistent I Inconsistent
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X'
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X'
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X'
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.
i See analysis in StaffReport.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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 Xi
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 June 3, 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 0.415 acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue,
approximately 150 feet east of N. Hercules Avenue;
2. The Community Development Board (CDB) on March 19, 2002, approved the
redevelopment of this property with the current commercial building with two tenant spaces
under Case Number FL 01-12-36, including five conditions of approval;
3. The property was developed in accordance with plans approved under Building Permit
BCP2002-05596;
4. The CDB on August 19, 2003, denied a request to permit a Problematic Use (Amscot
Financial) in the subject 2010 Drew Street tenant space (FLD2003 -05 022);
5. The development proposal is to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo parlor and permanent
cosmetics) along with a retail sales art gallery within the existing northern tenant space;
6. One locational criterion for Problematic Uses requires the parcel proposed for development
to not be contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas.
The subject parcel is adjacent/contiguous to residentially-zoned property, developed with a
detached dwelling;
7. The other locational criterion for Problematic Uses requires the use to not be located within
500 feet of another Problematic Use. There are no other Problematic Uses within 500 feet of
the subject property;
8. This application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due
solely to the locational issue of being adjacent to residentially-zoned property;
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05003 2010-07-20
9. The subject property was developed with a new building in 2002 and is still well maintained;
10. There are no changes to the existing setbacks or landscape buffers;
11. It is noted that under Case Number FL 01-12-36 a six-foot high masonry wall was required
along the north property line with landscaping on the commercial side of the wall for
buffering to this existing detached dwelling;
12. From a parking standpoint, based on the information submitted, Staff has determined the
proposed use would have complementary operational characteristics and parking demand as
originally approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36 and its condition of approval; and
13. 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 2-701.1 and 2-
704 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-
704.C and 2-704.M of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the
Flexible Development application to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent cosmetics
studio) and Retail Sales within an existing tenant space in the Commercial (C) District located
adjacent to residentially zoned property with no changes to the existing setbacks or landscape
buffers, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C.
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 CDBIDrew 2010 Tattoo & Art (C) 2010.0x- 7.20.10 CDB -
WW Drew 2010 StaffReport.doc
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05003 - Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Numbers: FLD2009-02006
Agenda Item: D. 4.
Owner/Applicant: Donald AZE Culbertson, Successor Trustee for Pinellas 3100 Trust
Representative: Pete Alfonso Jr., Pete Alfonso Jr. Architect
Addresses: 3100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit Major Vehicle Service
and Limited Vehicle Sales and Display in the Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 18,556 square feet; a lot width of 118 feet
(along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 150 feet (along McMullen Booth
Road); a building height of 15.5 feet (to flat roof); a front (south)
setback of 8 feet (to canopy) and 10 feet (to pavement), a front
(west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 42 feet (to building), a
side (north) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and 37.75 feet (to
building), a side (east) setback of 2.9 feet (to pavement) and 21.4
feet (to building); and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C, as well as a reduction to the
interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 0.94 percent; a
reduction to the foundation landscaping from 5 feet to zero feet on
the south facade and zero feet on the west facade; a reduction of the
west landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, the south landscape
buffer from 15 feet to 12.2 feet, and the east landscape buffer from 5
feet to 2.9 feet as Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: None
Proposed Use: Major Vehicle Service and Limited Vehicle
Sales/Display
EXISTING North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
SURROUNDING Attached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District
Governmental
East: Commercial (C) District
Office
West: Commercial (C) District
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Overnight Accommodations
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.43 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and McMullen
Booth Road. The subject property has approximately 118 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and approximately 150 feet of frontage along McMullen Booth Road. The site, which is
mostly paved with either asphalt or concrete, has an existing 3,137 square foot structure located on
it. The last permitted use at the site was an automobile service station which closed on December
19, 2005. The site has been illegally operated for major vehicle service and limited vehicle
sales/display since August 2008.
Properties to the north are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed
with attached dwellings (Tradewinds Condominiums). Property to the east is zoned Commercial
(C) District and is developed with an office. Both properties to the west and south are zoned
Commercial (C) District and are developed with overnight accommodations (Fairfield Inn) and a
storm-water retention facility respectively.
Development Proposal:
On February 2, 2009, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted
proposing major vehicle service and limited vehicle sales/display, which is currently operating
illegally, at the subject parcel. The current tenant, whom was the past owner, is displaying and
selling motorcycles, personal watercraft, lawn equipment and all terrain vehicles throughout the
parcel. In addition, engine repair, painting and pinstriping, towing, rebuilding of motorcycles
and bike salvage are being conducted illegally without a business tax receipt (occupational
license).
The existing structure has a building height of 15.5 feet and has been painted canary yellow since
the illegal occupancy. The existing site is completely paved with the exception of the
easternmost five feet and the northernmost five feet. Therefore, there is an existing setback of
zero feet to pavement on both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and McMullen Booth Road. The existing
gas canopy is proposed to remain and is setback eight feet from the front (south) property line
and a new 10 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed. Regarding the front (west) property line
the existing pavement is set back zero feet from the property line and is proposed to remain at
zero feet. There is a proposed setback of 10 feet to pavement on the north property line and a
proposed setback of 2.9 feet to pavement on the east property line. Regarding the building, no
design elements as required pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C
are proposed.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum FAR for a property with a land use plan designation of Commercial General is 0.55.
The existing building is 3,137 square feet resulting in a FAR of 0. 17, which is consistent with the
above provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0. 83, which is consistent with this Code provision.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the major vehicle service and
limited vehicle sales and display uses are not specifically authorized in the Commercial (C)
District and as such there is no specific minimum lot area and width denoted in Table 2-704.
However, most uses in the Commercial (C) District have a minimum lot area requirement
between 3,500 square feet and 40,000 square feet. Likewise most uses in the Commercial (C)
District have lot width requirements between 30 feet and 200 feet. The subject property is
consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the major vehicle service and limited
vehicle sales and display uses are not specifically authorized and as such there are no specific
minimum setbacks denoted in Table 2-704. However, most uses in the Commercial (C) District
have front setbacks from 15 feet to 25 feet and side setbacks from zero feet to 10 feet (corner lots
have only front and side setback requirements). Both front setbacks are inconsistent with these
Code provisions. The front (south) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard is proposed to be eight
feet to existing canopy and 10 feet to pavement while the front (west) setback along McMullen
Booth Road is proposed to be zero feet to pavement and 42 feet to building. The side (east)
setback is proposed to be 2.9 feet to pavement and 21.4 feet to building and the side (north)
setback is proposed to be 10 feet to pavement and 37.75 feet to building. Staff is not supportive
of the proposed front setbacks or the side (east) setback as they do not provide for appropriate
buffers and enhanced landscape design.
Maximum Building Heim Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the major vehicle service and
limited vehicle sales and display uses are not specifically authorized and as such there is no
specific building height denoted in Table 2-704. However, most uses in the Commercial (C)
District have maximum building heights between 25 feet and 50 feet. The proposal is consistent
with the height allowances in the Commercial (C) District.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the major vehicle service and
limited vehicle sales and display uses are not specifically authorized and as such there is no
specific off-street parking requirement denoted in Table 2-704. However, for a point of
comparison, within the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District, the only district that
permits major vehicle service use, the minimum off-street parking requirement is four parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Likewise, for a point of comparison the Tourist
(T) District which permits Limited Vehicle Sales and Display, the minimum required off street
parking is a range of 4 - 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon
the above, the 3,137 square foot building (1,566 square feet of vehicle service and 1,571 square
feet of limited vehicle sales and display) requires 14 parking spaces and the proposal has
provided for 12 spaces. The proposal is inconsistent with the parking standards set forth for this
use in other zoning districts.
Sight Visibility Triangles Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found
to be acceptable with regard to this requirement.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Signage: Pursuant to CDC Section 6-104, if a principal use/structure is vacant for a period of 180
days, signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance by
obtaining a level one approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, Division 3. The
existing non-conforming signs have been re-faced without a level one approval.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster located at the northeast corner of the
subject property. The refuse dumpster will be enclosed with a non opaque wooden fence
material. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Landscaping- Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer along both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and McMullen Booth Road. A 10-foot wide landscape
buffer is required along the north side of the property as it abuts residentially zoned property and
a five foot wide landscape buffer is required along the east property line. The proposal includes a
10 foot wide landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, no landscape buffer along
McMullen Booth Road, a 10 foot wide buffer along the north property line and a 2.9 foot wide
buffer along the east property line. Regarding plant quantities the proposal includes only 43
shrubs and six shade tree equivalents for the buffer requirements. To just meet minimum
landscape code buffer requirements the site is required 16 shade tree equivalents and 183 shrubs.
Therefore, the proposal is deficient 10 shade tree equivalents and 140 shrubs for the buffer
requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a
building facade with frontage along a street right-of-way. The foundation plantings must be
within an area that is a minimum of five feet wide and consist of at least two accent trees or three
palm trees for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of
required landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the
remainder to be ground cover. Neither the Gulf to Bay Boulevard nor McMullen Booth Road
building facades has proposed foundation plantings to meet this requirement. To meet the above
minimum requirement a total of 22 shrubs would be required, four accent trees and 150
groundcover plants, all of which this proposal is deficient in providing.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area must be
provided as landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size. Only one interior landscape
island (with one shade tree and no shrubs) has been proposed which equates to only 0.94 percent
of the vehicular use area. To meet the above minimum requirement nine shade trees and 133
shrubs are required. Therefore, the proposal is deficient eight shade trees and 133 shrubs for the
interior landscape requirement.
In summary the proposal is deficient a total of 18 shade tree equivalents, 295 shrubs and 150
groundcover plants. While the applicant has requested deviations to the above requirements
through the Comprehensive Landscape Program, they have failed to provide a demonstrably
more attractive landscape treatment and the insignificant quantity and quality of the proposed
landscape will not enhance the community character of the City or have a beneficial impact on
the value of the property in the immediate vicinity.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
1. Architectural theme:
Consistent I Inconsistent
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development, or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment x
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is 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
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape x
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis: On July 30, 2008 the current tenant inquired about opening a
business at the subject property. At that time he was told that major vehicle service and limited
vehicle sales and display was not a permitted use at that location. The current tenant proceeded
to open the business without the proper license. Subsequent to the opening, there have been over
30 code cases at the subject property. Code violations included abandoned vehicles, overgrown
property, illegal signage and operating a business without a business tax receipt. Case CDC2009-
00188 is an active Code Enforcement case that was heard before the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board on May 28, 2009. The site was found in violation and has been accruing a
$250 a day fine since June 11, 2009.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-701.1:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 0.55 0.17 X
(FAR)
Maximum ISR 0.90 0.83 X
Minimum Lot Area 3,500 - 40,000 sq. ft. 18,556 sq. ft. X
Minimum 30 - 200 feet Gulf to Bay Boulevard: 118 feet X
Lot Width McMullen Booth Road: 150 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 - 25 feet South: 8 feet (to canopy) Xi
10 feet (to pavement)
West: 42 feet (to building) Xi
0 feet (to pavement)
Side: 0 -10 feet North: 37.75 feet (to building) X
10 feet (to pavement)
East: 21.4 feet (to building) X
2.9 feet (to pavement)
Maximum Height 25 - 50 feet 15.5 feet (to flat roof) X
Minimum Limited Vehicle Sales/Display: 12 spaces X'
Off-Street Parking 4 -5spaces/1,000 sq ft gfa
Major Vehicle Service:
4 spaces/1,000 sq ft gfa
(14 total parking spaces required)
i See analysis in StaffReport
Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.C. proposals must meet all six criteria of the
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The following criteria have not been met:
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of
this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The redevelopment is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy A.3.2.1 which states that all new development
or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements
of the Community Development Code. Additionally both the Comprehensive Plan and the
Community Development Code have designated McMullen Booth Road as a scenic corridor
which should have enhanced and differentiated landscape requirements. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan Citywide Design Structure map# A-14 identifies the Courtney Campbell
Causeway, adjacent to the subject site, lying within a Florida Scenic Highway and a Gateway to
Clearwater. As discussed previously the proposal fails to meet the minimum landscape
requirements, as well as those criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program.
The redevelopment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy B.1.7.1 which states that
the City shall support the mission and goals, objectives and strategies of the Courtney Campbell
Causeway Florida Scenic Highway designation as approved by the City Council on July 15,
2004 for the causeway located between McMullen Booth Road and Veteran's Highway. By not
providing enhanced landscape design the proposal fails to support the mission and goals,
objective and strategies of the above.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be
compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter 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.
While the proposed use is permitted in the underlying future land use category, the proposed use
would not be compatible with adjacent residential land uses to the north and would alter the use
characteristics of the neighborhood with the outdoor displays.
Further, the proposal does not meet any of these six objectives above as follows:
a. Neither major vehicle service nor limited vehicle sales and display is permitted in the
Commercial District as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use is not a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base;
c. The development proposal does not accommodate the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The use has no provision for affordable housing;
e. The proposed major vehicle service use is not in an area with other similar development.
Major vehicle service is only permitted in the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT)
District; and
f. The proposed use does not provide for a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront
use.
6 Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are
justified based on demonstrated compliance with all five of the design objectives. The proposal
fails to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance by incorporating changes
in horizontal building planes (structure is basically square); the building has no architectural
details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings or
awnings; there is no variety in materials, colors or textures; there are no distinctive fenestration
patterns; there are no stepbacks and no distinctive roof forms. In fact, the proposal includes no
architectural enhancements whatsoever. The second design objective the proposal fails to meet is
that the development does not provide for appropriate buffers and enhanced landscape design.
It is also noted that the flexibility criteria in the zoning district where limited vehicle sales and
display is permissible, prohibits any outdoor displays and vehicle service. Additionally,
flexibility criteria in the one zoning district where major vehicle service is permissible prohibits
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
such use contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas.
Should this application be approved, limited vehicle sales would be done in conjunction with
vehicle service, and such service would be done on a parcel contiguous to residentially zoned
land, all of which is contrary to the aforementioned criteria.
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):
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from
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
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
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter 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.
Consistent Inconsistent
X
X
X
X
X
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Consistent Inconsistent
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district,
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City,
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area,
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
? Changes in horizontal building planes,
? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.,
? Variety in materials, colors and textures,
? Distinctive fenestration patterns,
? Building stepbacks, and
? Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and annronriate distances between buildings.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The
following table depicts the consistency of the major vehicle service and limited vehicle sales and
display use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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 November 5, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
1. The 0.43 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and McMullen
Booth Road;
2. The subject property is adjacent to residentially zoned property;
3. Major Vehicle Service and Limited Vehicle Sales and Display are not permitted in the
Commercial (C) District;
4. That the proposal does not include any architectural improvements;
5. That the subject property has frontage along a designated Scenic Corridor and a Florida Scenic
Highway;
6. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) Land Use Plan category;
7. The applicant, proposes major vehicle service and limited vehicle sales and display uses to
the subject property;
8. The existing structure is 15.5 feet in height to the flat roof,
9. The subject property has a lot width of 118 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 150 feet
(along McMullen Booth Road);
10. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 8 feet (to canopy) and 10 feet (to pavement),
as well as a front (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 42 feet (to building);
11. The proposal includes a side (north) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and 37.75 feet (to
building), as well as a side (east) setback of 2.9 feet (to pavement) and 21.4 feet (to building);
12. The proposal includes 12 parking spaces where 14 parking spaces are required;
13. The proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent of
the vehicular use area to 0.94 percent of the vehicular use area;
14. The proposal includes a reduction to the foundation landscaping from five feet to zero feet on
the south facade and zero feet on the west facade;
15. The proposal includes a reduction to the west landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, a
reduction to the south landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12.2 feet, and a reduction to the east
landscape buffer from five feet to 2.9 feet; and
16. There is an outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1. That the front (south) setback of eight feet (to canopy), 10 feet (to pavement) and the front
(west) setback of zero feet to pavement is not consistent with Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project criteria in CDC Section 2-704.C;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Floor Area Ratio and Impervious
Surface Ratio Standards as per Table 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code;
3. That the development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code;
4. That the development proposal is not consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code;
5. That the development proposal is not consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan;
and
6. The development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-
1202.G of Community Development Code.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 - Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-02006 2010-07-20
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the
Flexible Development application to permit Major Vehicle Service and Limited Vehicle Sales and
Display in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 18,556 square feet; a lot width of 118 feet
(along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 150 feet (along McMullen Booth Road); a building height of
15.5 feet (to flat roof); a front (south) setback of 8 feet (to canopy) and 10 feet (to pavement), a
front (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 42 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of
10 feet (to pavement) and 37.75 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 2.9 feet (to pavement)
and 21.4 feet (to building); and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, as well as a
reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 0.94 percent; a reduction to the
foundation landscaping from 5 feet to zero feet on the south facade and zero feet on the west
facade; a reduction of the west landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, the south landscape
buffer from 15 feet to 12.2 feet, and the east landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2.9 feet as
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 3-1202.G.
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
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2009-02006 -Page 11 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Numbers: FLD2010-05001
Agenda Item: D. 5.
Owner/Applicant: SP Country Club Homes, LLC
Representative: Sean Cashen, P.E., Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc.
Addresses: 113 North Betty Lane
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development Application to permit 33 attached dwellings
(townhomes) in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District with a lot area of 96,239 square feet, a lot width of 310 feet
(along Drew Street), 310 feet (along Fredrica Avenue) and 310 feet
(along Betty Lane), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to building),
five feet (to pavement and wall) where 10 feet is allowable but may
be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a front (east) setback of
15 feet (to building), five feet (to wall) where 10 feet is allowable
but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a front (west)
setback of 20.33 feet (to building), 10.07 feet (to wall) where 10 feet
is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a
side (south) setback of 1.36 feet (to pavement and wall) where zero
feet is allowable, a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of roof)
and 78 parking spaces as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2.404.17 and a
reduction to the north landscape buffer from 15 feet to seven feet, a
reduction to the east landscape buffer from 10 feet to seven feet and
a reduction to the south landscape buffer from 10 feet to 1.36 feet as
a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
AND LAND USE PLAN Residential High (RH)
CATEGORY:
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CHARACTER
DISTRICT: East Gateway
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
EXISTING North: Medium Density Residential (MHDR) District and
SURROUNDING Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
ZONING AND USES: Attached Dwellings and Outdoor
Recreation/Entertainment
South: Medium Density Residential (MHDR) District
Utility/Infrastructure Facility
East: Medium Density Residential (MHDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Medium Density Residential (MHDR) District
Detached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 2.21 acre site is located on the south side of Drew Street between Fredrica Avenue and Betty
Lane, which is located in the East Gateway Character District of Downtown. The East Gateway is
characterized by a mixed land use pattern of residential housing interspersed with pockets of
poorly maintained rental properties and outdated strip commercial. The East Gateway struggles
with a negative image of crime due to the location of problematic uses such as day labor facilities,
old motels and social service agencies that provide services to the homeless population.
This parcel was previously an accessory parking lot of the Verizon utility/infrastructure facility to
the south. Verizon no longer needed the accessory parking lot and, through case FLD2007-11035
which was approved by the Community Development Board on March 18, 2008, permitted the
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for Floor Area Ratio and building height of the existing
Verizon building; the improvement of the existing Verizon site and parking area; and approved
non-residential off-street parking on the subject property. This approval also established setbacks
that would permit the subject property to be split from the balance of the property. While that
portion of the site was split off and recorded with the Pinellas County Clerk of Court on June 24,
2008, it was not specifically approved by the Planning and Development Department. It is
therefore attached as a condition of approval that a Release of Unity of Title and Minor Lot
Adjustment be submitted and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
To the north of the subject property, across Drew Street, are attached dwellings (Betty Lane
Apartments) and Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (Clearwater Country Club Golf Course).
To both the east and west are detached dwellings and to the south is a utility/infrastructure
facility (Verizon Communications).
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct a 33 unit townhome project, Country Club Townhomes, at a density
of 30-units/acre in the MHDR District. The townhomes will be platted fee simple (PLT2010-
06001 has been submitted) and therefore be individually owned. Both standard and premium
units are proposed with the standard units containing 1,300 square feet and the premium units
containing 1,436 square feet. Both units will contain three bedrooms and have a two car garage
for the required off-street parking. Both units are proposed to contain two floors with the two car
garage, kitchen, dining area, great room and a half bathroom located on the first floor. The
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 2 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
second floor of all units will contain three bedrooms and two bathrooms. While all units have a
two car garage for the required off-street parking and the proposal does include 12 visitor
parking spaces. Staff has expressed concern that not all owners will park both, if any, vehicles in
their garage and coupled with the fact that there is inadequate space available to park a car
between the front of the garage and the internal street, this may create insufficient parking areas.
However, garages are recognized as off-street parking spaces and the proposal is in compliance
with the parking requirement.
The dwellings are proposed to be located with the front entrances, including a patio area, near the
street to provide an urban feel. The front patio area will be approximately 80 square feet and be
enclosed by a 32 inch high stucco wall with a decorative white railing above the wall. The
townhomes are proposed at a height of 25 feet to midpoint of the roof. The main building color is
SWO042 Ruskin Room Green with SWO049 Silver Gray and SW7100 Arcade White used as
accent colors. The exterior of the two story buildings will be constructed of hardy board siding
and shake, stucco and stone veneer accents. The buildings will have silver standing seam metal
roofs. A pavilion with restrooms and areas for the pool equipment will be located adjacent to the
community pool. The pool pavilion incorporates columns, gable vents and decorative fencing in
addition to the architectural features proposed on the townhomes. The site will take secondary
access from Betty Lane for all vehicular ingress/egress.
The townhomes are proposed to have front setbacks of 20.33 feet on Betty Lane, 15 feet on
Drew Street, 15 feet on Fredrica Avenue and a side (south) setback of 1.36 feet. On the west side
of the property along Betty Lane there is a 20 foot right-of-way easement. The City will support
the vacation of the easternmost 10 feet of that easement. This will allow the patios and walls to
remain outside of that easement and only landscaping and some drainage pipe will be located in
the westernmost 10 feet of the easement. It is attached as a condition of approval that the
applicant has the easternmost 10 feet of the easement vacated prior to issuance of any permits.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in
particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public
and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of
the Plan.
The site is located within the East Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. This being the case the proposal is governed by Medium High Density
Residential District zoning with regard to intensity, density and setbacks while also having to be
consistent with the East Gateway Character District policies. This area is envisioned to be a
vibrant, stable, diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural base and mixed land uses. It
will continue to be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported
with neighborhood commercial and professional offices concentrated along the major corridors
of Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Missouri Avenue.
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be
consistent with the following Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 3 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office
and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential
projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a
revitalized Downtown.
Vision: The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and
expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents
and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping
destination.
Objective IG: Residential uses in Downtown are encouraged with a variety of densities, housing
types and affordability consistent with the character districts.
Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities
based on the scale of the project.
East Gateway Character District Policies: The following policies governing development
within the East Gateway character district have been reviewed and have been determined to not
be applicable to the development proposal:
Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design
review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the
vision of the character district in which it is located.
Policy 11: Encourage the assembly of vacant and underutilized properties, as well as the
demolition of deteriorated buildings to accommodate redevelopment projects that
meet Clearwater Community Development Code standards.
Downtown Design Guidelines:
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with
regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown.
A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items
were identified:
Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines require the retention of the
existing street grid pattern where it contributes to an active pedestrian environment. All three
street frontages are being maintained with sidewalks to contribute to the pedestrian environment.
Access, Circulation and Parking: The Downtown Design Guidelines require vehicular access to
be taken from secondary street frontages and parking areas for townhouse developments to be
located within the interior of the development to maintain the integrity of the primary facade.
The proposal is taking access from Betty Lane and all proposed parking is located within the
interior.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 4 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines require clearly defined, safe,
direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways between streets, parking areas and
buildings. The proposal has provided four direct, landscaped pedestrian pathways between the
buildings and parking areas. Staff has suggested additional pedestrian pathways to the north of
the building at the southeast corner and to the north of the three-unit building on the west side of
the site. This has been attached that as a condition of approval.
Landscaping_ The Downtown Design Guidelines require plant species that are appropriate to the
space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs, growth rates, size, etc. in order to
conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health. The proposal includes some
native species with appropriate maturity size to limit maintenance and conserve water.
Fences and Walls: The Downtown Design Guidelines require fences and walls to complement
and be consistent with the principal structure with regard to material, texture, size, shape and
color. The proposed walls around the front patios are constructed with similar material and the
same color as the building.
Building Placement: The Downtown Design Guidelines require that buildings maintain the
build-to line or the setback of the developments block. This proposal occupies the entire
northern portion of the block, and is consistent with setback of the adjacent blocks.
Building Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines require low rise buildings that accentuate
vertical elements such as entrances and columns, or by breaking up the facade into a greater
number of smaller vertical masses. The proposed townhome building facades have been
designed to appear as individual smaller masses and the proposed pool pavilion will utilize
columns.
Primary and Corner Facades: The Downtown Design Guidelines state all facades shall utilize a
change in plane, building wall projection or recess, variation in building height, storefront
display windows and canopies and awnings. The proposed townhomes utilize a building wall
projection on the second floor and incorporate a canopy at each townhome entrance.
Materials and Colors: The Downtown Design Guidelines require building constructed of high
quality, long lasting materials. The proposed buildings are utilizing durable materials such as a
stucco finish, hardie board shake and siding and stone facades in areas. Additionally, the
Downtown Design Guidelines require the color scheme of the building to reflect a cohesive
pattern and use three or less colors on the building. The proposed building colors of "Ruskin
Green", "Arcade White" and "Silver Gray" complement each other and create a cohesive pattern.
Community Development Code: An attached dwelling project is subject to the relevant review
criteria of CDC Sections 2-401.1 and 2-404.F.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Land Rules and CDC Section 2.401.1, the maximum
density for properties with a land use plan designation of Residential High (RH) is 30 dwelling
units per acre. Therefore, 66 dwelling units are permissible for the 2.21 acre property. The
proposal includes 33 dwelling units.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 5 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to CDC Section 2.401.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.77, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-404, the minimum lot area for
attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The subject site is 96,239 square feet. Pursuant to the
same Table, the minimum lot width is 150 feet. The width of the lot along Drew Street, Fredrica
Avenue and Betty Lane is 310 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-404 for Residential Infill Redevelopment
Projects, the minimum front setback can range between 10 - 25 feet and the side setback can
range between 0 - 10 feet, but may be varied based upon the Flexibility Criteria. There is no rear
setback as this parcel has three fronts. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) and
front (east) setback to 15 feet (to building), and five feet (to pavement and wall), and a front (west)
setback of 20.33 feet (to building) and 10.07 (to wall) and a side (south) setback of 1.36 feet (to
pavement and wall).
All of the proposed buildings meet the above flexible development standard. Both the front
(north) setback to the pavement and walls and the front (east) setback to pavement and walls do
not meet the development standard; however that standard may be varied based on the benefits to
the community character and the immediate vicinity. Staff concurs that the reduced setbacks
benefit the community character and the immediate vicinity as the development will have an
attractive appearance and enhanced landscape design. Additionally, while not in Downtown it is
located in one of the Downtown character districts where courtyards and patios and other
pedestrian oriented design features are encouraged at the street level.
Maximum Building Heim Pursuant to CDC Section 2-404, the maximum building height for
attached dwellings can range between 30 - 50 feet. The proposed height of the buildings is 25
feet (to midpoint of roof). The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-404, the minimum required parking
for attached dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit. Based upon the above, the 33 dwelling
units will require 66 parking spaces and the proposal has provided for 78 spaces (2.36
spaces/unit). There will be two parking spaces in each attached garage along with 12 extra
parking spaces for guests. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Sight Visibility Triangles Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster at the southeast corner of the site. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1908, all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas,
water, wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission
lines and transformers, shall be located underground. There exist overhead utility lines along the
east side of N. Betty Lane adjacent to this site and running north/south through the site serving
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
the residential outparcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue. All utility and communication lines for this
development will be installed underground on site in compliance with this requirement. All
electric panels, boxes and meters will be painted the same color as the building. Additionally,
when the overhead utility lines are placed underground it will impact one parcel located at 22 N.
Fredrica Avenue as their service is feed from the overhead lines. Therefore, it is attached as a
condition of approval that the relocation of the existing overhead utilities serving 22 N. Fredrica
Avenue be done in a manner and location acceptable to, and at no expense to, that property
owner.
Landscaping- Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer along Drew Street, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along both Betty Lane and Fredrica
Avenue and a south landscape buffer width of 10 feet. The proposal includes a seven foot wide
north landscape buffer along Drew Street, a seven foot wide east landscape buffer along Fredrica
Avenue, a 10 foot wide west landscape buffer along Betty Lane and a 1.36 foot wide landscape
buffer along the south property line. The proposed buffers include over 60 shade trees, 40 accent
trees, 25 palm trees, 2,200 shrubs and 1,400 ground cover species. The south buffer will include
a six foot high privacy fence for added privacy.
The landscape buffers include trees such as live oak, bald cypress, elm and silver buttonwood;
palms include medjool and christmas; and shrubs and groundcover include viburnum, duranta,
Indian hawthorne, jasmine and perennial peanut. As part of the Comprehensive Landscape
Program the applicant has proposed to plant required trees and shrubs elsewhere on site, they
have provided seven specimen medjool date palms, 21.5 percent interior landscape and larger
shade trees and shrubs than minimum Code requires to off-set the buffer reductions.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation planting shall be provided for 100 percent of
the building facade along a street right-of-way. A minimum five foot wide landscaped area
composed of at least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade
and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area is required. A minimum of 50
percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. The proposal
includes foundation landscaping of accent trees, flax lily, dwarf viburnum and perennial peanut
groundcover.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the vehicular use area must contain
landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size. While some interior landscape islands
are not 150 square feet, the applicant has proposed 21.5 percent of the vehicular use area to be
landscaped with an adequate number of islands meeting the minimum 150 square foot
requirement.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development, or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is
closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-401.1 and 2-
404:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30 dwelling units per acre 33 dwelling units X
(66 dwelling units)
Maximum ISR 0.85 0.77 X
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 96,239 sq. ft. X
Minimum 150 feet Drew Street: 310 feet X
Lot Width FredricaAvenue: 310 feet X
Betty Lane: 310 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 15 feet North: 15 feet (to building) Xi
5 feet (to pavement and wall)
East: 15 feet (to building) Xi
5 feet (to wall)
Side: 0 -10 feet West: 20.33 feet (to building) X
10.07 feet (to wall)
South: 1.36 feet (to pavementibuilding) Xi
Maximum Height 30 - 100 feet 25 feet (to midpoint of roof) X
Minimum 2.0 spaces per unit 2.36 spaces per unit X
Off-Street Parking (66 parking spaces) (78 parking spaces)
i See analysis in StaffReport
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-404.F
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity or other development standards.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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 June 3, 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 - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
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 2.21 acre site is located on the south side of Drew Street between Fredrica Avenue and
Betty Lane;
2. That the subject property is located within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District and the Residential High (RH) Land Use Plan category;
3. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan as the property is located within the East Gateway Character District;
4. The property was previously used as an accessory parking lot for the Verizon building to the
south;
5. The applicant, SP Country Club Homes, LLC, proposes to redevelop the subject property
with 33 attached dwelling units;
6. The structure is proposed at a height of 25 feet to midpoint of the roof,
7. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement and wall), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to wall),
and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 1.36 feet (to pavement and wall);
8. The proposal includes a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer on Drew Street from 15
feet to seven feet, on Fredrica Avenue from 10 feet to seven feet and on the south side from
10 feet to 1.36 feet;
9. The proposal includes 78 parking spaces; and
10. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the district vision of the East Gateway
Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-401.1 of the
Community Development Code;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
404.F;
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
5. The development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G
of Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development Application to permit 33 attached dwellings (townhomes) in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot area of 96,239 square feet, a lot
width of 310 feet (along Drew Street), 310 feet (along Fredrica Avenue) and 310 feet (along Betty
Lane), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to building), five feet (to pavement and wall) where 10
feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a front (east) setback of 15 feet
(to building), five feet (to wall) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the
Flexibility criteria, a front (west) setback of 20.33 feet (to building), 10.07 (to wall) where 10 feet
is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a side (south) setback of 1.36 feet
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05001 2010-07-20
(to pavement and wall) where zero feet is allowable, a building height of 25 feet (to midpoint of
roof) and 78 parking spaces as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2.404.17 and a reduction to the north landscape buffer from 15 feet to
seven feet, a reduction to the east landscape buffer from 10 feet to seven feet and a reduction to the
south landscape buffer from 10 feet to 1.36 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That, prior to the submission for a site development building permit, a Release of Unity of
Title and Minor Lot Adjustment application for the division of the original Verizon property
be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Development Department;
2. That, prior to the issuance of any building permit, an outfall separate from the stormwater
collection system shall be provided for Pond #1;
3. That, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a subdivision plat for the project shall be
recorded;
4. That, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the easternmost 10 feet of the 20 foot
right-of-way easement on the subject property along Betty Lane be vacated;
5. That, prior to the issuance of any building permit, additional pedestrian accesses be provided
to the north of the building at the southeast corner and to the north of the three-unit building
on the west side of the site;
6. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, any applicable Public Art and Design
Impact Fee be paid;
7. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Parks and Recreation fees be paid;
8. That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the existing overhead utility
lines which run along N. Betty Lane be placed underground;
9. That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the relocation of the existing
overhead utilities serving 22 N. Fredrica Avenue be done in a manner and location
acceptable to, and at no expense to, that property owner;
10. That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all utility and communication
lines be placed underground and electric panels and boxes be painted the same color as the
building; and
11. That the final design and color of the building is consistent with the plans approved by the
CDB.
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
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
FLD2010-05001- Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2010-06001 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Number: CPA2010-06001
Ordinance No.: 8201-10
Agenda Item: E. 5.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Related to the Adoption of a Transit
Oriented Development Objective and Policies
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department
BACKGROUND:
In January 2010, the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) and Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly undertake a
Federal Transit Agency (FTA) Alternatives Analysis to evaluate mode and corridor alignment options for
the first phase of a regional transit system in Pinellas County. The Alternatives Analysis will identify a
preferred transit alignment and station locations between the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater.
These cities and other local governments within the Alternatives Analysis corridor will participate in the
decision study making process, especially as it relates to location and typology of transit stations within
their jurisdiction.
A significant portion of the proposed transit project funding will be sought from the FTA New Starts
program. Under this highly competitive program, transit projects are evaluated and justified according to
a variety of criteria including cost effectiveness, transit supportive land use/future patterns, mobility
improvements, environmental benefits and "other factors," such as economic development. The transit-
supportive land use criterion considers 1) existing land use, 2) transit-supportive plans and policies, and
3) performance and impacts of policies. The inclusion of transit-oriented development policies in the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan will improve the project rating potential for the New Starts grant
application.
Similar transit supportive comprehensive plan amendments are currently being proposed by Pinellas
County and the City of St. Petersburg. The Pinellas Planning Council is also undertaking a series of
amendments to their planning documents to provide a framework for consistency with land use policies.
These amendments draw heavily from the transit oriented development guiding principles developed by
the TBARTA Land Use Working Group. These guiding principles provide a common language among
jurisdictions that will make it easier to work towards common goals, especially where transit projects
cross jurisdictional boundaries, and enhance the region's ability to effectively compete for federal
funding.
ANALYSIS:
Transit oriented developments are moderate to high density, mixed-use, walkable developments designed
to maximize access to public transportation. A transit oriented development neighborhood (i.e., transit
station area) typically has a center with a transit station surrounded by compact, relatively high-density
development that progressively decreases in development density and intensity with increasing distance
from the center, typically within '/2 mile of the transit station, the distance most pedestrians are willing to
walk. A transit oriented development incorporates features that facilitate pedestrian access to the transit
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
CPA2010-06001 -Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2010-06001 2010-07-20
station, such as interconnected street networks, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and street-oriented site
design. Successful transit oriented development provides an integrated mix of land uses and densities that
create a convenient, complete and vibrant community.
The benefits of transit oriented development go beyond maximizing transit ridership potential. Transit
oriented developments by design are pedestrian friendly, less land consumptive and more accessible due
to the proximity of multiple uses and the accommodation of multiple modes of transportation. This type
of innovative, efficient and livable urban form is supported by the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Within transit oriented developments, multiple destinations are located within close proximity, thereby
adding convenience and providing time and cost savings. Higher density/intensity developments may
also provide more housing choices and support housing affordability. Businesses located in transit
oriented developments can optimize the use of land and building space while increasing accessibility to
their clients and workforce, resulting in more efficient operating costs.
Moderate to high density mixed use developments create opportunities to live, work and shop in close
proximity and ultimately promote greater transportation choices. Transit oriented developments create
strong jobs- to-housing balances, decrease dependence on single occupant auto trips and reduce parking
requirements, all resulting in reductions to area-wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and supporting energy
conservation. Public transit, combined with reduced private automobile usage, reduces the consumption
of fossil fuels and the potential emission of greenhouse gases. The increased convenience, accessibility,
and available amenities resulting from the close proximity of multiple diverse uses reduce travel cost and
time for residents and employees. Access to transit and other modes of transportation results in increased
mobility, especially for the transportation disadvantaged population, and reduced household costs for auto
ownership and operation. Transit provides access to a larger employment pool, resulting in higher
productivity for businesses. Decreased dependence on private automobiles reduces parking requirements
and enhances development opportunities.
The proposed amendment adds transit oriented development Future Land Use Map classifications to the
table referenced in Policy A.2.2.1. These classifications establish primary uses and intensity ranges (floor
area ratio) for four transit station area types of varying scale and intensity as follows:
Classification Minimum and Maximum Intensity
• Type L Urban Center Downtown • FAR 1.5-7.0 (no limit on maximum FAR
within 1/8 mile of the transit station)
• Type II: Suburban Center • FAR 0.5-5.0
• Type III: Neighborhood Center • FAR 0.5-3.0
• Type IV: Complete Street Corridor • FAR 0.5-2.0
The proposed amendment also adds an objective and five policies to Goal A.6, which states that the City
shall utilize innovative and flexible planning practices. The proposed objective states that transit oriented
development will be created in the City, and that such development will incorporate the criteria from the
FTA New Starts Planning and Development Process. The policies address the following issues:
• How transit station locations and typologies are determined;
• How transit station area plans are adopted;
• How transit station area planning is handled when it traverses jurisdictional boundaries;
• What each transit station area plan must include;
• The guiding principles to be followed in the planning, design and development of transit station
area plans as related to:
o Community & Economic Development
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
CPA2010-06001 - Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2010-06001 2010-07-20
o Land Use
o Mobility
o Parking
o Urban Design
The guidelines contained in each focus area are based on transit oriented development guiding principles
developed by the TBARTA Land Use Working Group. The City's unique context, goals and existing
policy framework were taken into consideration when developing guiding principles for the City's
comprehensive plan.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals,
policies and objectives contained in the Plan.
The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with existing goals, policies and
objectives in the Plan. From the Future Land Use Element, Goal A.6 states that the City shall utilize
innovative and flexible planning practices. Transit oriented development is an innovative alternative
to traditional Euclidian zoning patterns as it encourages a finer-grain and integrated mix of uses.
Further, Policy A.6.1.1 states that redevelopment shall be encouraged by providing development
incentives, such as density bonuses. Because transit oriented development is served by mass transit,
it demands higher density from the market, and our regulatory framework will allow such. Transit
oriented development fits perfectly into Policy A.6.8.1 which calls for the building of active,
attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of
mass transit. These amendments also further implement Policy A.6.8.7, to create mixed-use, higher
density, livable communities through design, layout and use of walkability techniques within existing
and proposed transit corridors, including proposed TBARTA lines and stations. Transit oriented
development also furthers Goal B.3 which states that the city shall support the efforts of mass transit
service operators to provide generalized and special mass transit services. In addition, these
amendments further Policy H.1.1.2, which states that Clearwater supports intergovernmental
coordination in transportation and mass transit planning, through the MPO, PSTA, and TBARTA.
2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment will add a new objective and five supporting policies to the Future Land
Use Element that promotes intergovernmental cooperation, innovative planning practices,
redevelopment incentives, the continued support of the tourism industry in the City, and provides for
a variety of transportation options. The amendment also adds new future land use categories to the
table found in Policy A.2.2.1. consistent with those proposed by the Pinellas Planning Council in the
Countywide Plan Rules. The objective, polices, and future land use category additions are not in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in
question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
Transit oriented development will be located within designated Transit Station Areas; Specific Transit
Station Area Plans will be developed and adopted. These plans will regulate land use and zoning and
thus will consider the unique context of each Transit Station Area and compatibility with existing and
planned uses in the area.
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
CPA2010-06001 - Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2010-06001 2010-07-20
4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The adequacy of public facilities will be assessed as part of the planning process for Transit Station
Area Plans. Based on current public facility capacity, it is anticipated that adequate public facilities
will exist to accommodate future transit oriented development within transit station areas.
5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment.
Any development that should occur as a result of the proposed amendments must comply with
impervious surface ratio standards, the City's tree preservation requirements, as well as drainage and
water quality standards. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the natural
environment.
6 The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area.
The proposed amendment provides policies to direct the character of public and private development
within designated Transit Station Areas. Transit Station Areas have not yet been identified, therefore,
property impacts are unknown at this time. The potential for property impacts will be determined
during the development and adoption of specific Transit Station Areas, which will include
opportunity for public input.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Metropolitan areas across the U.S. and around the world have realized that complete transportation
systems offering choices and alternatives are integral to sustainability and economic competitiveness.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is the City's first step in creating a framework of policies
and regulations that support a modern and sustainable regional transportation system.
Transit oriented development has enormous potential to help the City and region strengthen the
transportation-land use connection, stimulate redevelopment where desired, foster active, economically
vibrant and livable neighborhoods designed at a human scale. The proposed amendment supports an
intergovernmental effort to secure funding for a modern, regional transportation system. The proposed
amendment will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, is consistent with other provisions of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, will not result
in inappropriate or incompatible uses, will not adversely affect the natural environment or impact
the use of property in the immediate area, and sufficient public facilities exist to implement the
proposed amendment. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department
recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8201-10 that amends the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department Staff:
Cate Lee, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS:
? Resume
? Ordinance No. 8201-10 and Exhibit A
S: Planning DepartmentlCOMPREHENSIVE PLAM2010Comp Plan Amendments lTOD lStaffReportDrdinance No 8201-10 2010 07-20 CDB
StaffReport. doe
Community Development Board - July 20, 2010
CPA2010-06001 - Page 4
r
S
C PA2010-06001
Transit Oriented Development Adding
Policy
Planner: Cate Lee
.../'
Revise the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan CPA2010-06001 by adding a new policy, A.6.10.5,
and renumber as appropriate.
A.6.10.5 Where a transit station area coincides with the area governed by Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Downtown Plan), the development of the
Transit Station Area Plan will be closely coordinated with and, potentially,
integrated into the Downtown Plan to ensure consistency in approach and
implementation strategies. Amendments to the Downtown Plan may be required
to ensure that the specific target intensities related to the transit station typologies
will be accommodated.
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
CDB Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Case Number: LUZ2010-06001
Owner/Applicant: Bank of AmericaBelleair Development Group, LLC
Address: A Portion of 1475 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: E-6
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
SITE INFORMATION
(a) Future Land Use Map amendment from the
Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Residential Urban
(RU) classifications to the Commercial General (CG)
classification; and
(b) Rezoning from the Office (O) and the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) districts to the Commercial (C)
District.
Property Size: 66,211 square feet or 1.52 acres
Portion of Property
Subject to Amendment: 53,578 square feet or 1.23 acres
Property Use: Current Use: Bank (Not in use since 2007)
Proposed Use: None
Plan Category: Current Categories: Residential/Office General (R/OG)
Residential Urban (RU)
Proposed Category: Commercial General (CG)
Zoning District: Current Districts: Office (O)
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Proposed District: Commercial (C)
Existing
Surrounding Uses: North: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Vacant Gas Station
West: Retail, Printers
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 - Page 1 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment involves the north and west portions of a parcel located at 1475 Sunset
Point Road, comprising approximately 1.23 acres. The amendment request is to change the
current Residential/Office General (R/OG) and the Residential Urban (RU) future land use
categories to the Commercial General (CG) future land use category and the Office (O) and the
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning categories to the Commercial (C) zoning
category. The 0.29-acre remainder of the parcel, which fronts on Highland Avenue, is currently
designated by the Commercial General (CG) future land use category and Commercial (C)
zoning category.
The subject property functioned as a bank beginning in 1965 and ending in May 2007 with the
closure of Bank of America. The former bank site contains a building, parking lot, and entrance
on the north portion of the property fronting on Sunset Point Road, and a drive through and drive
isle traversing the eastern portion of the property, connecting to Highland Avenue.
This land use amendment and rezoning application was not accompanied by an application for
site redevelopment. Redevelopment of the site was discussed in concept with the applicant at the
Planning & Development Department's Building Plan Review Committee meeting on April 7,
2010. At that time, the applicant did not identify a specific end use for the site. Earlier this year,
a concept plan of the subject property showed the property as a Dollar General store and the
parcel to the east as a Taco Bell fast-food restaurant with shared parking. A later rendering
showed only the subject property as a Dollar General store. The applicant also stated that auto
sales use was being considered for the property. At the July 7, 2010, BPRC meeting, the engineer
for the property indicated that a Dollar General store and gas station were possible end uses of
the subject property and the parcel to the east.
In accordance with the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, this future land use
map amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County
Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the requested density,
review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
L CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602.F.1
and 4-603.F.1]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The following objective and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are not supportive
of the proposed land use plan amendment:
Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into
residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip
commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for
commercial development at major intersections.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 2 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
Objective A.62 The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development
that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
While commercial designation of the subject property would encourage land use conversion on
an economically underutilized parcel and promote redevelopment activities (reference Policy
A.6.2.2) through potential parcel consolidation with the commercially designated parcel at the
roadway intersection, the potential extension of intensive commercial uses along the
predominantly residential corridor could negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods. The
proposed amendment would allow for additional uses not allowed under the subject property's
current future land use and zoning designations. Some of these potential uses are incompatible
with the surrounding environment and envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Since no use is currently being proposed, it is not possible to know what off-site impacts the use
will have on the single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and south. Sunset Point
Road, west of Highland Avenue is primarily residential in nature with some office, neighborhood
retail, and institutional uses. It is most appropriately suited for these uses and not commercial
uses that generate citywide or countywide residents.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN RULES
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Commercial General (CG) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.5.4 of the Countywide Plan Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now
developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a manner designed to provide community and
countywide commercial goods and services; and to recognize such areas as primarily consistent
with the need, relationship to adjoining uses and with the objective of encouraging a
consolidated, concentrated commercial center providing for the full spectrum of commercial
uses.
The site is located across the Sunset Point Road right-of-way from single family homes to the
north. To the immediate south are also single family homes. A vacant gas station is located
immediately east of the site. To the west are a small market and print shop, both nonconforming
uses. Low Medium Density Residential, Office, and Commercial zoning districts surround the
site.
Locational Characteristics, as specified in Section 2.3.3.5.4, state that the Commercial General
(CG) category is appropriate to locations in and adjacent to activity centers where surrounding
land uses support and are compatible with intensive commercial uses; and in areas in proximity
to and with good access to major transportation facilities, including mass transit. The subject
property does not meet the locational characteristics stated above since it is not located in or
adjacent to an activity center or a major transportation facility. However, the property is located
on a PSTA bus route.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 3 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
The Sunset Point Road corridor, west of Highland Avenue, is not an area that is developed, or
appropriate to be developed, in a way that provides community and countywide commercial
goods and services. The site is not located in or adjacent to an activity center or a major
transportation facility. The proposed plan amendment is not consistent with the purpose or the
locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan Rules.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2, 4-602.F.3, 4-602.F.4, 4-603.F.3, and 4-
603.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property is located on the south side of Sunset Point Road, between Kings Highway
and North Highland Avenue. The character of the neighborhood is a mix of single family
residences, multi-family residences, retail, restaurants, offices, and a gas station. To the north
and south are single family homes with a future land use map category of Residential Urban
(RU) and zoning district of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The Residential Urban
(RU) category permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning district primarily permits residential uses.
To the east is an automobile service station use with a future land use map category of
Commercial General (CG) and a Commercial (C) zoning district. The Commercial General
(CG) category permits 24 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of 0.55. The Commercial
(C) zoning district primarily permits offices, overnight accommodations, restaurants, and retail
sales uses. The property has not been used as an automobile service station since July 2003 and
has been vacant since that time. East of Highland Avenue, along Sunset Point Road, a windshield
survey indicates a number of underutilized vacant commercial properties.
To the west are nonconforming retail and printing shop uses with a future land use map category
of Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Office (O) zoning district. The Residential/Office
General (R/OG) category permits 15 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The
Office (O) zoning district primarily permits offices, places of worship and school uses. The retail
use is a small neighborhood market, which shares a 4,392 square foot building with a print shop.
The proposed Commercial General (CG) future land use category permits 24 dwelling units per
acre and a floor area ratio of 0.55 and the proposed Commercial (C) zoning district primarily
permits indoor recreation/entertainment, offices, overnight accommodations, restaurants, retail
sales, and vehicle sales/displays uses. Therefore, the category and district as proposed do not
appear appropriately located. Commercial uses are not compatible with single-family uses. A
less intensive use, such as multi-family or office, would be more appropriate located contiguous
to single-family homes and fit in with the character of Sunset Point Road west of Highland
Avenue. This request is not compatible with the surrounding area and may unreasonably affect
the use of the property in the area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed future land use and zoning designation are not in character with the overall Future
Land Use Map and zoning designations in the area. They are not compatible with surrounding
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 4 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
uses and not consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.5 and 4-603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The total area of the subject property is approximately 1.52 acres (66,211 square feet), of which
0.29 acres (12,632 square feet) is zoned Commercial (C), 1.15 acres (50,094 square feet) is
zoned Office (O) and 0.08 acres (3,484 square feet) is zoned Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR). The Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoned portions of the
property are subject to the amendment request.
The Residential/Office General (R/OG) future land use category permits 15 dwelling units per
acre and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The subject property could yield a maximum of 17 dwelling
units or 25,047 square feet of nonresidential floor area in the area currently designated
Residential/Office General (R/OG). The Residential Urban (RU) future land use category
permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of 0.40. The portion of the subject
property currently designated Residential Urban (RU) is too small to support even one dwelling
unit because it was subdivided from the originally platted residential parcel to the south. The
proposed Commercial General (CG) future land use category permits 24 dwelling units per acre
and a floor area ratio of 0.55. Under the proposed Commercial General (CG) category, the
subject property could yield 29 dwelling units or a floor area of 29,468 square feet. The proposed
change to the Commercial General (CG) future land use category would provide for an increase
of 4,421 square feet of buildable area on the subject property.
The current Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning districts primarily
permit residential, offices, places of worship and school uses. The proposed Commercial (C)
zoning district primarily permits offices, overnight accommodations, restaurants, and retail sales
uses.
Roadways
Table 1: Maximum Potential Traffic depicts traffic characteristics of the subject property based
on the current and proposed Future Land Use Map designations. The table indicates the
maximum potential trips generated by future land use category based on the traffic generation
rates in the Countywide Plan Rules. The table also shows the potential roadway level of service
impacts to Sunset Point Road under each scenario. Note: The Countywide Plan Rules traffic
generation guidelines are the accepted methodology for reviewing the roadway impacts of
proposed Future Land Use Map amendments.
Sunset Point Road from Edgewater Drive to Keene Road currently operates at a level of service
C, peak hour according to the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009 Level
of Service Report. Trips generated by the proposed future land use category would lower the
operating level of service to D, peak hour. The adopted level of service standard for the roadway
segment is D, peak hour.
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation, indicates the estimated trip
generation for specific uses allowed in the current and proposed zoning districts based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation 8`h Edition. The analysis compares
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 5 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
trips generated by the former use of the subject property (drive-in bank) to uses representing the
maximum development potential under the current and proposed zoning districts.
Table 1: NIAXINI[fNI POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
Sunset Point Rd
(Edgewater Dr to Keene Rd) Existing
Conditions Current
FLUME Proposed
FLUM2 Net New
Trips
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 210 740 530
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips3 N/A 19 70 51
Roadway Volume 9,965 10,175 10,705 530
Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour C C4 D4 D4
Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour
Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable.
FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
1. Based on Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) calculations of 178 trips per acre per day for the Residential/Office General
(R/OG) Future Land Use Category and 68 trips per acre per day for the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Category.
2. Based on PPC calculations of 487 trips per acre per day for the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Category.
3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
4. Based on the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Table 2: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON BY ZONING DESIGNATION
Avg. Net Change PM Peak PM Net
Land Use Development Daily Average Trips Peak Change
Potential Trips Daily Trips Average Trips PM Peak
Rate Trips
EXISTING DESIGNATIONS: "O" Zoning District ( "R/OG" Future Land Use Category)
General Office Building' 25,047 SF6 275 N/A 1.49 37 N/A
(11.01 trips/1,000 SF GFA)
Existing Drive-in Bank2 586 SF7
10 1
568 N/A 25.82 273 N/A
(148.15 trips/1,000 SF GFA) , ,
EXISTING DESIGNATIONS: "LMDR" Zoning District ("RU" Future Land Use Category)
Single-Family Detached
Housing' 0 DU 0 N/A 1.02 0 N/A
(9.57 trips/unit'
PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS: "C" Zoning District ("CG" Future Land Use Category)
Example Uses
New Car Sales4 36,416 SF' 1,214 -354 2.59 94 -179
(33.34 trips/1,000 SF GFA)
Fast-Food Restaurant w/
Drive-Through Windows 4,100 SF9 2,034 466 33.84 138 -135
(496.12 trips/1,000 SF GFA)
Notes:
GFA = Gross floor area. SF = Square foot. DU = Dwelling unit. N/A = Not applicable.
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8t` Edition Land Use 710.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 912.
3. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 210.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 841.
5. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 934.
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 6 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
6. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying R/OG Future land use map category is 0.50.
7. The Pinellas County Property Appraiser website provides the square footage.
8. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying CG Future land use map category is 0.55.
9. Average square footage of a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window.
A specific use of the property has not been proposed by the applicant; therefore, two possible
uses were analyzed in the Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation table. Restaurant
with drive-through window was chosen because it is an intensive use. Based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, this use would result in 138 PM Peak trips. The new car sales use was
chosen because the applicant's representative indicated that this was a use being considered.
New car sales developed at the maximum intensity in the Commercial (C) District (36,416
square feet) would result in 94 PM Peak trips on Sunset Point Road. The drive-in bank use
results in 273 PM Peak trips. Both of the possible uses analyzed generate fewer PM Peak trips
than the drive-in bank use. Even though banks are considered an office use in the Community
Development Code, the trip generation characteristics of this use is similar to restaurants, gas
stations, and other service type uses.
Mass Transit
The citywide level of service for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan
amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject property is
located on a mass transit route.
Potable Water
The current future land use designation could use up to 2,660 gallons of potable water per day.
Under the proposed future land use designation, potable water demand could approach
approximately 2,946 gallons per day. There is a slight increase in consumption.
Wastewater
The current future land use designation could produce up to 2,144 gallons of wastewater per day.
Under the proposed future land use designation, sewer demand could approach approximately
2,357 gallons per day. There is a slight increase in consumption.
Solid Waste
The current future land use designation could generate 47 tons of solid waste per year. Under the
proposed future land use designation, 366 tons of solid waste could be generated per year. There
is an increase in solid waste produced.
Recreation and Open Space
Due to the fact that the site is developed, the payment of Open Space, Recreation Land and
Recreation Facility impact fees will not be required at this time. Should the site be redeveloped,
the fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The amount and timing of this
fee is dependent on the number of developed units and will be addressed and paid during the site
plan review process.
Public School Facilities
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the current Residential
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 7 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
Office/General (R/OG) plan category (potential of 17 residential units) and Residential Urban
(RU) plan category (potential of 0.60 residential units) could generate the following number of
students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 17.60 units = 2.64 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 17.60 units = 1.23 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 17.60 units = 1.76 students
TOTAL = 5.63 students
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the proposed Commercial
General (CG) plan category (potential of 29 residential units) could generate the following
number of students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 29 units = 4.35 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 29 units = 2.03 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 29 units = 2.90 students
TOTAL = 9.28 students
An increase of 3.65 students could occur as a result of the proposed Future Land Use Map
amendment. The subject property is located within Concurrency Service Area (CSA) D for
elementary and Concurrency Service Area (CSA) C for middle schools. According to enrollment
and capacity data from the Pinellas County School District, there is available capacity within
both CSA D and C and the high school CSA to accommodate the potential additional students.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by the proposed
Future Land Use Map amendment would degrade the existing level of service on Sunset Point
Road or the operational efficiency of the signalized intersection. However, PM peak trips would
be expected to decline. Further, there would be increased demand for potable water, wastewater,
and solid waste service, although the increase would not negatively impact the City's ability to
meet the adopted level of service standards for these public facilities. Open space and recreation
facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed amendments.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
No wetlands appear to be located on the subject property. This property is developed as a drive-
in bank and has trees and landscaping on site.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject property. The
intent of the new buyer is to redevelop the property in the future for a commercial use. The site
is currently developed. Any redevelopment would require compliance with the City's tree
preservation and storm water management requirements.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 8 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
Recommended Findings of Fact
The location of the proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries is consistent with the
boundaries of the subject property, which are irregularly shaped.
The proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries would consolidate the subject property into a
single zoning district. However, the proposed Commercial (C) District is not compatible with
the single-family uses to the north and south.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of
streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Section 4-602.F.1]
The proposed Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Map category permits a floor area
ratio of 0.55 while the existing Residential Office/General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU)
categories permit less intensive floor area ratios of 0.50 and 0.40, respectively. The 0.90
impervious surface ratio of the proposed Commercial General (CG) category is higher than the
existing Residential Office/General (R/OG) category imperious surface ratio of 0.75 and
Residential Urban (RU) category imperious surface ratio of 0.65. The subject property meets the
minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet and lot width of 200 feet required for minimum standard
uses in the Commercial (C) District. A survey of the property indicates that structures currently
encroach into the required setback on the north, south, and west sides of the property. Since the
property has been vacant more than six months (Bank of America closed in May 2007), any use
of the property will require conformance with the current Code. Any development of the
property that does not meet minimum standard requirements will be subject to the use criteria in
the Flexible Standard Development process or Flexible Development process. These criteria may
prohibit certain uses contiguous to residentially zoned properties (e.g., vehicle sales/display).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The request for amendment to the Future Land Use Map involves a change from the Residential
Office/General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU) future land use categories to the Commercial
General (CG) future land use category. Also involved is a request for rezoning from the Office
(O) and the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning districts to the Commercial (C)
zoning district.
The subject property is developed as a drive-in bank that has remained vacant since May 2007.
Residential uses primarily characterize the surrounding area to the north and south, while low
intensity office, retail, and institutional uses characterize the surrounding area to the east and
west. The proposed amendment is compatible with the properties to the east and west, but not
those to the north and south.
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change is not compatible with low intensity uses
in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not meet the purpose and
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 9 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20
locational criteria for the Commercial General (CG) designation in the Countywide Plan Rules.
The current Office zoning district provides an appropriate transition between more intensive
commercial uses to the east of the subject property and the single family use to the north and
south.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following actions on the request:
ACTION:
Recommend DENIAL of the Future Land Use Map amendment from the Residential/Office
General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU) categories to the Commercial General (CG)
category and the rezoning request from the Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) districts (County) to the Commercial (C) District.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff:
Cate Lee, Planner II
Attachments:
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board -July 20, 2010 -Case LUZ2010-06001 -Page 10 of 10
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0710 Exhibit StaffReport LUZ2010-06001 2010-07-20k.docx
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAS E-FIRST NAME-MI LE NAME
r?e.?- ri NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTE
MAILING ADDRESS
gam,- THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, A RITY OR CO ITTEE ON
I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
rH
CITY COUNTY Y OCOUNTY OOTHERLOCALAGENCY
Atkl -7 624 he(bts-
33 Pi
NAME OF P uTICAI SUBDIVISI
1
DATE ON WHIC
OCCURRED 4*1 _
H
ZO
D MY POSITION IS:
0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected boald, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to. the special private gain or loss, of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form must,be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE, MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person respbnsible 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.
R ,D{IS,CL?O^SURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, 5 r I d.- l 5 ?t YCJ?? , hereby disclose that on , 20
(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, ;
inured to the special gain or loss of i d S5O G , by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
which
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
L? air n - o 5'®o - ,.?-.? Pt.?.?. -+-
R2. ,
.4211-1 01
q-u-e of
- `o
'7 - 2-e)
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 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
L.L
Cie arwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert TeM Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 15, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications Qtem 1-5)
1. Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2010 Drew Street
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2010-03007 -1934 N. Hercules Avenue
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. Missouri Avenue
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2009-02006 - 3100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes )(e No
S. IPlanning DepartmentiC D BLigendas DRC & CDBI CDBI2010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
5. Case: FLD2010-05001 - 113 N Betty Lane
Yes x No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-61:
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Yes X No
2. Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Yes X No
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes No
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes X` No
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes A No
6. Case: Case: LUZ2010-06001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road
Yes 1? No
Signature: Date: 'yp 0
91 CWAne A74"op
PRINT NAME
S.•IPlanningDeparimentlCDBL4gendasDRC& CDBICDBI2010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO2010.doc
5. Case: FLD2010-05001 - 113 N Betty Lane
Yes No /\
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-6):
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Yes No
2. Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Yes No X
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes No X'<'_
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes No
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No x
6. Case: Case: LUZ2010-06001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road
Yes NoZ
Signature:
I
Datez0bo
lgr?an FAriLer
PRINT NAME
S. IplanningDeparonmttCD B44gendas DRC & CDBICDB12010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
r
lb
LL
O
_ C10 airwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert TeM Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 15, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-5)
1. Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2 Drew Street
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2010-03007 -1934 . Hercules Avenue
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. issouri Avenue 1W QV-KgL4
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2009-02006 - 31 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
r
Yes No
S.IPlanningDeparhnentiCDBL4gendasDRC&CDBICDBI2010107July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO2010.doc
1?
5. Case: D2010-05001-113 N Betty Lane
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. Mc ullen Booth Road
Yes No
2. Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Yes No
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 -
Yes
No
Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 00 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes No -
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendm is to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No
6. Case: Case: LUZ2010-06001-14 Sunset Point Road
Yes No
S.lPlanningDepartmentlCDB44gendasDRC& CDBICDB12010107July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO2010.doc
LL
a 1
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert TeM Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 15, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications Qtem 1-5)
1.
Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2010 Drew Street
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2010-03007 1934 N. Hercules Avenue
Yes No
3. Case: FLD27- 810 S. Missouri Avenue
Yes No
4. Case: FLD273100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
S.-IPlanningDepartmentlCDBL4gendasDRC& CDBICDBI2010107 July 20,201011 Cover MEMO2010.doc
5. Case: FLD2010-05001-113 N Betty Lane
I /
Yes v No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-6):
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Yes No
2. Case: Amendmen to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Yes No
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes No
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes I / No
5. Case: CPA2010-0 O1 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No
6. Case: Case: LUZ201 6001-1475 Sunset Point Road
Yes No
Signature:
($A
NAME
Date: 20 10 a '( 20
S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBLIgendasDRC&CDBICDBI2010107July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO2010.doc
LL
F C11 ater
=,rw
U _ ..,?
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert TeM Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk, /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 15, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications Qtem 1-5)
1. Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2010 Drew Street
Yes X, No
2. Case: FLD2010-03007 -1934 N. Hercules Avenue
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. Missouri Avenue
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2009-02006 - 3100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
S. IPlanning Departmentl C D BIAgendas DRC & CDBICDBL010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
i'V
5. Case: FLD2010-05001 - 113 N Betty Lane
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-61:
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Yes
No
i-
2. Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Awntown Redevelopment Plan
Yes No 01-
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes
No
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes No
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No \.
6. Case: Case: LUZ2010-06001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road
PRINT N
S. Oanning DepartmentIC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
Yes No
.IV `s
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tef, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications Qtem 1-5)
Yes No
Yes lv? No
3. Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. Missouri Avenue
Yes V No
S. (Planning DeparhnenAC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010107 July 20, 20101Copy of I Cover MEMO 2010. doc
l . L
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
?.: ? 1. J.. ..'..
4. Case: FLD2009-02006 - 3100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-6):
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMul/len Booth Road
Yes No
Yes -I-,' No
3. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes No 1/ '
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes No ,l
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No I'x
Yes % / No
Signature:
PRINT
Date•T
S. (Planning Departmentl C D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2010107 July 20, 20101Copy of I Cover MEMO 2010.doc
1
Lj-
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert TeM Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 20, 2010
DATE: July 15, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-5)
1. Case: FLD2010-05003 - 2010 Drew Street
Yes V No
2. Case: FLD2010-03007 -1934 N. Hercules Avenue
Yes
No
3. Case: FLD2010-05002 - 810 S. Missouri Avenue
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2009-02006 - 3100 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
S. I Planning Departmentl C D BL4gendas DRC & CDBI CDBI2010107 July 10, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
1
5. Case: FLD2010-05001 - 113 N Betty Lane
Yes I /_ No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtems 1-6):
1. Case: Case: LUZ2010-05001 - One parcel located on the south portion of the main Calvary
Baptist Church site at 110 N. McMullen Booth Road
Yes No
2. Case: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Yes No
Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Yes No
4. Case: Case: DVA2010-06001- 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Yes
5. Case: CPA2010-06001 Amendments to tjte Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Yes No 01
6. Case: Case: LUZ2010-06001- 1475 Sunset Point Road
Yes
Signature:
No J
No
Date: ! t
? 'l ass ?-r??'s?.
PRINT NAME S. (Planning Departmentl C D Bl Agendas DRC & CDBI CDB12010107 July 20, 201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc