The URL can be used to link to this page

08/17/2010COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER August 17, 2010 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Frank L. Dame Doreen DiPolito Richard Adelson Brian A. Barker Kurt B. Hinrichs Norma R. Carlough Absent: Also Present: Thomas Coates Gina Grimes Leslie Dougall-Sides Michael L. Delk Gina Clayton Robert Tefft Patricia O. Sullivan Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Acting Board Member Vice Chair 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 MEETING: July 20, 2010 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of July 20, 2010, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cares are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1 - 4) 1. Level Two Application Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N Owner/Applicant: Danielson, LTD. Agent: Thomas C. Nash, II, ESQ. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727- 441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470; email: tcn macfar.com). Location: 2.06 acres located at the southwest corner of U. S. Highway 19 N. and Enterprise Road Atlas Page: 232B. Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit an educational facility and retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 89,912 square-feet, a lot width of 260 feet along Enterprise Road and 190 feet along U.S. Highway 19 North , a front (north) setback of 79.3 Community Development 2010-08-17 feet (to existing building), 4.6 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback of 89.8 feet (to existing building), 38.17 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 24.1 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 100 feet (to existing building), 1.67 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 48.9 feet (to existing building), 2.2 feet (to pavement), a building height of 15 feet (to top of flat roo� and 85 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Enterprise Road from 15 feet to 4.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along U.S. Highway 19 from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the west perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 2.2 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (rear) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 1.67 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (side) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 12 percent to 10.8 percent of the vehicular use area, a reduction to the width of the foundation landscape area on the east from five feet to 1.1 feet, a reduction to the size of the interior landscape island from 150 square-feet to 50 square-feet and a reduction to the width of the interior landscape island from eight feet to five feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Educational Facility and Retail Sales/Services Neighborhood Associations: Northwood West, Cypress Bend and Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17. See pages 3 and 4 for motion of approval. 2. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Range Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Range Road, LLC/Alternative Treatment International, Inc. Agent: Renee Ruggiero (300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443- 2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: renee �northsideengineering.net). Location: 1.16 acres located on the north side of Range Road approximately 850 feet west of the intersection of Belcher Road and Range Road. Atlas Page: 271 B. Existing Zoning: Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District. Request: Flexible Development application to permit a social/public service agency in the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 50,741 square-feet, a lot width of 162 feet, a front (south) setback of 118.5 feet (to existing building), 15 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 46.65 feet (to existing building), 10 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 14.7 feet (to existing building), eight feet (to pavement), a rear (north) setback of 61.35 feet (to existing building), 13.25 feet (to pavement), a building height of 25 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roo� and 38 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1304.C, with a reduction to the shrub requirement to the north perimeter landscape buffer, a reduction to the interior landscape island width from eight feet to four feet and a reduction to the interior landscape size from 150 square-feet to 68 square-feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Social/Public Service Agency Community Development 2010-08-17 2 Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17. In response to a question, Planner III Scott Kurleman said the proposed use for this site does not meet the Code definition for a residential shelter. Acting Member Carlough moved to approve Case FLD2010-06002 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. Acting Member Carlough moved to approve the conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report for Case FLD2010-06002. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Case: FLD2010-06005 — 1472 Jordan Hills Court Level Two Application Owner: Malke, Teresa L TRE Empire Management Trust. Applicant: Dr. Stephen Kobernick, D.D.S., PA. Agent: Todd Pressman (P.O. Box 6015, Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 1-888-977-1179; email: pressinc(a�aol.com). Location: 0.229 acre on the west side of the cul-de-sac of Jordan Hills Court. Atlas Page: 315A. Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District and Office (0) District. Request: Flexible Development request for a 392 square-foot addition to an existing office in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a lot area of 10,000 square-feet; a lot width of 105.86 feet; a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 10.41 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 6.41 feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building); a rear (west) setback of 3 feet (to pavement) and 14.77 feet (to building); a building height of 21 feet; and 8 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B. as well as a reductions from the required perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 9 feet (east), and from 5 feet to 3 feet (west); a reduction from the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet; and a reduction of the required perimeter buffer trees from 12 to 8 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Office. Neighborhood Associations: Brookhill Ambassadors and Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition. Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 and Memo FLD2010-06005 2010- 08-17. Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2010-05004 and FLD2010-06005 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report(s), with conditions of approval as listed, including conditions of approval for Case Community Development 2010-08-17 3 FLD2010-05004 as listed in the August 16, 2010 memorandum. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application Case: TA2010-07002— Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding overnight accommodations accessory uses in the commercial and tourist districts, sidewalk vendors, commercial docks, parking and outdoor storage in residential districts, enforcement provisions relating to nuisance violations, and distance between community residential homes. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Cate Lee, Planner II. See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2010-07002 2010-08-17. In response to questions, Planner II Cate Lee said parking standards for overnight accommodations with restaurants reference new hotel development. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Legal Department had requested that language be included regarding deviations for docks; no dock can intrude into the navigational portion of a waterway. Concerns were expressed that some residents store small rubber rafts on boat trailers parked in their driveway and that the Code does not define boats. It was suggested that language require boats and trailers to be similarly sized. Ms. Dougall-Sides said previously the Code only addressed hauling trailers; proposed language adds boat trailers. Assistant Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said a definition of boat could not be added at this time. The efforts of staff and a citizen committee were applauded regarding proposed changes to parking restrictions. It was recommended that Code language reflect proper truck terminology. Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Case TA2010-07002 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 Code require boats and boat trailers to be similarly sized. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m. C ir Community Development Board Community Development 2010-08-17 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 CDB Meeting Date: Au u.°� st 17, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-05004 Agenda Item: D. 2. Owner: Danielson, LTD. Address: 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U. S. Hwy 19 North CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an educational facility and retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 89,912 square feet, a lot width of 260 feet along Enterprise Road and 190 feet along U. S. Highway 19 North , a front (north) setback of 79.3 feet (to existing building), 4.6 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback of 89.8 feet (to existing building), 38.17 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 24.1 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 100 feet (to existing building), 1.67 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 48.9 feet (to existing building), 2.2 feet (to pavement), a building height of 15 feet (to top of flat roo� and 85 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Enterprise Road from 15 feet to 4.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along U. S. Highway 19 from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the west perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 2.2 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (rear) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 1.67 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (side) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 12 percent to 10.8 percent of the vehicular use area, a reduction to the width of the foundation landscape area on the east from five feet to 1.1 feet, a reduction to the size of the interior landscape island from 150 square feet to 50 square feet and a reduction to the width of the interior landscape island from eight feet to five feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 CURRENT LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES: Commercial General (CG) Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Educational Facility and Retail Sales/Services North: Commercial (C) District Restaurant South: Unincorporated, Institutional Utility/Infrastructure East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales/Services West: Commercial (C) District Office ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.06 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 19 North and Enterprise Road. The parcel is oddly shaped having two front property lines, three side property lines and one rear property line. Two structures exist on the site today, one addressed off of Enterprise Road and the other addressed off of U. S. Highway 19. The Enterprise Road structure is a 10,179 square feet structure in which the last use was a Morgan Stanley office that closed in August 2007. The U. S. Highway 19 structure is an 8,178 square foot structure in which the last use was Leather Express that closed in October 2009. A 40-foot wide right-of-way access easement exists to the east of the site along U. S. Highway 19. The site shares an ingress/egress area to U. S. Highway 19 along with driveway and access agreements with the site to the south which is currently vacant and has been so since November 2008. Another ingress/egress area exists on the Enterprise Road frontage. Pssghetti's restaurant is directly north of this site and an office complex is located west of the site. East of the site across U. S. Highway 19 a Chick-Fil-A as well as other restaurants and retail establishments and south of the site is a Progress Energy utility easement. Development Proposal: The proposal is to re-establish a retail sales/services use in the U. S. Highway 19 structure and an Education Facility use in the Enterprise Road structure. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-102.E, if the use of a nonconforming structure is abandoned for a period of six consecutive months, the future use of the structure shall be brought into full compliance with all the requirements of the Development Code; thus the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application. A tenant has not been secured for the proposed retail sales use however, Fasttrain will occupy the Enterprise Road structure. Fasttrain specializes in providing training and educational opportunities as nursing and healthcare technicians, computer technicians and IT specialist. Fasttrain works closely with minorities and others to gain government assistance with tuition. Both structures have been maintained well while they were vacant. The stucco structure on Enterprise Road currently has a substantial number of awnings, a distinctive roof form at the Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 main entrance and the use of cornices along the roof line. The structure on U. S. Highway 19 is painted with a bold turquoise accent color and overall lacks visual interest. Other than re- painting the U. S. Highway 19 structure no architectural enhancements are proposed. While the applicant does not want to enhance the building architecturally, as the tenant is unknown at this time, it is a requirement under the Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. As the entire site is being reviewed for compliance with the Community Development Code, a condition of approval is attached that states prior to either building obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy or Business Tax Receipt the applicant must provide a substantial number of design elements such as the use of columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies or awnings to the U. S. Highway 19 structure. Regarding the site, the parking will be reconfigured and restriped to comply with ADA requirements and additional interior landscape islands are proposed along with enhanced buffers. The existing parking lot will remain with setbacks to pavement as follows: a front (north) setback of 4.6 feet, a front (east) setback of 38.17 feet, a side (south) setback of zero feet, a side (east) setback of zero feet, a rear (south) setback of 1.67 feet and a side (west) setback of 2.2 feet. The development proposal's compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Intensitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 0.21. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.71, which is consistent with the above. 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 retail sales and services is 10,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet for educational facilities. The subject property is 89,912 square feet (2.06 acres). Also for comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for retail sales and services is 100 feet and 200 feet for educational facilities. The lot widths along Enterprise Road and U. S. Highway 19 are 265 feet and 190 feet, respectively. While the development proposal does not meet the 200 feet lot width requirement for educational facilities, Staff has found that this minor reduction will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding properties. 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 retail sales and services can range between 15 and 25 feet and for educational facilities it is 25 feet; the side setback for retail sales and services can range between zero and 10 feet and for educational facilities it is 10 feet; and the rear setback for retails sales and services can range between 10 and 20 feet and for educational facilities it is 20 feet. With regard to the existing buildings, the minimum required setbacks are all be greatly exceeded; however flexibility has been requested with regard to the setbacks to the existing off-street parking and vehicular use areas. The request includes a front (north) setback of 4.6 feet (to Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 pavement), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 1.67 feet (to pavement) and a side (west) setback of 2.2 feet (to pavement). Both the side (south) and side (east) setbacks to zero feet are to a common shared drive with the property to the south; therefore the request has support from Staff as these reduced setbacks are not visible. Likewise the rear setback of 1.67 feet to pavement abuts the 220 feet wide Progress Energy easement and is not visible to the public as this easement is planted entirely in greenspace. The front (north) setback of 4.6 feet and the side (west) setback of 2.2 feet are to existing parking spaces and there is no opportunity to remove pavement without impacting aisle widths or number of parking spaces. Overall, the setbacks to pavement as requested are acceptable to Staff. Maximum Building Hei� 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 retail sales and services can range between 25 and 50 feet and for educational facilities it is 25 feet. The existing buildings are 15 feet in height to the top of the roof, well below that which may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: 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 retail sales and services is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for 8,178 square feet of retail floor area results in a requirement of 41 spaces. The off- street parking requirement for educational facilities is one parking space per two students. The maximum amount of students in the Enterprise Road building will be 70, which results in a requirement of 35 spaces. Therefore the total off-street parking requirement for the development would be 76 spaces. The site currently has 91 spaces; however after placement of new interior landscape islands and solid waste refuse areas the site proposes 85 parking spaces, which is nine spaces in excess of the requirement. The possibility of converting the e�tra parking spaces to landscape islands was considered but since the Community Development Code only requires one parking space for every two students, the applicant felt that requirement did not address staffing at the school and eliminating those nine e�tra parking spaces would result in an inadequate number of parking spaces for instructors, office staff and counselors. Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangle. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangle. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize two refuse dumpsters located between the two buildings on the rear side of the property. Both dumpsters will be enclosed and the proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. S�ns: Pursuant to CDC Section 6-104.A., in the event a building permit is required for the redevelopment of a principal use/structure, or 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 freestanding sign exceeds the allowable height of 14 feet. It is therefore attached as a Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 condition of approval that the freestanding sign be brought into compliance prior to issuance of any permits. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along U.S. Highway 19 and Enterprise Road and a five-foot wide landscape buffer is required along all sides and the rear property line. The subject property has an existing 4.6-foot wide landscape buffer along Enterprise Road planted with oaks, shrubs and groundcover. Some areas of this buffer are sparse; as such another oak, Indian hawthorne and ligustrum are proposed to be planted. There is no opportunity to remove pavement and increase the setback nor increase the landscape buffer width as the structures are existing and the parking and drive aisle dimensions do not exceed code requirements. Along U.S. Highway 19 there is over 38 feet of green open space, unfortunately there is a 40-foot right-of-way access easement located there and the Department of Transportation precludes any plant material to be planted within this easement. Therefore, the request includes a reduction to this perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet. Both the side (east) and side (south) landscape buffer requirement of five feet will not be satisfied as this area abuts the shared driveway. The rear (south) landscape buffer exists and is only 1.67 feet in width. The rear buffer abuts the Progress Energy easement and has an existing hedge and the applicant has proposed to install four crape myrtles in this area as shade trees are prohibited near the easement. Likewise the side (west) landscape buffer exists and is only 2.2 feet wide. Fortunately the side (west) landscape buffer abuts a landscape buffer from the adjacent property allowing rooting area for shrub and tree planting in the areas where the existing buffer is sparse. Again, there is no opportunity to remove pavement and increase the setback or landscape buffer width. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building fa�ade 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 fa�ade 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. The U. S. Highway 19 building fa�ade has some existing shrubs and groundcover in a planting area with an existing width from zero feet to nine feet. Compounding the lack of planting space in some areas is an overhang e�tending beyond the existing width of the foundation planting area. For this reason the foundation area has no existing accent trees or palm trees and none are proposed. The U. S. Highway 19 fa�ade will be augmented with shrubs and groundcover in the sparse areas. The Enterprise Road fa�ade is approximately 180 feet long and the planting width ranges from five feet to 21 feet. The entire planting area contains some shrubs and groundcover. The first 105 feet of this planting area contain no accent or palm trees and none are proposed. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that the applicant provide at least four accent trees or six palm trees, or combination of thereof, within the Enterprise Road facade planting area. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area, or twelve percent of the gross vehicular use area if parking spaces are greater than or equal to 110 percent of the required parking, shall be provided as landscape islands a minimum of eight feet wide and 150 square feet in size. As 76 parking spaces are required and the application proposes 85 parking spaces, it has exceeded 110 percent of the required parking and must provide twelve Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 percent of the gross vehicular use area in landscaping islands. The site proposes 10.8 percent of the vehicular use areas to be landscape islands including 699 square feet of additional interior landscape islands. Additionally, some of the islands are not eight feet wide or the minimum 150 square feet. While the proposal does increase the square footage of interior landscape islands it does not achieve the twelve percent requirement. As discussed previously the possibility of converting the e�tra parking spaces to landscape islands was considered but since the Community Development Code only requires one parking space for every two students, the applicant felt that requirement did not address staffing at the school and does not provide adequate parking spaces for instructors, office staff and counselors. To mitigate for the inadequate size of the interior islands, less than twelve percent of the vehicular use area devoted to interior landscape islands, the inadequate perimeter landscape buffer width and lack of accent or palm trees on the U. S. Highway 19 building fa�ade, the applicant has proposed to install landscaping in any area where there is opportunity to landscape. Several large "grass" islands have been converted to landscape islands and in addition to improved visual appearance these converted "grass" islands reduce maintenance costs, decrease the use of pesticides and herbicides and reduce irrigation requirements. Due to existing site constraints and the concern of adequate parking being available staff supports the requested landscape reductions. Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: 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 part of N/A N/A the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/ar materials of the landscape treatment proposed X in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise pernutted 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 far the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704: Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R 0.55 0.21 X L S.R. 0.90 0.71 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 89,912 square feet Xl Minimum Lot Width N/A U.S. Highway 19 N 190 feet Xl Enterprise Road 265 feet Maximum Height N/A 15 feet Xl Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A U.S Hwy 19: 89.8 feet (to building) Xi 38.17 feet (to pavement) Enterprise Road: 79.3 feet (to building) Xi 4.6 feet (to pavement) Side: N/A South: 16 feet (to building) X' 0 feet (to pavement) East 24.1 (to building) Xi 0 feet (to pavement) West 489 feet (to building) Xi 2.2 feet (to pavement) Rear: N/A South: 100 feet (to building) Xi 1.67 feet (to pavement) Minimum Retail Sales & Services: 85 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking 5 spaces/1,000 sf GFA (41 parking spaces) Educational Facilities: 1 space per 2 students (35 parking spaces) ' See analysis in StaffReport. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighbarhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minnnum standard, flexible standard ar flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides far 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 £ The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a warking 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; a 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 tea�tures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape desian and appropriate distances between buildin�s. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 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 warking in the neighbarhood. 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 olfactorv and hours of oneration imnacts on adiacent nronerkies. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of July 1, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findin�s of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 2.06 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 19 North and Enterprise Road; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Land Use Plan category; 3. The site was previously developed with a Morgan Stanley office in the Enterprise Road building that closed in August 2007, and the U. S. Highway 19 building was developed with Leather Express that closed in October 2009; 4. The proposal includes setback reductions to pavement from all property boundaries; 5. The proposal includes reductions to all perimeter landscape buffer requirements; 6. The proposal includes reductions to the foundation landscape fa�ade requirements and interior landscape requirements; 7. The proposal includes 85 parking spaces; 8. The existing structures are 15 feet in height; 9. There exists a freestanding sign that is nonconforming to current Code requirements; and 10. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning 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; Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.0 of the Community Development Code; 3. 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 4. 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 an educational facility and retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 89,912 square feet, a lot width of 260 feet along Enterprise Road and 190 feet along U. S. Highway 19 North , a front (north) setback of 79.3 feet (to existing building), 4.6 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback of 89.8 feet (to existing building), 38.17 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 24.1 feet (to existing building), zero feet (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 100 feet (to existing building), 1.67 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 48.9 feet (to existing building), 2.2 feet (to pavement), a building height of 15 feet (to top of flat roo� and 85 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Enterprise Road from 15 feet to 4.6 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along U. S. Highway 19 from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the west perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 2.2 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (rear) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to 1.67 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the south (side) perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 12 percent to 10.8 percent of the vehicular use area, a reduction to the width of the foundation landscape area on the east from five feet to 1.1 feet, a reduction to the size of the interior landscape island from 150 square feet to 50 square feet and a reduction to the width of the interior landscape island from eight feet to five feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G, subject to the following conditions: Condition of A�proval: 1. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, the four accent trees or six palm trees, or combination thereof, be installed in the Enterprise Road foundation landscaping; 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the building elevations must be revised to incorporate a substantial number of design elements into the U.S. Highway 19 structure, such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, and awnings; 3. That, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, the approved design elements on the U. S. Highway 19 fa�ade be constructed; 4. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the proposed paint colors be approved by Planning Staff; 5. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, the existing freestanding sign be brought into compliance with CDC Section 3- 1806; Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-05004 2010-08-17 6. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 7. That, all signage be permitted separately; 8. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; and 9. That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the e�terior of the buildings be painted the same color as the building Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 11 � . �- . , ... . ,. � � �� o�.aao�v- os�y a��- o�-�7 � H � � r . l� � , X � MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board FROM: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III DATE: August 16, 2010 RE: Agenda Item D.2. — FLD2010-05004, 2414 Enterprise Road After distribution of Conditions of Approval for the above referenced application and based on discussions with the applicant, the following conditions are proposed to be modified as follows (language being deleted is s�s�e�; new language underlined): Conditions of ApprovaL• 1. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business t� receipt, whichever occurs first, the four accent trees or six palm trees, or combination thereof, be installed in the Enterprise Road foundation landscaping; � •r�, �t,e „Y,�.e ,.o .....,;+� +i.e ti.,,;ta:r e�e ..*;,, �� t.e �oa + r� , e � e .. , > > > > > > ; . , � � •• � 4. T'hat, prior to the issuance of anv permits, the buildin� elevations must be revised to , incorporate a substantial number of design elements into the U.S. Hi way 19 structure, such � as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, and awnin�s and such ' design elements must be conshucted no later than August 1, 2011 or prior to the issuance of a � business taac receipt or certificate of occupancv for the U.S. Hi wav �19 structure, whichever occurs first; 5. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the proposed paint colors be approvect by Planning Staff; 6. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, the existing freestanding sign be brought into compliance with CDC Section 3- 1806; 7. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 8. That, all signage be permitted separately; 9. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping sha11 be installed; and 10. That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the buildings be painted the same color as the building � "- - _ . , Page 3of' � • _ � s_.� EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 CDB Meeting Date: Au u.°� st 17, 2010 Case Number: FLD2010-06002 Agenda Item: D. 3. Owner: Ran e.°� Road, LLC. Applicant: Alternative Treatment International, Inc. Address: 2120 Ran e.°� Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a sociaUpublic service agency in the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 50,741 square feet, a lot width of 162 feet, a front (south) setback of 118.6 feet (to existing building), 15 feet (to existing pavement), a side (east) setback of 46.65 feet (to existing building), 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 14.7 feet (to existing building), eight feet (to existing pavement), a rear (north) setback of 61.35 feet (to existing building), 13.25 feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 25 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roo� and 39 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1304.C, with a reduction to the shrub requirement to the north perimeter landscape buffer, a reduction to the interior landscape island width from eight feet to four feet and a reduction to the interior landscape CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES: ANALYSIS: size from 150 square feet to 68 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3- 1202.G. Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Industrial Limited (IL) Current Use: Office Proposed Use: Social/Public Service Agency North: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse Facility South: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Manufacturing and Office East: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Manufacturing West: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District Manufacturing Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.16 acre subject property is located on the north side of Range Road approximately 850 feet west of the intersection of Belcher Road and Range Road. Belcher Road serves as a major north- south arterial and is lined with office and industrial development. Range Road runs east-west and is located between Hercules Avenue and Belcher Road. The immediate area includes Manufacturing and Distribution to the north and a plastic manufacturer to the east. To the west, is Monin, a manufacturer of plumbing products and an industrial office is located to the south. The site is currently developed with a two-story, 14,830 square foot building. The building is currently used for administrative offices and no changes to the building are proposed. The brick building is maintained well, provides changes in horizontal building planes, has architectural details such as columns and stringcourses and has a distinctive roof form. Development Proposal: On June 1, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application was submitted for the subject property. The application proposes to establish a social/public service agency (counseling center) use within the existing 14,830 square foot office building. The Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District only provides for this proposed use through the Flexible Development approval process. The proposed social/public service agency is Alternative Treatment International, Inc. which provides individualized services and a safe, therapeutic environment for those who suffer from the effects of depression, trauma, substance abuse and other emotional and spiritual disorders. The majority of the clients reside off-site at residential quarters and the clients are transported to the site by a van daily between the hours of 8am — Spm to participate in various counseling sessions, therapy sessions, attend presentations by guest speakers and receive treatments. The facility also proposes on-site overnight stays for no more than 10 clients desiring more intensive counseling and therapy treatments. The existing office building and associated off-street parking area will remain unchanged with the exception of the restriping of some parking spaces, installing a handicap accessible walkway on the west side of the property and ADA ramp modifications. This walkway is exempt from compliance with minimum setbacks and will have a de minimis impact upon the maximum impervious surface ratio. As there will be no building additions or modifications to the existing site improvements, there will be no impact upon the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, maximum building height and/or minimum setback development standards with this proposal. The development proposal's compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Intensitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 0.29. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed ISR is 0.69, which is consistent with the above. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304, the minimum lot area for sociaUpublic service agencies is 10,000 square feet. The overall site is 50,741 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Section, the minimum lot width is 100 feet. The width of the lot along Range Road is 162 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304, the minimum front setback for sociaUpublic service agencies is 20 feet, the side and rear setback is 15 feet. The front (south) setback is 118.6 feet (to existing building), 15 feet (to existing pavement), a side (east) setback of 46.65 feet (to existing building), 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 14.7 feet (to existing building), eight feet (to existing pavement), a rear (north) setback of 61.35 feet (to existing building), and 13.25 feet (to existing pavement). While all the existing setbacks do not meet the criteria of CDC Section 2-1304; they are consistent with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment provisions. As mentioned previously there will be no building additions or modifications to the existing site improvements. Maximum Buildin.°� Hei� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304, the maximum building height for sociaUpublic service agencies is 30 feet. The height of the existing building is 25 feet (to midpoint of the pitched roo�. The proposal is consistent with this Code provision. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1304, the minimum off-street parking requirement for both the existing office use and the proposed social/public service agency use is three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. As such, 44 parking spaces are required. The site currently has 38 parking spaces; however by re-striping the parking lot the property will gain an additional space resulting in a total of 39 parking spaces. The applicant has provided a parking demand study showing the greatest demand for parking spaces occurring in morning and requiring 25 parking spaces. As stated previously most clients are shuttled to the center each day at 8am by way of a courtesy van and at Spm they are shuttled to off-site guest quarters. Additionally, there are approximately 20 staff inembers who cover three shifts with the average number of staff inembers during shift being six. Further, the subject sites location between Hercules Avenue and Belcher Road provide additional options as both corridors are located on PSTA bus routes and may provide transportation options to both employees and clients. Staff has found this parking demand study acceptable. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility Criteria set forth in CDC Section 2-1304.H: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is X designated as residential in the zoning atlas. 2. The sociaUpublic service agency shall not be located within 1,500 feet of another X social/public service agency. With regard to the above criteria, the subject property is adjacent to IRT zoning on all four common property boundaries. Additionally, the applicant has submitted and aerial map that Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 depicts no other sociaUpublic service agencies being located within 1,500 feet of the subject property. As such, the proposal has been found to be in compliance with the above criteria. Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangle. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangle. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a new 10-foot by 12-foot dumpster with an enclosure that will be located at the rear of the property. 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 Range Road and a five-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the rear and both side property lines. The subject property has an existing 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Range Road planted with four large laurel oaks and an existing hedge. While there are additional areas within this existing buffer for additional plant material the Land Resource Specialist has determined that disturbing the soil within the root zone of the trees would be detrimental to the oak trees; therefore no additional plants are proposed in this area. Likewise the rear landscape buffer exists with three large laurel oaks and two pine trees. There are no shrubs located in the existing rear landscape buffer; however there is an existing six-foot PVC fence and the existing roots prevent additional plantings as was the case in the front buffer. Both side landscape buffers are planted with an adequate amount trees and shrubs. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building fa�ade 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 fa�ade 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. The Range Road building fa�ade has existing landscaping in excess of this requirement. 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. While the site has 10.1 percent of the vehicular use area devoted to interior landscape islands, some of the islands are not eight feet wide or the minimum 150 square feet. However, there is no opportunity to increase the size of the existing islands. To mitigate for the inadequate size of the interior islands and the absence of shrubs in the rear landscape buffer the applicant has proposed additional shrubs and groundcover where appropriate in both side landscape buffers. Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: 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: 1. Architectural theme: Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 4 Consistent I Inconsistent EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 Consistent Inconsistent a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as 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/ar 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 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 comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted far the area in which the narcel nronosed for develonment is located. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-1301.1 and 2-1304: Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R 0.65 0.29 X LS.R. 0.85 0.69 X' Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 50,741 square feet Xl Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 162 feet Xl Maximum Building Height 30 feet 25 feet Xi Minimum Setbacks Front: 20 feet South: 1185 feet (to building) Xi 15 feet (to pavement) Side 15 feet East: 46.65 feet (to building) Xi 10 feet (to pavement) West: 14.7 feet (to building) Xi 8 feet (to pavement) Rear: 15 feet North: 61.35 feet (to building) Xi 13.5 feet (to pavement) Minimum Off-Street Parking 3 spaces/1,000 sf GFA 39 parking spaces X (44 parking spaces) Figures reflect existing conditions on site that are not being altered or approved by the proposed application. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 1304.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 neighbarhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minnnum standard, flexible standard ar flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides far 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 £ The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a warking 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; a 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 tea�tures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape desian and appropriate distances between buildin�s. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 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 warking in the neighbarhood. 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 olfactorv and hours of operation impacts on adiacent properkies. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of July 1, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findin�s of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 1.16 acre subject property is located on the north side of Range Road approximately 850 feet west of the intersection of Belcher Road and Range Road; 2. That the subject property is located within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District and the Industrial Limited (IL) Land Use Plan category; 3. That the proposal consists only of a change of use from office to social/public service agencies within an existing office building; 4. That a parking demand study has been provided by the applicant that states the highest demand for parking for this use is 25 spaces; 5. That the proposal includes 39 parking spaces; and 6. That the proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, setbacks and maximum building height, as they presently exist; Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2-1301.1 and 2-1304; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-1304.C; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a SociaUPublic Service Agency as per CDC Section 2-1304.H; 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A; and Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06002 2010-08-17 5. The development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a social/public service agency in the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 50,741 square feet, a lot width of 162 feet, a front (south) setback of 118.6 feet (to existing building), 15 feet (to existing pavement), a side (east) setback of 46.65 feet (to existing building), 10 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 14.7 feet (to existing building), eight feet (to existing pavement), a rear (north) setback of 61.35 feet (to existing building), 13.25 feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 25 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roo� and 39 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1304.C, with a reduction to the shrub requirement to the north perimeter landscape buffer, a reduction to the interior landscape island width from eight feet to four feet and a reduction to the interior landscape size from 150 square feet to 68 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G, subject to the following conditions: Condition of A�proval: 1. That, prior to the issuance of a Business Tax Receipt, the handicap accessible walk, restriping and ADA ramp modifications be installed; 2. That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; and 3. That a building permit be obtained for the handicap access improvements. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06002 — Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 CDB Meeting Date Case Number: Agenda Item: Owner: Applicant: Representative: Address: Au u.°� st 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 D. 1. Malke, Teresa L TRE Empire Mana�ement Trust Dr. Stephen Kobernick, D.D. S., PA. Todd Pressman 1472 Jordan Hills Court CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development request for a 392 square foot addition to an existing office in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a lot area of 10,000 square feet; a lot width of 105.86 feet; a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 10.41 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 6.41 feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building); a rear (west) setback of 3 feet (to pavement) and 14.77 feet (to building); a building height of 21 feet; and 8 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B. as well as a reductions from the required perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 9 feet (east), and from 5 feet to 3 feet (west); a reduction from the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet; and a reduction of the required perimeter buffer trees from 12 to 8 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Commercial (C) District and Office (0) District Commercial General (CG) and Residential/Office General (R/OG) Current Use: Office Proposed Use: Office EXISTING North: Office (0) District SURROUNDING Office ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District T�acant T�eterinary Office East: Office (0) and Commercial (C) Districts T�acant Property and T�acant T�eterinary Office West: Institutional (I) District Place of Worship Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.28-acre subject property, which is located on the west side of the cul-de-sac for Jordan Hills Court, has two zoning districts and two land use plan categories. The north half of the property is zoned Office (0) District with an underlying land use plan category of Residential/Office General (R/OG), while the south half of the property is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying land use plan category of Commercial General (CG). It is also noted that the majority of the eastern third of the property is an ingress/egress easement that contains the paved street Jordan Hills Court. The property is bordered on its north side by an office; on the west by a place of worship; and on the south and east by a vacant veterinary office and vacant property (east only). The property, which presently consists of a 1,841 square foot office building as well as an accessory eight space off-street parking area, was developed in 1994 with a variance (VAR #94- 29) reducing the setback to ten feet from the street right-of-way (or in this instance the ingress/egress easement for Jordan Hills Court). The existing building is effectively set back ten feet and 14.77 feet from the south and west property lines, respectively. The off-street parking area is set back approximately four feet, four feet and three feet from the north, east and west property lines respectively. Development Proposal: On June 1, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to renovate and expand the existing office building as follows: ■ Construct a 390 square foot addition at the rear of the existing building; effectively filling-in the opening of the "U"-shaped building while maintaining the existing side (west) setback of 14.77 feet; ■ Construct a new paver brick walkway connecting the parking area to the entry; ■ Reconfigure the existing off-street parking area for eight (seven standard, one handicap accessible) code compliant parking spaces; and ■ Make minor modification to the existing architectural elevations including the addition of columns to the existing covered entry, a new asphalt shingle roof, a decorative stone base along the north and east elevations, and new building colors. It is noted that when the existing building was approved in 1994, the required setbacks were not as they are today. With the Code changes in 1999, the building was rendered non-conforming with regard to these setbacks (specifically the front and rear). As a result, 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 Plan Rules for the Commercial General (CG) land use category and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55. The Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 existing development along with the proposed addition will result in an FAR of 0.36 on that portion of the property within the CG category. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Residential/Office General (R/OG) land use category and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.50. The existing development along with the proposed addition with result in an FAR of 0.15 on that portion of the property within the R/OG category. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the CG and R/OG land use plan categories is 0.90 and 0.75, respectively. The proposed ISR's are 0.42 and 0.74, which are both less then what may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, 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 an office in both the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area for the subject property is 12,228 square feet (0.28 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for an office in both the C and O Districts is 100 feet. The lot width along Jordan Hills Court is 105.86 feet. The development proposal either meets or exceeds these comparative Code provisions for an office. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setback requirements for an office in the C and O Districts are as follows: Front Setback I Side Setback I Rear Setback The building presently exists c nist�i�t Is -2s feet o- lo feet lo -2o feet Wltll a fI'Orit SOtbaCk Of O District 15 — 35 feet 10 — 20 feet 10 — 20 feet approximately 11.5 feet, side (north and south) setbacks of 50 feet and 10 feet, respectively, and a rear setback of 14.77 feet. Excluding the front setback, all of these setbacks will be maintained with this proposal and, as mentioned previously, the 390 square foot addition will be constructed within the "U"-shaped opening of the building. With regard to the front setback, this application proposes to reduce the setback further to a distance of 10.41 feet to the face of new decorative columns. These columns are being provided, and the reduced setback supported, in order to facilitate compliance with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria set forth in CDC Sections 2-704.0 and 2- 1004.B. With regard to that portion of the existing roof overhang located within the C District, CDC Section 3-908.A.1 permits building projections such as roof overhangs to encroach 10 feet into any required setback and over street rights-of-way provided such projection be no closer than five feet from the curbline or shoulder of the roadway. The overhang is only six feet in length and is five feet from the existing valley curb of Jordan Hills Court. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 3 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 With regard to that portion of the existing roof overhang located within the O District, CDC Section 3-908.A.2 permits building projections such as roof overhangs to encroach 40 percent of the setback or 10 feet, whichever is less. In this instance 10 feet is the lesser of the two potential allowances, and the overhang is only six feet in length; thus compliance with this provision is still achieved. While the existing front setback as measured to pavement is at zero feet, the amount of area that will be at this setback is being increased with this proposal. However, this increased area will result in a substantially improved appearance for the front of the property as rather than having a small concrete sidewalk as presently exists, the property will have a wide paver brick walkway with better connectivity to the off-street parking area. With regard to the off-street parking area, the side (north) setback will be increased from approximately five feet to 6.41 feet. The rear (west) setback will be reduced from approximately six feet to three feet; however this reduction is to accommodate the expansion of the landscape area along Jordan Hills Court which will provide a more meaningful buffer to the area, and to accommodate the provision of a Code compliant handicap accessible parking space. Given the above, Staff has no objections to the reduced setbacks. Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there is no maximum allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the allowable building height for offices is 25 feet in the C District and 30 feet in the O District. The proposed architectural elevation changes will result in a building height of 20.749 feet, which is below what otherwise may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, 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 an office in the C and O Districts is 4 and 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, respectively. Based upon the above, that portion of the building within the C District requires 4.98 parking spaces while that portion in the O District requires 2.95 parking spaces; thus a total requirement of 7.93 parking spaces. The proposal includes an 8-space off- street parking lot at the north side of the property. Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: 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, there is a five-foot wide perimeter buffer required along the west property line. Presently, the subject property meets this requirement; however by enlarging the landscape island adjacent to Jordan Hills Court and by restriping the off-street parking area to accommodate a Code compliant handicap parking space, a 24-foot Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 4 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 portion of this buffer will be reduced to three feet. This will not, however, have a detrimental effect upon the landscape plan as the required hedge material and trees will still be provided. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, the perimeter landscape buffers for the entire property are required to consist of 12 shade trees (one tree every 35 feet). Only six shade trees currently exist on the property and one additional shade tree (live oak) and two accent trees (crape myrtle) are proposed to be planted. With these additional trees the total on site will be brought up to eight shade trees, which is still short of the requirement; however based upon the shape of the subject property and the size of the existing trees there is no possible located where additional tree could be planted along the perimeter. As such, Staff supports the request to reduce the number of perimeter trees from 12 to 8. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building fa�ade with frontage along a street 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 palm equivalents) for every 40 linear feet of building fa�ade and one shrub for every 20square feet of required landscape area. The proposal includes a request to reduce the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet and despite the reduction in width the proposal will still accommodate all plantings that could otherwise be expected to be installed. Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: 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/ar 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 far the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 5 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the CG and R/OG land use categories and the C and O Districts as per CDC Sections 2-701.1, 2- 1001.1, Table 2-704 and Table 2-1004: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR CG 0.55 0.36 X R/OG 0.50 0.15 ISR CG 0.90 0.42 X R/OG 0.75 0.74 Minimum Lot Area N/A 10,000 sq. ft. (0.229 acres) Xi Minimum Lot Width N/A 105.86 feet Xl Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to pavement) Xi 10.41 feet (to building) Side: N/A North: 6.41 feet (to pavement) Xi 50 feet (to building) South: 15 feet (to pavement) Xi 10 feet (to building) Rear: N/A West: 3 feet (to pavement) Xi 14.77 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 20.749 feet Xl Minimum C District 4 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA 8 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking O District 3 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA (3.58 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA) 1 See analysis in StaffReport Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Sections 2-703.0 and 2-10048 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proj ect): 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 pernutted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighbarhood; 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 ar flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides far 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 £ The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a warking 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; a 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 tea�tures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape desian and appropriate distances between buildines. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 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 warking in the neighbarhood. 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 July 1, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findin�s 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 0.28 acre property is located on the west side of the cul-de-sac for Jordan Hills Court; 2. The north half of the property is zoned Office (0) District with an underlying land use plan category of Residential/Office General (R/OG); 3. The south half of the property is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying land use plan category of Commercial General (CG); 4. The majority of the eastern third of the property is an ingress/egress easement that contains the paved street Jordan Hills Court; 5. The subject property is currently developed with a 1,841 square foot office, associated off- street parking and a retention area; 6. The purpose of this application is to construct a 390 square foot addition at the rear of the existing building that effectively fills-in the opening of the "U"-shaped building while maintaining the existing side (west) setback of 14.77 feet; and 7. 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, 2-704, 2-1001.1 and 2-1004; Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: FLD2010-06005 2010-08-17 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community Development Code Sections 2-704.0 and 2-1004.B; 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 Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development request for a 392 square foot addition to an existing office in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a lot area of 10,000 square feet; a lot width of 105.86 feet; a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 10.41 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 6.41 feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of 15 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building); a rear (west) setback of 3 feet (to pavement) and 14.77 feet (to building); a building height of 21 feet; and 8 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B. as well as a reductions from the required perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 9 feet (east), and from 5 feet to 3 feet (west); a reduction from the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet; and a reduction of the required perimeter buffer trees from 12 to 8 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions: Conditions of A�proval: 1. That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the e�terior of the buildings be painted the same color as the building; and 2. 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 Stafi Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager ATTACIIIVIENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs S: lPlanning DepartmentlC D B IFLEX (FLD) IPending casesl Up for the next CDBl7ordan Hills 1472 (C & O) 2010.08 - RTIStaffReport. docx Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 FLD2010-06005 — Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: TA2010-07002 2010-08-17 CDB Meeting Date Case Number: Ordinance Number Agenda Item: REQUEST: Au u.°� st 17, 2009 TA2010-07002 8211-10 E1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT Amendments to the Community Development Code — Ordinance No. 8211-10 INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND: There are various impetuses for proposed Ordinance No. 8211-10. City Council requested that accessory use provisions for overnight accommodations be further amended. The Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition in conjunction with the Planning and Development Department identified several issues with parking and outdoor storage in residential areas that could be addressed with Code amendments. Lastly, staff found several areas where further clarification was needed and consistency was lacking between the Community Development Code and the Code of Ordinances and Florida Statutes. ANALYSIS: Proposed Ordinance No. 8211-10 includes amendments addressing the items listed above. Below please find a description of each proposed amendment. 1. Sidewalk Vendors (Pages 2-3 and 6-9 of proposed ordinance.) The proposed amendment is to delete sidewalk vendors as an allowed use in the Tourist and Downtown zoning districts. This amendment would make the Community Development Code consistent with the Code of Ordinances which prohibits trading and selling on streets, except for ice cream trucks in residential areas (Section 28.04). 2. Accessory Uses in the Overnight Accommodation Use in the Commercial and Tourist Districts (Pages 4-6 of proposed ordinance.) In order to address overnight accommodations with few rooms, but large accessory full- service restaurants, the proposed amendment requires that overnight accommodation uses with fewer than 50 rooms comply with the parking standards for restaurant uses. Only the portion of the development used as a restaurant would have to comply with that use Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 TA2010-07002 — Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: TA2010-07002 2010-08-17 standard. This ensures that adequate parking is provided for patrons of the restaurant that are not patrons of the hotel or motel. 3. Docks (Pages 9-10 of proposed ordinance.) The City Attorney's office raised concerns about potential takings and/or Bert Harris Act claims if the dock provisions deny a property owner his or her constitutional right to reach the water. To address this concern the Assistant City Attorney developed language to be added to the deviation section of the dock provisions (Section 3-601.C.3.i.iv). Specifically, the amendment states if an applicant demonstrates riparian or littoral rights which affect the location of the dock, the minimum deviation needed to exercise those rights should be allowed. The other proposed dock amendment relates to the addition of boat lifts to existing docks. Current Code Section 3-601 D.1 specifies that dock lifts can be installed on existing approved docks and are exempt from setback requirements. The Planning and Development Department is proposing to eliminate this provision due to potential conflicts. The existing section could allow a boat lift to be located on the side property line as e�tended into the water and thereby create navigation problems and/or neighborhood conflicts. The proposed amendment eliminates this possible conflict. 4. Parking Restrictions in Residential Areas (Pages 10-11 of proposed ordinance.) Proposed Ordinance No. 8211-10 establishes new provisions for parking in residential areas and provides language that more directly spells out how the Code has been applied in the past. The first amendment specifies that boat trailers cannot exceed 25 feet in length if located in the front setback This amendment was requested by the Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition as the existing code provision addresses hauling trailers but not boat trailers. Situations in the community exist where large boat trailers are parked in the front setback without a boat and Code Compliance staff has not been able to address the issue since the Code is silent on this type of trailer. There have also been limited circumstances where a large boat trailer has been parked in the front setback with a boat less than 20 feet in length on it. In those circumstances, staff has not been able to take any enforcement action as the boat size is in compliance with the current code provision. Staff is also proposing a new section to clearly identify the types and size of vehicles that may be parked in side and rear setbacks. Historically, the Planning and Development Department staff has relied on the front setback provisions to determine what is allowed in the side and rear setback The proposed amendment would allow boats exceeding 20 feet in length, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, ATV, and the like to be parked in these areas provided they are screened with a six foot high fence, wall or hedge. The last amendment to this section clarifies that certain commercial vehicles cannot be parked in residential zoning districts. The existing language contained in Section 3- 1407.A.3 can be read several different ways, therefore the Planning and Development Department is proposing language that clarifies that commercial vehicles exceeding a Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 TA2010-07002 — Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: TA2010-07002 2010-08-17 certain size (large service vehicles, box trucks, bucket trucks, etc.) cannot be stored in residential neighborhoods. 5. Outdoor Storage in Residential Areas (Pages 11-12 of proposed ordinance.) Staff and the Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition have identified two issues related to outdoor storage in residential areas. One is the storage of items on carports and the other is cars covered by tarps. Based on the definition of building, a carport is considered a building and therefore not subject to the outdoor display/storage provisions. Planning and Development Department staff is proposing an amendment to Section 3-1502.G.1 which would make carports subject to the outdoor display/storage provisions. The impact of this amendment would limit the type of items that can be stored on carports to those items designed for use outdoors. In response to concerns raised by the Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition about the use of car covers to conceal inoperable vehicles, proposed Ordinance No. 8211-10 includes a provision that stipulates if a vehicle is covered, the bottom six inches of the tires must be visible. It also requires that either the license plate be visible from the right-of-way or the license number be printed on the cover. Lastly the provision requires the cover to be maintained in good condition. 6. Nuisances (Page 12 of proposed ordinance.) Recently it was determined the Community Development Code only provides one way to gain enforcement of nuisance violations. If the property owner does not bring the violation into compliance, the City is only authorized to abate the nuisance. This places the burden of enforcement on the City and not on the property owner. The Planning and Development Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney's Office, is proposing to amend several sections of the Code to provide Code Compliance staff three options for enforcement — notice of violation to be decided by the MCEB, a ticket to the Court or actual abatement. The proposed amendments will provide staff with a variety of tools to tackle nuisance problems and should reduce the costs incurred by the City for abatement. 7. Community Residential Home Separation Requirement (Pages 12-13 of proposed ordinance.) Although it's long been staff practice, and Florida Statute requires a 1,000 foot separation between community residential homes, the requirement is not currently in the Code for all community residential homes. This proposed amendment would include this requirement as part of the definition. Consistency between the City's Code, staff practice and State Statute is essential in providing good customer service. Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 TA2010-07002 — Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: TA2010-07002 2010-08-17 CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing te�t amendments. All te�t amendments must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goals and Policy which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments: Goal A.3 The city of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the city through consistent implementation of the community development code. The proposed amendment dealing with outdoor storage meets this goal of the aesthetic needs of the city by limiting what can be stored outdoors to those items intended for outdoor use; therefore ensuring residential areas are not cluttered, but neat and attractive. Goal A.6 The city of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. The proposed amendments addressing vehicles allowed in residential areas and the community residential home separation requirement both meet this goal to ensure neighborhood preservation because they are aimed at keeping residential areas free of commercial and industrial transport and use. It is not appropriate for commercial and industrial vehicles to line the streets and fill the parking spaces in residential areas. It is likewise inappropriate for community residential homes to cluster together, transforming the original single family residential character of a neighborhood. 2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed te�t amendment will further the purposes of the Community Development Code in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103. • It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city (CDC Section 1-103.A). Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 TA2010-07002 — Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT: TA2010-07002 2010-08-17 The amendments that address issues in residential areas (parking restrictions, outdoor storage and community residential homes) are all aimed at maintaining quality of life and preserving the residential character of neighborhoods. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that e�sting and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum e�tent permitted by law (CDC Section 1-103.D). Two of the amendments in the residential areas, parking restrictions and outdoor storage, also contribute to the beautification of the city, specifically the residential areas. • Coordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions relating to parking, fences and walls, signs, minimum habitable area and like supplementary requirements designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water within the city (CDC Section 1-103.E.12). The proposed amendment regarding parking restrictions is consistent with this Code section as it regulates parking by ensuring an appropriate number according to use. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8211-10 that amends the Community Development Code. Prepared by Planning Department Staf£ Cate Lee, Planner II ATTACHMENT: ❑ Ordinance No. 8211-10 S: lPlanning DepartmentlCommunity Development Code12010 Code AmendmentslTA2010-07002 - Code VIIStaffReportlOrdinance No 8211-10 CDB StaffReport 2010 08-17-09.doc Community Development Board — August 17, 2010 TA2010-07002 — Page 5 � O � } � �� U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 — 1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes x No 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N Yes X No 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Range Road Yes x No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): l. Case: Case: TA2010-07002— Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes � No I have conducte ers na 'nves i ation n the ersonal site visit to the ollowin ro Signature: Date: i � � 1 � �t� ��1-�d7v PRINT NAME S: IPlanning Departmentl C D BlAgendas DRC & CDB I CDBI2010108 August 17, 2010V Cover MEMO 2010.doc � O } �� -- U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 — 1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes No � 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N Yes No %� 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Range Road Yes No � LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtem 1): 1. Case: Case: TA2010-07002— Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a ersonal investi ation o the ersonal site visit to the ollowin ro Signature: �"�^� Date: � �V' 4 �V1 ��,�C 1^ PRINT NAME S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBlAgen�lasDRC&CDBICDBI2010108August 17, 201011 CoverMEMO2010.doc � � O �� U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 -1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes No '`v 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 - 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N �� J No Yes � 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 - 2120 Range Road Yes ,� No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: Case: TA2010-07002- Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conduc ed a:erso lll Z VCS Qil t� on rne ei'SOnul �'ue vi�'ti to tne oiivrvcic i v c� �� i � �_ ' � Signature: - �� Date: � � ' � � � � ,. , �, - ��,y, �� K� ' �� < <_� � �� G�' �� PRINT NAME S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBlAgendasDRC& CDBICDBI2010108August 17, 201011 CoverMEM02010.doc �� LL ° �ar�va �r � � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 — 1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes No 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N Yes No 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Range Road Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: Case: TA2010-07002— Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a person.a�ation on the personal site visit � %�/Ir�� • �� PRINT NAME S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBlAgendasDRC&CDBICDBI2010108August 17, 2010V CoverMEM02010.doc � � ° �ar�wa er � � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 —1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes No 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N Yes No ° 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Range Road Yes No � LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 11: 1. Case: Case: TA2010-07002— Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No ' a site Signature: ` , . � Date: ; I ~`� � � n � , . ` ` � PRINT NAME S.• IPlanning Departmentl C D B 1Agendas DRC & CDB I CDB 12010108 August 17, 2010V Cover MEMO 2010. doc / � O } �a�a �r � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for August 17, 2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting on July 20, 2010 Level Two Applications (Item 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06005 —1472 Jordan Hills Court Yes No � � 2. Case: FLD2010-05004 — 2414 Enterprise Road and 26034 U.S. Hwy 19 N � Yes No �,�'� 3. Case: Case: FLD2010-06002 — 2120 Ran e Road Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: Case: TA2010-070 2— Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes n o� I have conducted ersonal investi ation on the e onal site visit to the ollowin ro Signature• Date: � y [ �� v PRINT NAME S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBlAgendasDRC&CDBICDBI2010108August17,2010V CoverMEMO2010.doc