10/19/2010
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 19, 2010
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning & Development Director
Robert Tefft Development Review Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 21, 2010
Member Hinrichs moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of September 21, 2010, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1 – 3)
1. Pulled From Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2010-09028 – 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Agent: Kevin Dunbar, Director, Parks and Recreation Department (100 S. Myrtle Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4823; fax: 727-562-4825; email:
kevin.dunbar@myclearwater.com).
Location: 6.3 acres located on the north side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 300
feet west of Coronado Drive (southwest corner of Pier 60 parking lot).
Atlas Page: 267A.
Existing Zoning: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of the Beach Lifeguard
Station as a Parks and Recreation Facility in the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District with a
2.1-foot rear setback to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and a building height of
Community Development 2010-10-19 1
22.25 feet (to midpoint of the pitched roof), with no changes to the existing lot width, lot area,
other required setbacks or number of parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1404.A.
Proposed Use: Parks & Recreation Facility (Expansion of Beach Lifeguard Station).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
Member Barker declared a conflict of interest.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed plans to expand the beach
lifeguard station, which he said is well situated for lifeguard functions. He said the location is
specific and necessary and listed nearby deviations to CCCL (Coastal Construction Control
Line) requirements.
Concerns were expressed that the design phase of Beach Walk should have considered
this need and government should abide by the same rules as citizens. It was felt that relocating
the lifeguard station to meet required setbacks would not impair public safety as the resulting
increase in distance between the structure and water would be insignificant.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2010-09028 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson,
Hinrichs, and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member Barker
abstained. Motion carried.
2. Case: FLD2010-08001 – 22 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mathura Properties #5, LLC.
Agent: Tuan Huynh, P.E. (2442 Grand Central Parkway, Unit 16, Orlando, FL 32839;
phone: 407-812-5480; fax: 407-812-5480; email: tuan@rcefl.com).
Location: 0.10 acre located on the north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet
west of Mandalay Avenue.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a
lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet (along Bay Esplanade), a front (south) setback
of 15 feet (to sidewalk) and 18 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a
side (east) setback of 10 feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 19 feet (to building), a building
height of 15.33 feet (to top of flat roof) and 17.33 feet (to top of parapet) and zero parking spaces
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-803.C and a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on
Community Development 2010-10-19 2
the front (south) façade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Restaurant
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhood
Coalition
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
See below for motion of approval.
3. Case: FLD2010-08003 – 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Kernan Webb.
Agent: Braulio Grajales, P.E. (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone:
727-723-3771; fax: 727-723-7150; email: bgrajales@hpe-fl.com).
Location: 0.656 acre located at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and S Fort
Harrison Avenue.
Atlas Page: 295B.
Existing Zoning: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic within the Downtown (D)
District with a building height of 48.25 feet (to top of cupola) and 43 parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-903.C. and a reduction to the foundation landscape area on the front (east)
façade from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10
percent to 9.2 percent and to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square-feet and
less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Old Clearwater Bay
Neighborhood Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2010-08001 and FLD2010-08003 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. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
E. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 – 3)
1. Level Three Application
Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning & Development Department.
Request: Amend the Comprehensive Plan relative to the annual update of the Capital
Improvements Element consistent with the City’s FY10/11–FY14/15 Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP), Pinellas County School District Five-Year Work Program, FY10/11–FY14/15, MPO
Community Development 2010-10-19 3
Transportation Improvement Program, FY10/11–FY14/15 and FDOT Five-Year Work Program,
2011-2015.
Type of Amendment: Transmittal to Department of Community Affairs – exempt from twice per
calendar year large-scale plan amendment process.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2010-05001 2010-10-19
Long Range Planning Manager Tammy Vrana reviewed the Staff Report, noting a
correction to page 14 (the Exhibit is correct). In response to questions, she said Memorial
Causeway is a policy constrained roadway where additional traffic lanes may not be appropriate
to meet the level of service standard. Population projections used in the CIE update were from
the Comprehensive Plan which is updated every five years. She will provide information on the
planned use for FY (Fiscal Year) 2011/12 library funds and if sidewalks funds are allocated prior
to FY 2014/15.
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2010-05001 as amended in
the attached Staff Report, 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.
Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
2a
. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2010-06002 – 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rupple & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365).
Location: 131.05 acres located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay approximately 900 feet
east of S. Bayshore Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 292B.
Request:
a)
Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (I), Commercial General (CG),
Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Residential Low (RL), and Water/Drainage
Feature Categories to Institutional (I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and
Water/Drainage Feature Categories;
Proposed Use: Educational Facilities.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Member Coates moved to accept Lauren Matzke as an expert witness at these
LUZ2010-06002 hearings in the fields of historic preservation, annexations, land development
codes and development code amendments, and comprehensive planning. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2010-10-19 4
Member Coates moved to incorporate the record of the August 3, 2010 Special CDB
(Community Development Board) meeting into evidence at these LUZ2010-06002 hearings.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough
did not vote.
Planner III Lauren Matzke reviewed the Staff Report and changes based on PPC
(Pinellas Planning Council) recommendations. City Comprehensive Plan policies permit
wetlands mitigation.
Applicant representative Katie Cole said this request reduces the amount of wetland
impact and is less significant than the original application.
Member Coates moved to accept at these LUZ2010-06002 hearings Abbey Naylor as an
expert witness in the fields of environmental permitting and management, David Gildersleeve as
an expert witness in the fields of site planning, comprehensive plans, and development code,
and Thomas Cuba, Ph.D. as an expert witness scientist in environmental habitats at these
LUZ2010-06002 hearings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Ms. Cole said the change will eliminate planned ball fields proposed in the vicinity of the
eagle’s nest. She said the strip of land on the campus’ northeast edge will change from
Institutional to Preservation to meet the wetland buffer requirement. In response to a question,
she said permit requirements related to a proposed conversation easement with SWFWMD
(Southwest Florida Water Management District) in the mid 1990s never were fulfilled. She said
the end result of these efforts will provide a proper conservation easement.
Four residents spoke, with opposition expressed to the approval process and landfill
proposal and concerns expressed that the conservation area abutting Del Oro Groves will
remain and details of this hearing should have been communicated to all County residents.
Randy Livingston, representing the applicant, said the school’s unique character does
not lend itself to satellite campuses. He said a large portion of the campus was gifted to the
school. In response to a question, Ms. Cole said campus property acquisition is separate from
development requests.
Discussion ensued with support expressed for changes that increase Preservation land,
mitigation requirements, and the perpetual easement that will prohibit future development. It
was stated that changes near the eagle’s nest are more conducive to eagle behavior. The
applicant was complimented for providing certified experts to answer board questions. It was
stated that the project depends on the success of the mitigation plan which may not be known
for many years. One member apologized for voting in favor of the original application in August
in spite of personal concerns regarding environmental issues.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of the Future Land Use Plan
amendment for Case LUZ2010-06002 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. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2010-10-19 5
2b
. Level Three Application
Case: LUZ2010-06002 – 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rupple & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365).
Location: 131.05 acres located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay approximately 900 feet
east of S. Bayshore Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 292B.
Request:
b)
Zoning Atlas amendment from the Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Preservation (P), Low
Density Residential (LDR) and Open Space/ Recreation (OS/R) Districts to Institutional (I),
Preservation (P) and Open Space/ Recreation (OS/R) Districts.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Educational Facilities.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Ms. Matzke reviewed the staff report.
Attorney Cole requested that testimony from the August 3, 2010 Special CDB
(Community Development Board) meeting be included by reference into evidence at these
LUZ2010-06002 hearings.
Two residents spoke with concern expressed that the college may wish to expand in the
future and citizen collaboration related to growth management had not occurred.
Mr. Livingston said the college wants to stay small and must cap student growth to meet
its mission. He said the proposed footprint is the largest expansion the campus will ever
achieve.
It was suggested that future growth could be virtual as today’s actions ensure that no
future encroachment into the wetlands will occur. It was noted the agreement provides for a net
gain in Preservation acreage.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas amendment for
Case LUZ2010-06002 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.
Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
3. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2010-06001 – 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Community Development 2010-10-19 6
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rupple & Burns,
LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-
0365).
Location: 131.05 acres located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay approximately 900 feet
east of S. Bayshore Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 2928.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amendment to a
Development Agreement between Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc. (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-
606.
Proposed Use: Educational Facilities uses of up to 170,000 square-feet of non-residential floor
area (0.169 Floor Area Ratio) and up to 750 Dormitory Beds/Residents (12.5 dwelling units per
acre) at a maximum height of 50 feet.
Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Estates Association and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2010-06001 2010-10-19
Ms. Matzke summarized the amendment.
In response to questions, Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said the
application must be resubmitted to the City if the mitigation plan is not approved. Ms. Cole said
the 20-year contractual obligation is tied to the campus' master site plan and assures that all
requirements must be met.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2010-06001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not
vote.
F. DIRECTOR ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Holiday Luncheon
Administrative Analyst Sherry Watkins requested input regarding the annual charity and
location for the holiday luncheon. At the November meeting, she will report on the results of
member input.
G. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
' & C_???
hair
mmunity Development Board
7
Community Development 2010-10-19
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
'LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF HOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Barker Brian City of Clearwater Community Development Board
MAILING ADDRESS THE HOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
4625 East Bay Drive, Ste 211 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY COUNTY CYCITY O COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
Clearwater, FL Pinellas NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
City of Clearwater
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION 15:
October 19, 2010 a ELECTIVE CY APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST. FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure In which you have a conflict of Interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should Incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is fled.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, Brian Barker , hereby disclose that on October 19 20 10
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
x inured to the special gain or loss of Deuel & Associates by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
?L? 2? t b D 9 oa-? l 8a $ . Gt,? (-?v i ew BC14 • ) _
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 112000
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-09028
Agenda Item: D.3.
Owner/ Applicant: City of Clearwater
Representative: Kevin Dunbar, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Address: 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of the
Beach Lifeguard Station as a Parks and Recreation Facility in the
Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District with a 2.1-foot rear
setback to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and a
building height of 22.25 feet (to midpoint of the pitched roof), with
no changes to the existing lot width, lot area, other required
setbacks or number of parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-1404.A.
CURRENT ZONING: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Beach Lifeguard Station
Proposed Use: Beach Lifeguard Station
EXISTING North: Open Space/Recreation Pier 60
SURROUNDING (OS/R) District
ZONING AND USES: South: Open Space/Recreation Clearwater Beach
(OS/R) District
East: Tourist (T) District Temporary Parking Lot
West: Preservation (P) District Gulf of Mexico
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 6.3 acres is located on the north side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 300 feet west of
Coronado Drive (southwest corner of Pier 60 parking lot). The subject property is currently
developed with a two-story beach lifeguard station, Pier 60 buildings and parking lot and
Clearwater Beach.
The property adjacent to the north is zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and is
developed with Pier 60 buildings and the beach. The property to the south is zoned Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and is developed with the beach. The property to the east is
zoned Tourist (T) District and is developed with a temporary parking lot (approved for a 450-
room hotel under Case No. FLD2008-05013). The property to the west is zoned Preservation (P)
District and is the Gulf of Mexico.
Development Proposal:
The City of Clearwater has proposed to upgrade and remodel the existing two-story Beach
Lifeguard Station by adding new stairs with incidental storage closets on the north and south
sides of the building and a new third floor for a look-out and classes. There presently exists one
internal stairway. To provide access to the second and third floors and meet Building and Fire
Codes, new stairwells are proposed, as they are required on both the north and south sides of the
building. A platform lift will provide handicap accessibility between the floors in the south
stairwell. The first floor is currently, and will remain, storage for wave runners, surf boards and
lifeguard equipment, but the access to these storage areas will be reoriented toward the west and
BeachWalk. The second floor will be remodeled to upgrade restrooms, showers, kitchen, storage
and lockers. The third floor addition is stepped back from the east and west sides of the
building’s façade. The exterior of this building will be upgraded to a stucco finish with a primary
color of “lightweight beige” and an accent color of “sandbank” and a metal tile roof.
Through the review of a Building Permit BCP2010-07481 for the remodeling of this building it
was discovered that this building is located 2.1 feet east of the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL). Pursuant to the Community Development Code (CDC) Table 2-1402, the rear setback
in the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District for Parks and Recreation Facilities is 25 feet.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-905, the measurement of required setbacks must be from the CCCL
and any reductions to setbacks from the CCCL must be decided through a Level Two application
by the Community Development Board (CDB). The existing building is deemed nonconforming
to the required rear setback. CDC Section 6-102.D requires additions to nonconforming
structures to meet the required setbacks. This proposal includes a 2.1-foot rear setback to the
CCCL. This building has existed at this location for some time and is well situated for beach
lifeguards and their functions. Relocating these functions to a different location on the beach is
not feasible or prudent from a life safety standpoint for beach users. The building remodeling
will allow safety personnel much needed field of vision for monitoring safety on the beach. This
redevelopment proposal is impracticable without the requested deviation to this required rear
setback standard in the OS/R District. This building is presently located adjacent to the Pier 60
parking lot access. There will be no additional parking required for this building remodeling, as
existing parking is adequate. Existing landscaping of palms and shrubs will be removed from the
west side of this building to accommodate the reorientation of the storage areas on the ground
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
floor toward BeachWalk. The proposed additions will not impact the public restrooms directly
north of this building. The proposal complies with Beach by Design guidelines.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1402, the minimum rear required setback as a
Minimum Standard Development for a Parks and Recreation Facilities use is 25 feet. The
existing structure does not meet this required setback, as it is located only 2.1 feet from the
CCCL. A Parks and Recreation Facilities use is not listed in CDC Table 2-1403 (Flexible
Standard Development [FLS]) or CDC Table 2-1404 (Flexible Development [FLD]). Therefore,
any reduction to the required rear setback for a Parks and Recreation Facilities use must be
processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (the only use set out under CDC
Table 2-1404, and where there are no minimum required setbacks). The proposal requests a rear
(west) setback of 2.1 feet (to building). This Beach Lifeguard Station is part of the Pier 60
complex, including the parking lot, and is adjacent to BeachWalk. This building is in direct view
of the public from S. Gulfview Blvd. and Coronado Drive.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for Parks and Recreation Facilities under CDC Table 2-1402 is 30 feet. The
proposal includes a building height of 22.25 feet (from Base Flood Elevation [BFE] to midpoint
of the pitched roof), well below the allowed building height.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based on
the plans submitted under Building Permit BCP2010-07481, mechanical equipment will be
placed on a second floor balcony on the east side of the southern stairwell addition. There will be
railings with maintenance gates along the edge of this balcony for screening purposes.
Utilities: The utilities for this building are presently located underground. The proposal includes
the relocation of the electrical equipment from the east to south side of the building. This
electrical equipment will need to be painted the same color as the wall it is attached to.
Landscaping: There presently exist shrubs and five cabbage palms located within a semi-circle
landscape area on the west side of the building. This existing landscaping will be relocated by
the City to other areas of the beach to accommodate the reorientation of the storage areas on the
ground floor toward BeachWalk.
Signage: There presently is no signage for this Beach Lifeguard Station. The proposal includes
an attached sign on the east side of the second floor of the building, which will provide
information to the general public about the use of this building.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1404.A (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or
preservation of a working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of October 7, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 6.3 acres is located on the north side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 300 feet
west of Coronado Drive (southwest corner of Pier 60 parking lot);
2.The subject property is currently developed with a two-story beach lifeguard station, Pier 60
buildings and parking lot and Clearwater Beach;
3.The proposal is to upgrade and remodel the existing two-story Beach Lifeguard Station by
adding new stairs with incidental storage closets on the north and south sides of the building
and a new third floor for a look-out and classes;
4.The rear setback in the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District for Parks and Recreation
Facilities is 25 feet;
5.According to CDC Section 3-905.A, the measurement of required setbacks must be from the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL);
6.This building is located 2.1 feet east of the CCCL and is nonconforming to the required rear
setback;
7.CDC Section 6-102.D for nonconforming structures requires additions to meet the required
setbacks;
8.CDC Section 3-905.C.3 requires reductions to setbacks from the CCCL to be decided
through a Level Two application by the Community Development Board (CDB);
9.This proposal includes a 2.1-foot rear setback to the CCCL;
10.This building is well situated for beach lifeguards and their functions, where relocation of
these functions to a different location on the beach is not feasible or prudent from a life
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-09028 2010-10-19
safety standpoint for beach users and where remodeling will allow safety personnel much
needed field of vision for monitoring safety on the beach;
11.The proposal includes a building height of 22.25 feet (from Base Flood Elevation [BFE] to
midpoint of the pitched roof), well below the allowed building height of 30 feet; and
12.There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-1401.1 and
Table 2-1404 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
1404.A of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of the Beach Lifeguard Station as
a Parks and Recreation Facility in the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District with a 2.1-foot
rear setback to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and a building height of 22.25 feet
(to midpoint of the pitched roof), with no changes to the existing lot width, lot area, other
required setbacks or number of parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1404.A, with the
following condition:
Condition of Approval:
1.That outdoor electrical equipment attached to the building be painted the same color as that
portion of the building where attached.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Gulfview S 180 Beach Lifeguard Station (T) 2010.10 - 10.19.10
CDB - RT\Gulfview S 180 Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-09028 – Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-08001
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owner/ Applicant: Mathura Properties #5, LLC
Agent: Tuan Huynh, P.E., Regional Consulting Engineers, LLC
Address: 22 Bay Esplanade
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the
Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width
of 50 feet (along Bay Esplanade), a front (south) setback of 15 feet
(to sidewalk) and 18 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10
feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 10 feet (to building), a
rear (north) setback of 19 feet (to building), a building height of
15.33 feet (to top of flat roof) and 17.33 feet (to top of parapet) and
zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-803.C and a reduction to the foundation landscape
requirement on the front (south) facade from five feet to zero feet
as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facility High (RFH) Category
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Restaurant
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING Attached dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District
Government Use; and Off-Street Parking Lot
East: Tourist (T) District
Automobile Service Station; and Retail Sales
and Services
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight Accommodations; and Restaurant
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.099 acre site is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet west of
Mandalay Avenue and has 50 feet of frontage on Bay Esplanade. The property is zoned Tourist
(T) District and is currently vacant. The site is located within the special area redevelopment
plan, Beach by Design, as part of the “Old Florida” District which is an area of transition
between resort uses to the south and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of
Acacia Street. The preferred form of development is a mix of uses primarily including new
overnight accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay
Esplanade and Somerset Street. To ensure that the scale and character of development in “Old
Florida” provides the desired transition between the adjacent tourist and residential areas,
enhanced site design performance is a priority, including greater setbacks.
The immediate vicinity is composed of an off-street parking lot, attached dwellings, retail sales
and services, restaurants, governmental uses and an automobile service station. Structures in the
area vary in height between one and three stories, and generally resemble architecture from the
1950’s.
Development Proposal:
On August 3, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted
for a restaurant use on the subject property. It is anticipated that the restaurant will mainly serve
ice cream, sandwiches, hot dogs, French fries and drinks. The proposed building will contain
1,500 square feet of gross floor area with seating for approximately 24 patrons. In addition to the
patrons located inside, the restaurant will have two walk-up windows for patrons who do not
desire indoor seating. The proposed building will have a height of 17.33 feet to top of parapet
and will have both a stone finish and sand finished stucco façade. Additionally, as Beach by
Design requires awnings to protect pedestrians from the elements, the restaurant has proposed
brushed aluminum finished awnings at the entrance and walk-up windows to protect patrons.
The proposal includes only a reduction to lot area for restaurants in the T District from 5,000
square feet to 4,350 square feet and a reduction to the off-street parking requirement from 23
spaces to zero spaces. On June 15, 2010, the Community Development Board denied case
FLD2010-03004 for two attached dwellings at the subject property. The previous proposal
requested setback reductions but did not provide an improved site plan, increased landscaping
and/or improved design and appearance to mitigate for the setback reduction as required by
Beach by Design. No setback reductions are proposed with this application.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) land use category and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-801.1, the
maximum allowable FAR is 1.0. The proposed restaurant will have a FAR of 0.345.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) land use category and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95.
The proposed ISR is 0.385, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area for restaurant use can range from 5,000 – 10,000 square feet.
Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width can range from 50 – 100 feet. The lot width
along Bay Esplanade is 50 feet, which is consistent with the Code provisions for restaurants.
Pursuant to the Community Development Code, a reduction in lot area will not result in a
building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. Immediately
west of the subject parcel is the three-story Palm Pavilion Hotel which comprises the majority of
the parcel. As the subject building is only one-story in height and meets all required setbacks,
Staff has determined that the reduction in lot size will not result in a building out of scale with
existing buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Minimum Setbacks: The “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design, which supersedes those
development standards set forth in the CDC, requires a 15 foot front setback as well as 10 foot
side and rear setbacks for the subject property. The proposal includes a 15 foot front setback, 10
foot side setbacks and a 19 foot rear setback. The proposal meets the above development
standards.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for restaurant use can range from 25 – 100 feet. The proposal includes a
building height of 15.33 feet (to top of flat roof) and 17.33 feet (to top of parapet), which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for
restaurants is 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has requested
a reduction to the required off-street parking spaces from 23 spaces to zero spaces. It is
anticipated that the majority of the restaurant patrons will be walk-up customers as this is not a
destination restaurant in that it serves only ice cream products, drinks and a limited amount of
light fare. Many patrons will come from nearby hotels, the beach and other businesses which
have their own on-site parking. The parking demand study shows that there are four public
parking facilities with 294 parking spaces and 94 on-street parking spaces within 1,000 feet of
the parcel proposed for development. Staff concurs that the physical characteristics of the
proposed building are such that the use of the property will not require on-site parking as this is
not a destination restaurant.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The
mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and screened with a parapet wall.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster located at the south side of the property
and will be screened from the right-of-way with a solid white PVC vinyl fence. The proposal has
been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The proposal includes undergrounding of all proposed
utilities.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1.foundation plantings shall be provided for
100 percent of the building façade along Bay Esplanade. Additionally, the “Old Florida” District
of Beach by Design requires a 10 foot wide front landscape buffer. The proposed building has
been designed with two walk-up windows and double entry doors which limit the amount of
building façade to be planted with landscape material. Therefore, the applicant has proposed a 15
foot wide landscape buffer along the front and additional planting on both sides and rear of the
building to mitigate for the lack of foundation plantings. Staff has determined that this landscape
treatment is more attractive than landscaping otherwise required and it will enhance the
community character of the immediate vicinity.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
Architectural theme
1. :
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803 and the “Old Florida” District of Beach by
Design:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 1.0 0.345 X
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.385 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 4,350 sq. ft. (0.099 acres) X 1
Minimum Lot Width N/A 50 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 feet South: 15 feet (to building) X
Rear: 10 feet North: 19 feet (to building) X
Side: 10 feet East: 10 feet (to building) X
West: 10 feet (to building) X
Maximum Height N/A 17.33 feet (to top of parapet) X
Minimum 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa Zero spaces X 1
Off-Street Parking (23 spaces required)
1
See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
?
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 2, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 0.099-acre subject property is within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort
Facilities High (RFH) land use plan category;
2.That the site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part
of the “Old Florida” District;
3.That the intent of the “Old Florida” District is to provide an area of transition between resort
uses to the south and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street
using enhanced site design performance such as greater setbacks;
4.That adjacent uses are zoned T District developed with multi-family dwellings generally
between one and three stories in height, with the surrounding area a mixture of off-street
parking lot, attached dwellings, retail sales and services, restaurants, government uses and an
automobile service station;
5.That the subject property is vacant;
6.That the subject property has a lot area of 4,350 square feet;
7.That the proposal includes a 1,500 square foot restaurant;
8.That the proposal includes zero parking spaces; and
9.That there are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08001 2010-10-19
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the proposal complies with the “Old Florida” District of Beach by Design;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.C of the Community Development Code; and
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot
area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet (along Bay Esplanade), a front (south) setback of
15 feet (to sidewalk) and 18 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a
side (east) setback of 10 feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 19 feet (to building), a
building height of 15.33 feet (to top of flat roof) and 17.33 feet (to top of parapet) and zero
parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-803.C and a reduction to the foundation landscape
requirement on the front (south) facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.,
with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, all proposed landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy;
2.That all signage be permitted separately;
3.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building;
Prepared by: Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity; Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08001 – Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case Numbers: FLD2010-08003
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner/Applicant: Kernan Webb/ Webb’s Building, LLC
Representative: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering
Addresses: 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic within
the Downtown (D) District with a building height of 48.25 feet (to
top of cupola) and 43 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-903.C. and a reduction to the
foundation landscape area on the front (east) facade from five feet to
zero feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10
percent to 9.2 percent and to allow interior landscape islands of less
than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of
curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING
AND LAND USE PLAN Downtown (D) District
CATEGORY: Central Business District (CBD)
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Downtown Core
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Offices
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
EXISTING North: Downtown (D) District
SURROUNDING
Automobile Service Station
ZONING AND USES:
South: Downtown (D) District
Retail Sales/Services
East: Downtown (D) District
Nightclub
West: Downtown (D) District
Automobile Service Station
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The subject site comprises two parcels, one of which is comprised of 0.41 acres and the other is
0.24 acres. The larger parcel is located at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and South Fort
Harrison Avenue and the smaller parcel is located south of the larger parcel approximately 160
feet east of the intersection of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Rogers Street. Both parcels are
located in the Downtown (D) District within the Downtown Core Character District of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Downtown Core is the government center and
principal employment core of the City. Many of the Pinellas County government offices are
located in the Downtown Core as well as private offices and support uses that desire the proximity
to the government center.
The larger parcel has an existing 14,050 square foot structure located on it and a portion of the
building is currently used for an office. Previously, Webb’s Men’s Store was located in another
portion of this building and has since closed. The smaller parcel is directly south of the larger
parcel, across Rogers Street, and is currently used as an off-street parking lot. The larger parcel is
bound by South Fort Harrison Avenue to the west, Court Street to the north, Rogers Street to the
south and an alley to the east.
Regarding uses, to the both the north and west of the subject property, are automobile service
stations. South of the subject parcel are retail sales and services and just east of the subject parcel
is a nightclub.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to redevelop the existing 14,050 square foot building for a medical clinic. While
a medical clinic is not specifically authorized in the Downtown (D) zoning district, it is
permissible in the Central Business District (CBD) land use plan category and other medical
clinics have been established in the Downtown (D) zoning district. St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser
Institute plans to establish a mid Pinellas clinic at the subject location. The applicant proposes to
remove a previously constructed addition of 970 square feet to allow for a porte cohere on the
east side of the structure resulting in 13,080 square feet of gross floor area. It is anticipated that
patients for surgery will be dropped off under the porte cohere and the vehicle then will be
parked in one of 43 on-site parking spaces. All vehicular traffic will enter via the one-way alley
along the east side of the property.
Regarding architecture, the proposed re-design keeps much of the original building structure
such as the windows, door openings and building projections. To further articulate the facades
the proposal includes a significant corner tower and a corresponding and balancing smaller
corner element at Rogers Street. The most significant change to the building is the proposed
addition of a sloped roof. Accent treatments being proposed include arched heads to the
windows, shutters, and decorative window boxes to the second story windows.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in
particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of
the Plan.
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be
consistent with the following Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office
and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential
projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a
revitalized Downtown.
Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments.
Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents
and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping
destination.
Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies
of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design
guidelines and the Downtown zoning district.
Objective 1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to
provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for
Downtown.
Policy 1: The design guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all
projects must be consistent.
Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design
review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the
vision of the character district in which it is located.
Downtown Design Guidelines:
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with
regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown.
A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items
were identified:
Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines require the retention of the
existing street grid pattern where it contributes to an active pedestrian environment. All three
street frontages are being maintained with sidewalks to contribute to the pedestrian environment.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
Access, Circulation and Parking: The Downtown Design Guidelines require that parking lots be
located behind the primary façade of the principal building and that they be screened with either
a landscaped buffer or a solid wall or fence three feet in height. The proposal has the parking lot
in the rear of the primary façade and is screened with a wall/fence.
Buffering and Screening: The Downtown Design Guidelines require mechanical equipment
located on the roof a building to be integrated into the design of the building through the use of
parapet walls, towers or other architectural elements. The renovated building will have sloped
roof and a building tower to conceal the mechanical equipment.
Landscaping: The Downtown Design Guidelines require plant species that are appropriate to the
space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs, growth rates, size, etc. in order to
conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health. The proposal includes some
native species with appropriate maturity size to limit maintenance and conserve water.
Façade Design/Primary and Corner Facades: The Downtown Design Guidelines require facades
to use a combination of architectural details, materials, window and door patterns and other
design features to form a cohesive and visually interesting design. The design proposed a
significant corner tower at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Fort Harrison Avenue and a
corresponding and balancing smaller corner element at Rogers Street. The corner treatments,
along with the center entry projection break the building down to a pedestrian scale. Vertically,
the proposed building design further defines the base, middle and cap by adding rustication to the
base, horizontal banding and window elements to define the body, and a slight frieze band to
transition into the top of the building.
Materials and Colors: The Downtown Design Guidelines require building constructed of high
quality, long lasting materials. The proposed buildings are utilizing durable materials such as a
stucco finish and metal balconies and railings. Additionally, the Downtown Design Guidelines
require the color scheme of the building to reflect a cohesive pattern and use three or less colors
on the building. The proposed building colors of “Forest Green”, “Coral” and “Brick Red”
complement each other and create a cohesive pattern.
Community Development Code:
A medical clinic is subject to the relevant review criteria of
CDC Sections 2-901.1 and 2-903.C.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the
Downtown Core Character District, the maximum allowable FAR is 4.0. The proposed medical
clinic will have a FAR of 0.457.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, there is
no maximum height restriction in the Downtown Core unless the property it is along Cleveland
Street. The proposed medical clinic has a building height of 48.25 to top of cupola. The proposal
is consistent with these Code provisions.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-903, the medical clinic use is not
specifically authorized and as such there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for
medical clinics. However, for a point of comparison the medical clinic use in the Office (O)
District requires five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and in the
Commercial (C) District, the medical clinic use requires three parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the 13,080 square foot medical clinic will require
between 39 to 65 parking spaces and the proposal has provided for 43 parking spaces. The
applicant has provided a parking demand study showing a peak parking demand to be 3.21
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant studied both the Tampa and St
Petersburg clinics to arrive at the peak parking demand. Based on the peak parking demand of
3.21 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross floor area the proposed Clearwater clinic will require 42
parking spaces. While the proposal provides for 43 parking spaces, the applicant will lease from
the City of Clearwater Parking System 16 parking spaces in public parking lot #24 located at 615
Court Street. The public parking lot is approximately 280 feet from the proposed clinic and will
provide parking spaces for employees only. Based upon the above, staff supports the requested
reduction in the parking requirement.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster located at the southeast corner of the
building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the vehicular use area must
contain landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size. The proposal provides for 9.2
percent of the vehicular use area to be interior landscape islands. Additionally, some interior
landscape islands are not 150 square feet or eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation planting shall be provided for 100 percent of
the building façade along a street right-of-way. A minimum five foot wide landscaped area
composed of at least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building façade
and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area is required. A minimum of 50
percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. The subject site is
bound by four street right-of-ways. The proposal meets the above requirements with the
exception of the east façade facing the alley. The foundation landscaping consists of
washingtonia palms, yellow anise, flax lily, sand cord grass and Indian hawthorne.
As part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program the applicant has proposed to plant additional
landscape material on the south side of the Rogers Street parking lot and a nine foot wide
foundation landscape buffer along the Court Street facade.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is
closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 2-903 and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 4.0 0.457 X
Maximum Building Height None 48.25 feet X
Minimum Off-Street Parking Medical Clinic: N/A 3.29 parking spaces/1000 sq. ft. X 1
(43 parking spaces)
1 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-903.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;
or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 2, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the subject site comprises two parcels, one of which is comprised of 0.41 acres and the
other is 0.24 acres. The larger parcel is located at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and
South Fort Harrison Avenue and the smaller parcel is located south of the larger parcel
approximately 160 feet east of the intersection of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Rogers
Street;
2.That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central
Business District (CBD) Land Use Plan category;
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan as the property is located within the Downtown Core Character District;
4.The property was previously used as an office and retail sales;
5.The applicant, Webb’s Building, LLC, proposes to redevelop the subject property with a
13,080 square feet medical clinic;
6.The structure is proposed at a height of 48.25 feet to top of cupola;
7.The proposal includes a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement from 5 feet to
zero feet on the east facade;
8.The proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to
9.2 percent;
9.The proposal includes 43 parking spaces; and
10.There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-08003 2010-10-19
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the district vision of the Downtown Core
Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
903.C of the CDC;
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 Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria
as per Section 3-1202.G of Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development approval to permit a medical clinic within the Downtown (D) District
with a building height of 48.25 feet (to top of cupola) and 43 parking spaces as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
903.C. and a reduction to the foundation landscape area on the front (east) facade from five feet
to zero feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 9.2 percent
and to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in
width from back of curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, prior to the submission for a site development building permit, a Unity of Title be
approved and recorded for parcels 16-29-15-94626-001-0050 and 16-29-15-94626-002-0030;
2.That, all proposed landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy;
3.That all signage be permitted separately;
4.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building; and
5.That the final design and color of the building is consistent with the plans approved by the
CDB.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
ATTACHMENTS
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
FLD2010-08003 – Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2010-05001 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case #: CPA2010-05001
Ordinance #: 8181-10
Agenda Item: E-1
STAFF REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REQUEST:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment pertaining to the annual update of the
Capital Improvements Element
INITIATED BY: Planning & Development Department
AMENDMENT TYPE: Large-Scale - Exempt
BACKGROUND:
An annual update of the comprehensive plan Capital Improvements Element is required by
Florida Statute to demonstrate the city’s financial ability to maintain public facilities identified in
the comprehensive plan at the adopted level of service standards.
The updated Capital Improvements Element recognizes capital projects listed in the City of
Clearwater Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted on September 22, 2010, as
well as the five-year work programs of the Pinellas County School District, Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization and Florida Department of Transportation.
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Improvements Element must be
transmitted annually to the Florida Department of Community Affairs on or before December 1.
The amendment is exempt from the twice per year limitation on large-scale comprehensive plan
amendments.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed changes to the Capital Improvements Element are in accordance with sections
163.3177(2) and 163.3177(3)(b) 1., Florida Statutes, and Section 9J-5.011, Florida
Administrative Code and are described in the following:
?
Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary: Revised to describe relevant capital projects
and their respective funding sources from the city’s recently adopted CIP.
?
Goals, Objectives and Policies:
Indicates current fiscal year in reference to “Annual Update to the Capital Improvements
-
Element” (Policy I.1.1.2).
Adopts by reference projects listed in the Florida Department of Transportation Five Year
-
Work Program, 2011–2015. (Policy I.1.1.11).
Adopts by reference projects listed in the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
-
Organization Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2010/11–2014/15 (Policy
I.1.1.12).
Extends date by which the city will review the impact fee structures from 2010 to 2014
-
(Policy I.1.4.2).
Indicates the currently adopted timeframe for the Pinellas County School District Five-
-
Year Work Program, FY 2010/11 through FY 2014/15 (Policy I.1.7.6).
?
FY2010/11 Annual Update to the Capital Improvements Element: Revised to include an
updated level of service analysis for the concurrency-related public facilities identified in the
comprehensive plan; a five-year CIP expenditure summary and a five-year CIP year revenue
summary.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1.The amendments will further implementation of the comprehensive plan consistent with the
goals, policies and objectives contained in the plan.
The proposed amendment to the Capital Improvements Element complies with statutory
requirements and implements the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.
2.The amendments are not inconsistent with other provisions of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed amendment to the Capital Improvements Element is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Also, the city’s adopted CIP, adopted by reference in the Capital
Improvements Element, supports implementation of the comprehensive plan.
3.The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the
property in questions and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
No applicable. The proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element does not relate
to a specific property or properties.
4.Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
No applicable. The proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element does not relate
to a specific property or properties.
5.The amendments will not adversely affect the natural environment.
The proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element incorporates by reference a
listing of city projects that will be implemented over the five-year Capital Improvements
Element planning timeframe. The potential for project-related effects on the natural
environment will be assessed during the project development phase. Any foreseen impacts
will be appropriately mitigated to minimize negative effects on the natural environment.
6.The amendments will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area.
The proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element does not relate to a specific
property or location and, therefore, will not adversely impact the use of property.
Page - 2
CPA2010-05001
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment of the Capital Improvements Element is consistent with provisions of
Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. The Capital Improvements Element has
been updated to reflect the adopted City of Clearwater FY2010/11-FY2015/16 Capital
Improvement Program as well as the adopted five-year work programs of the Pinellas County
School District, Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization and Florida Department of
Transportation.
APPROVAL
The Planning & Development Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8181-10
amending the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff:
Tammy Vrana, AICP
Long Range Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT:
Ordinance No. 8181-10
Page - 3
CPA2010-05001
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case Number: LUZ2010-06002 (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Address: 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Agenda Item: E.2. (Related to E.3.)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
UPDATED STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a)Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Institutional (I),
Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Residential Low (RL) and
Water/Drainage Feature classifications to the Institutional
(I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and
Water/Drainage Feature classifications; and
(b)Rezoning from the Institutional (I), Commercial (C),
Preservation (P), Low Density Residential (LDR) and Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) districts to the Institutional (I),
Preservation (P), and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
districts.
SITE INFORMATION
Property Size:
5,708,538 square feet or 131.05 acres
Property Use:
Current Use:College
Proposed Use: College
Plan Category:
Current Categories: Institutional (I)
Commercial General (CG)
Preservation (P)
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
Residential Low (RL)
Water/Drainage Feature
Proposed Categories: Institutional (I)
Preservation (P)
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
Water/Drainage Feature
Zoning District:
Current Districts: Institutional (I)
Commercial (C)
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 1 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Preservation (P)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
Proposed Districts: Institutional (I)
Preservation (P)
Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
Existing
Surrounding Uses:
North: Wetlands
South: Visitors Center, Causeway, Tampa Bay
East: Open Space, Wetlands, Tampa Bay
West: Single and Multi-Family Residential, Vacant,
FDOT Office
UPDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The subject site is comprised of four parcels of land 131.05 acres in area. The applicant is
requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map designation for the parcels from Institutional
(I), Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P), Water/Drainage Feature, Recreation/Open
Space (R/OS) and Residential Low (RL) Categories to the Institutional (I), Preservation (P),
Recreation/ Open Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature in order to expand the existing
college and to make certain land use designations consistent with the actual characteristics of the
area.
The Community Development Board recommended approval of the original future land use plan
amendment at a special hearing on August 3, 2010. City Council passed the originally proposed
amendment on first reading on August 5, 2010. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules,
as well as Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the amendment was transmitted to both the Pinellas
Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning
Authority, as well as the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and approval.
In their review and analysis of the original future land use map amendment application and
development agreement, Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) Staff recommended that portions of
the amendment be denied, concluding that portions of the amendment were inconsistent with the
Countywide Plan Rules. On September 7, 2010, the Planners Advisory Committee voted to
recommend approval of the amendment as submitted by the City by a vote of 6 to 4, counter to
the PPC Staff recommendation. On September 9, 2010, City Planning and Development
Department Staff and representatives of the applicant, Clearwater Christian College, met with
PPC Staff to discuss an alternative compromise recommendation proposed by PPC Staff. After
deliberations with Clearwater Christian College, the Planning and Development Department
agreed to bring the compromise back to City Council for action. PPC Staff brought forward this
alternative compromise recommendation to the Pinellas Planning Council at their hearing on
September 15, 2010, where the PPC recommended approval of the alternative recommendation.
The proposed alternative compromise recommendation reduces the scope of the amendment
request from that which the Community Development Board recommended approval and
Council passed at first reading. Specifically, the alternative compromise recommendation
reduces the area requested to be designated Institutional (I) within the area located north of the
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 2 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
existing developed Clearwater Christian College site, and also proposes that lands currently
designated Institutional (I) be designated Preservation (P). (See revised maps.)
The alternative compromise recommendation results in the following changes to the total site
(131.05 acres):
?
Amending Institutional (I) to Preservation (P) for the jurisdictional wetland area and
portion of the isolated upland area located north of the existing developed Clearwater
Christian College site (new);
?
Amending Preservation (P) to Institutional (I) for the area adjacent to the existing soccer
field (reduced);
?
Amending Preservation (P), Residential Low (RL), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and
Water/Drainage Feature Categories to Institutional (I) for the wetlands and isolated
uplands located west of the existing developed Clearwater Christian College site
(unchanged);
?
Amending Water/Drainage Feature to Preservation (P) and Preservation (P) to
Water/Drainage Feature, as appropriate, for the area east of the existing developed
Clearwater Christian College site (unchanged);
?
Amending Residential Low (RL) to Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) along Bayshore
Boulevard (unchanged); and
?
Amending Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (I) to Preservation (P) for the
remaining isolated areas of Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (I) (unchanged).
The limits set forth in the previously approved Development Agreement (DVA2010-06001) are
as follows:
?
limit residential density to 750 dormitory beds (unchanged); and
?
limit the nonresidential intensity to 170,000 square feet of classrooms and administrative
facilities (unchanged) with a revised FAR 0.169.
The alternative compromise recommendation requires amendments to the Development
Agreement, including the master plan, which are also being brought forward for consideration by
the Community Development Board (see Agenda Item E.3.).
The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Department of Environmental
Protection, Department of Transportation, Department of State, and Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission had no objections to the plan as originally submitted for review.
The Planning and Development Department has determined that the proposed land use plan
amendment is consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development
Code:
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 3 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
?
The proposed land use plan amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
?
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
?
Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
?
Based on the proposed mitigation plan, the applications will not have a negative impact
on the natural environment.
?
The proposed amendment will not adversely impact the use of properties in the
immediate area.
UPDATED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The Community Development Board recommended approval of the original zoning atlas
amendment at a special hearing on August 3, 2010. City Council passed the originally proposed
amendment on first reading on August 5, 2010. The corresponding proposed future land use map
amendment has been modified based on an alternative compromise approved by the Pinellas
Planning Council, reducing the scope of the amendment. The boundaries of the rezoning have
been adjusted, consistent with the scope of the alternative compromise.
The proposed alternative compromise recommendation reduces the scope of the rezoning request
from that which the Community Development Board recommended approval and Council passed
at first reading. Specifically, the alternative compromise recommendation reduces the area
requested to be designated Institutional (I) within the area located north of the existing developed
Clearwater Christian College site, and also proposes that lands currently designated Institutional
(I) be designated Preservation (P). (See revised maps.)
The alternative compromise recommendation results in the following changes to the total site
(131.05 acres):
?
Amending Institutional (I) to Preservation (P) for the jurisdictional wetland area and
portion of the isolated upland area located north of the existing developed Clearwater
Christian College site (new);
?
Amending Preservation (P) to Institutional (I) for the area adjacent to the existing soccer
field (reduced);
?
Amending Preservation (P), Low Density Residential (LDR), and Open Space/Recreation
(OS/R) Categories to Institutional (I) for the wetlands and isolated uplands located west
of the existing developed Clearwater Christian College site (unchanged);
?
Amending Low Density Residential (LDR) to Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) along
Bayshore Boulevard (unchanged); and
?
Amending Low Density Residential (LDR) and Institutional (I) to Preservation (P) for the
remaining isolated areas of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Institutional (I)
(unchanged).
The Planning and Development Department has determined that the proposed rezoning
application is consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 4 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Code:
?
The proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
?
The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and is consistent with the
character of the immediate surrounding area
?
The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the use of other property in the area.
?
The proposed amendment will not degrade public services below acceptable levels.
?
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications
of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment, based on
the proposed mitigation plan.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment involves four parcels of land, comprising approximately 131.05 acres,
located north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard east of Bayshore Drive. The amendment request is to
amend the future land use and zoning designations on approximately 13.35 acres of the subject
property from the current Institutional (I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS),
Commercial General (CG), Water/Drainage Feature and Residential Low (RL) future land use
categories to the Institutional (I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and
Water/Drainage Feature future land use categories and from the Institutional (I), Commercial
(C), Preservation (P), Low Density Residential (LDR) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
zoning districts to the Institutional (I), Preservation (P), and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
districts.
The subject property contains areas where the future land use and zoning designations are not
consistent with the actual characteristics of the area. The City submitted administrative future
land use map changes to the Pinellas Planning Council consistent with the Countywide Rules to
change 4.05 acres of the subject property from Preservation (P) to Institutional (I) based on the
current jurisdictional wetland line. These areas were uplands already developed with buildings,
paved roads, a soccer field and a retention pond. The Countywide Planning Authority (CPA)
approved this change on July 13, 2010. Other Preservation (P) areas that are inaccurately
designated Commercial General (CG) and Residential Low (RL) are being addressed within this
amendment.
This amendment increases land designated Institutional (I) on the Future Land Use Map in order
to accommodate growth of the college that currently owns and operates on the property. A
development agreement has been submitted that establishes a master plan for the developed
portion of the property, which resides within the proposed boundaries of the Institutional (I) land
use category, and limits residential and nonresidential density (Case No. DVA2010-06001). The
development agreement proposes dividing the subject property into two areas, a Mitigation Area
(98.99 acres or 4,312,004 square feet) and a Master Plan Area (32.06 acres or 1,396,533 square
feet). No development would be allowed outside the boundaries of the Master Plan Area.
The applicant has developed a Mitigation Plan as part of the accompanying development
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 5 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
agreement which addresses the objectives of hydrologic restoration and habitat enhancement.
This plan will require approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD). Activities proposed include removal of Brazilian
pepper, creation of a hydraulic connection under Damascus Road to improve tidal exchange,
improvement to tidal systems to improve water circulation, and habitat restoration for areas
impacted by mosquito ditching. The applicant will address these objectives and place a
conservation easement on the Mitigation Area (98.99 acres) in perpetuity.
In accordance with the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, this future land use
map amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County
Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the requested density,
review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602.F.1
and 4-603.F.1]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The following objective and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are supportive of
the proposed land use plan amendment. Only those policies determined to be most relevant to
this case have been included.
Wetlands Protection Goals, Objectives and Policies:
GOAL A.1 The City of Clearwater shall continue to protect natural resources and systems
throughout the city and ensure that these resources are successfully integrated into the urban
environment through land development regulations, management programs, and coordination
with future land use intensities and categories.
Objective A.1.1 On an ongoing basis, natural resources and systems shall be protected through
the application of local, state, and regional regulations, mitigation and management plans, and
permitting procedures as well as through locally instituted land purchase programs focusing on
environmentally sensitive properties and significant open space areas.
Policy A.1.1.1 Any permanent and temporary alteration of Department of Environmental
Protection (D.E.P.) jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands, the jurisdictional
wetlands of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), beach
dunes, sensitive soils, or other natural systems shall be prohibited unless such alteration is
fully consistent with all local, state, and federal regulations, mitigation and management
plans, and permitting procedures that may be applicable, including the wetland vegetative
buffer requirement of the City’s Community Development Code
Policy A.1.1.3 Environmentally sensitive wetlands subject to Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) jurisdiction and the jurisdictional wetlands of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) shall be designated by
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 6 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
“Preservation” (P) zoning and prevented from being built upon except as permitted by the
Preservation Zoning District.
Policy A.1.1.8 Mitigation plans for alteration of non-jurisdictional wetlands, beach dunes,
swamps, marshes, streams, creeks, one hundred (100) year flood plains, or lakes shall
require not less than a 1:1 ratio of mitigation land (on- or off-site) as approved by the
Engineering Department and/or City Council, and in coordination with the Southwest
Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD).
Objective D.3.3 Lower high water profiles during storm events, as necessary, to reduce house
flooding occurrences and to lessen the resulting adverse effects on public health, the natural
environment, public and private property.
Policy D.3.3.6 Limit development that will result in building(s) constructed within/or
over stormwater retention/detention ponds, streams or channels. All wetlands, streams,
channels, or other hydrologic features, whether wetlands, ponds or bodies of water
having intrinsic hydrologic, biologic and zoological functions with no distinction made in
regard to its status to whether it is man-made or natural shall be considered for a
Preservation Land Use Plan classification to ensure protection from development.
Policy D.3.3.8 Continue the established requirement of a twenty-five foot setback from
the tops of a bank from all wetlands whether natural or man-made, and require minimum
finished floor elevations in areas adjacent to lakes, bays, creeks, the Gulf of Mexico,
Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay, and other flood prone areas.
Objective D.3.5 Protect and enhance the quality of receiving waters by the use of “Best
Management Practices” in accordance with the adopted watershed management plans.
Policy D.3.5.2 Vegetated swales, sodding, and appropriate landscaping will be required
as components of the drainage system for natural filtration before final discharge into
receiving waters.
Policy D.3.5.6 Continue to identify impaired bodies of water and prioritize them for
improvement and enhancement.
GOAL E.2 Management of Clearwater’s coastal resources shall prohibit activities that would
damage or destroy the natural or built environment, or threaten human life die to hurricane
hazards, and shall promote activities that enhance the natural and built environment.
Objective E.2.1 The City shall continue to protect coastal wetlands, estuaries and wildlife
habitats to maintain or increase the acreage for threatened and endangered species populations.
Policy E.2.1.1 Restoration and enhancement of disturbed or degraded estuaries identified
by the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program shall be
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 7 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
accomplished by strict regulation of proposed impacts to wetlands and by controls on the
operation and installation of marinas and other water-dependent uses.
Policy E.2.1.2 Development applications shall be reviewed to ensure that proposed new
development or redevelopment will not encroach on or remove wetlands or beaches. New
development and redevelopment shall be guided away from environmentally sensitive
areas and into those most able to withstand impacts.
Policy E.2.1.8 Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and
conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands.
Policy E.2.1.9 The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of
allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of
wetlands are land use factors, which shall be considered when directing incompatible
land use away from wetlands.
Policy E.2.1.10 Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and
impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of
incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals,
objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are
allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of
wetlands functions.
Objective F.1.5 The City shall continue to maintain the wetland inventory of 760 acres as
identified in the City’s 2005 Wetlands Survey.
Policy F.1.5.1 Wetlands shall not be dredged and filled or disturbed in any manner other
than by natural phenomenon and their natural functions shall be protected, except through
the implementation of State or City mitigation standards.
Policy F.1.5.3 The City shall protect and prevent disturbance of any natural wetland areas
whether publicly or privately owned, by utilizing assessments and authority provided by
the Florida Department of Environmental (FDEP), the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), Pinellas County and the Army Corps of Engineer.
Policy F.1.5.4 The City shall within the limits of state legislation protect all mangrove
species from disturbance and/or destruction and to provide public awareness of mangrove
resources and their importance and value to the food chain of marine life through the
strict enforcement of the City tree protection ordinance.
Objective G.1.4 Preserve natural open space areas which constitute aesthetic, and/or ecological
community assets.
Policy G.1.4.3 Continue to designate appropriate land “Preservation” and
“Recreation/Open Space” in the Future Land Use Plan whenever feasible.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 8 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Policy G.1.4.4 Preserve coastal and interior wetlands, floodways, floodplains, and other
environmentally significant areas to protect their aesthetic and environmental qualities
which benefit the City.
Stormwater Goals, Objectives and Policies:
Policy A.1.1.5 Stormwater shall be controlled through consistent application of local,
state, and federal regulations, mitigation and management plans, and permitting
procedures for both site-specific and basin-level development plans.
GOAL D.3 Provide the most cost effective and efficient provision of stormwater management
including the improvement and enhancement of stormwater quality discharging into local
receiving waters, and provide maximum practical protection to persons, property and the natural
environment.
Objective D.3.2 The City of Clearwater shall continue to develop watershed management plans
which should seek to identify, evaluate and implement the most cost effective and cost efficient
programs for stormwater management, including stormwater quantity and quality. These plans
should also address any projects included in the Pinellas County Surface Water Management
Plan for the implementation of all stormwater management, as well as recommended funding
sources.
Policy D.3.2.3 All stormwater management improvements should seek to meet applicable
goals, guidelines, and regulations established to provide flood protection and pollution
abatement.
Policy E.2.1.4 The City shall work toward reducing the existing quantity and improving
the quality of stormwater runoff to estuarine and surface water bodies by ensuring that
development and redevelopment adheres to the treatment standards set forth in State
Water Policy, and complies with the retention and treatment requirements of Chapter 62-
25 F.A.C., the Environmental Resource Permitting Rules 40D-4, 40D-40, 40D-400,
F.A.C. of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and with any
more stringent local regulations.
Objective E.2.3 Clearwater Harbor and Tampa Bay are designated Outstanding Florida Waters
and are under a non-degradation rule. Clearwater will continue to manage stormwater runoff and
control erosion during construction to reduce waterborne sediments. As additional initiatives are
approved under the SWIM program, they will be considered for inclusion in the Community
Development Code.
Policy E.2.3.1 Restoration and enhancement of disturbed or degraded drainage systems
shall be implemented by upstream detention of stormwater, maintenance of existing
drainage channels, widening of bridges, culverts and other stormwater conveyance
structures.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 9 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Objective F.2.1 The City shall continue to protect, improve and enhance surface waters from
stormwater runoff discharging into both interior and coastal surface waters.
Policy F.2.1.5 Management plans shall be developed for waterbodies with known or
suspected water quality problems in the City to include Tampa Bay, Clearwater Harbor,
Stevenson Creek, Allen's Creek, and Alligator Creek.
Threatened and Endangered Species Objectives and Policies:
GOAL E.2 Management of Clearwater’s coastal resources shall prohibit activities that would
damage or destroy the natural or built environment, or threaten human life die to hurricane
hazards, and shall promote activities that enhance the natural and built environment.
Objective E.2.1 The City shall continue to protect coastal wetlands, estuaries and wildlife
habitats to maintain or increase the acreage for threatened and endangered species populations.
F.1.3 Objective The City shall continue to maintain and enhance the City's wildlife and natural
native vegetation resources.
Policy F.1.3.1 Prohibit destruction and disturbance of all conservation land uses to
protect wildlife and plants especially those that are threatened or endangered species.
This policy shall include known, professional wildlife management and habitat
restoration techniques.
Coastal Storm Area Objectives and Policies:
Objective A.1.2 Population densities in the coastal storm areas are restricted to the maximum
density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, except for
specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, in which case densities identified in Beach by Design shall govern. All
densities in the coastal storm area shall be consistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study.
Policy A.1.2.2 Continue to cooperate with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and
Pinellas County to meet the regional objectives for evacuation of permanent populations as well
as other emergency concerns.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Although this application requests a change to the future land use map for lands currently
designated Preservation (P) which would impact existing wetlands, the proposed Mitigation
Plan, if approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, will enhance existing, surrounding wetlands resulting in a net increase in
higher quality wetlands. All development will be limited to the lands designated Institutional (I),
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 10 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
and the Master Plan included within the proposed development agreement (Case No. DVA2010-
06001) includes a new stormwater management system and buffers between development and
the surrounding wetlands consistent with the City’s Community Development Code. These
additional improvements to the site, coupled with the Mitigation Plan, will enhance the water
flow in the areas surrounding the uplands, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Objectives and Policies.
There is an active eagle nest immediately east of the subject area that is addressed in the
development agreement. Any development or construction activities related to this land use
change must comply with the state’s Bald Eagle Management Plan and any additional
regulations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
The proposed land use change results in an increase in allowed residential density; however, this
density is limited by the development agreement to a maximum of 750 temporary residents
(dormitories). The development agreement also requires that a hurricane evacuation plan,
approved by the City, be developed in accordance with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council recommendations for evacuation of a student population and include in its published
Safety Manual.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN RULES
Recommended Findings of Fact
Proposed future land use categories on the subject property will include Institutional (I),
Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Water/Drainage Feature. The developed
areas will be designated Institutional (I) and the remaining areas will be designated Preservation
(P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Water/Drainage Feature. Two land use categories,
Residential Low (RL) and Commercial General (CG), are being removed from the property as
these areas are primarily preservation areas that are inaccurately designated and will therefore be
more appropriately assigned to be consistent with the Countywide Rules as discussed below.
The purpose of the existing and proposed Institutional (I) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the county that are now used or
appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas
consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses,
transportation facilities, and natural resource features. This category is generally appropriate to
locations where educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are
required to serve the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their
relationship with surrounding uses and transportation access. The existing college and support
uses meet the intent of the Institutional (I) category.
The purpose of the existing and proposed Recreation / Open Space (R/OS) category as specified
in Section 2.3.3.7.2 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the county that are now
used, or appropriate to be used, for open space and/or recreational purposes; and to recognize the
significance of providing open space and recreational areas as part of the overall land use plan.
This category is generally appropriate to those public and private open spaces and recreational
facilities dispersed throughout the county; and in recognition of the natural and man-made
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 11 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
conditions which contribute to the active and passive open space character and recreation use of
such locations. There will be a net increase of 0.24 acres in the Recreation / Open Space (R/OS)
category, primarily at the northwest portion of the site along Bayshore Boulevard that is
currently designated Residential Low (RL).
The purpose of the existing and proposed Preservation (P) category as specified in Section
2.3.3.7.1 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the county that are now
characterized, or appropriate to be characterized, as a natural resource feature worthy of
preservation; and to recognize the significance of preserving such major environmental features
and their ecological functions. This category is generally appropriate to those natural resource
features it is designed to recognize wherever they may appear and at a size significant to the
feature being depicted in relationship to its surroundings. In recognition of the natural conditions
which they are intended to preserve, these features will frequently occur in a random and
irregular pattern interposed among other categories.
The purpose of the existing and proposed Water/Drainage Feature category as specified in
Section 2.3.3.9.1 is to depict those water bodies and drainage features now committed to, or
proposed to be recognized for, these respective functions based on their physical characteristics
and use. Water bodies include ocean, estuary, lake, pond, river, stream and drainage detention
areas. Drainage features recognize existing natural and man-made drainage ways and water
bodies, and proposed drainage ways and water bodies, that are part of the Pinellas County Master
Drainage Plan, as subsequently refined through the individual Watershed Management Plans that
are shown in the Stormwater Management Element of the respective local government
Comprehensive Plans, or that are part of an approved site plan or other authorized development
order action of the local government with jurisdiction. This category is designed to reflect water
bodies and drainage features as defined herein and located on the Countywide Plan Map, as same
may be revised from time to time through the map amendment or map adjustment process, and
subject to their actual location on the ground.
The college campus site is located on Tampa Bay and is directly accessible from a main entrance
off the Courtney Campbell Causeway (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) which is designated a
Unique/Scenic View Corridor on the Pinellas Planning Council’s Scenic Non-Commercial
Corridor Map. The site is also adjacent to but not accessible from Bayshore Boulevard. The
intent and purpose of the Scenic/Noncommercial Corridor designation is to guide the
preservation and enhancement of scenic qualities, to ensure the integrity of the Countywide Plan
Map, and to maintain and enhance the traffic operation of these especially significant roadway
corridors in Pinellas County. Properties designated in the Unique/Scenic View subclassification
are characterized by their unique scenic, cultural, recreational or historic resources and typically
.
classified as Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) or Preservation (P)
The immediate area north of the Courtney Campbell Causeway (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) is
characterized by recreation/open space areas including a public beach and the City’s Visitors
Center, wetlands uses, and single and multi-family residential (with allowable densities ranging
between 7.5 units per acre to 15 units per acre) along Bayshore Drive. West of the subject
property are mixed use residential/office/retail uses along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 12 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
The subject property contains areas where the future land use and zoning designations are not
consistent with the existing character of the area. Recently, on July 13, 2010, the Countywide
Planning Authority (CPA) approved a request by the City for administrative adjustments to the
Future Land Use Map to change 4.05 acres of the subject property from Preservation (P) to
Institutional (I) based on the current jurisdictional wetland line. These areas are developed
uplands with existing buildings, paved roads, a soccer field and a retention pond for the college
campus. Other Preservation (P) areas on the subject property that are inaccurately designated
Commercial General (CG) and Residential Low (RL) are being addressed by this amendment.
This amendment increases land designated Institutional (I) on the Future Land Use Map in order
to accommodate expansion of the Clearwater Christian College campus that has existed on this
site and under the ownership of the college since 1967.
The accompanying proposed development agreement for the property establishes a master plan
for the developed portion of the property, consolidated within the proposed expansion of lands
designated Institutional (I) and limits associated with residential and nonresidential density for
the entire subject property (Case No. DVA2010-06001). The development agreement proposes
dividing the subject property into two areas, a Mitigation Area (98.99 acres or 4,312,004 square
feet) and a Master Plan Area (32.06 acres or 1,396,533 square feet), with no development being
allowed outside the boundaries of the Master Plan Area.
In order to mitigate impacts to wetlands in the Preservation (P) category to develop the proposed
Master Plan Area, the applicant proposes to address these objectives within a Mitigation Area
and to place a conservation easement on the Mitigation Area (98.99 acres) in perpetuity.
The request to amend the Future Land Use Map category on portions of the site from
Preservation (P) and Recreation / Open Space (R/OS) to Institutional (I) is consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Countywide Plan Rules Section 4.2.7.1.4, which allows a plan
amendment to a non-residential use on a Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor if it is a logical in-
fill, extension or terminus of an existing non-residential classification of an adjoining existing
non-residential use, the amendment is considered in relationship to the existing delineation of
surrounding categories, and the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Element. The Institutional (I) category will allow the
extension of a non-residential classification for the expansion of the established college campus
and is consistent with the existing delineation of surrounding categories, and the purpose and
intent of the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Element of the Countywide Plan. The proposed
preservation mitigation areas will enhance the existing wetlands in the Preservation (P) category.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan Rules as well as the additional regulations set forth pertaining to Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridors and the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Element; therefore, the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 13 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2, 4-602.F.3, 4-602.F.4, 4-603.F.3, and 4-
603.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property is located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard at the easternmost
edge of the City of Clearwater boundaries. Development on the property is concentrated on the
upland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is currently designated Institutional
(I) and accessed by Damascus Road.
The Courtney Campbell Causeway / Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is located on the south side of the
property. Area within the subject site is primarily wetlands which continue to the north and east.
To the west across Bayshore Drive are single and multi-family homes with Future Land Use
Map categories of Residential Urban (RU) and Residential Medium (RM) and zoning districts of
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). The
Residential Urban (RU) category permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre and the Residential Medium
(RM) permits 15 dwelling units per acre. The Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning districts primarily permit residential uses.
The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre and a
floor area ratio of 0.65 and the proposed Institutional (I) zoning district permits educational
facilities, schools, places of worship and governmental uses. The Preservation (P),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature future land use categories
surrounding the Institutional (I) area have very limited development potential. The Preservation
(P) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning districts allow recreational uses. These less
intensive districts are located adjacent to the residential districts west of the subject property.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed future land use and zoning designations are in character with the Future Land Use
Map and zoning designations in the area. They are compatible with surrounding uses and are
consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.5 and 4-603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The total area of the subject property is 131.05 acres (5,708,538 square feet), of which 82.32
acres (3,585,859 square feet) is designated Preservation (P), 22.87 (996,217 square feet) is
designated Water/Drainage Feature, 19.84 acres (864,230 square feet) is designated Institutional
(I), 3.41 acres (148,539 square feet) is classified Residential Low (RL), 1.05 acres (45,738
square feet) is designated Commercial General (CG), and 1.05 acres (45,738 square feet) is
designated Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) on the Future Land Use Map. An additional 0.56
acres is unclassified right-of-way (Damascas Road). The site is currently developed with
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 14 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
educational facilities, dormitories, athletic fields and parking to support the college.
The future land use and zoning amendment request proposes an increase in the amount of land
designated Institutional (I) on the Future Land Use Map to 26.55 acres (1,156,518 square feet).
A development agreement has been submitted that proposes dividing the total property into two
areas, a Mitigation Area (98.99 acres or 4,312,004 square feet) and a Master Plan Area (32.06
acres or 1,396,533 square feet) (Case No. DVA2010-06001). No development will be allowed
outside the boundaries of the Master Plan Area. The proposed Master Plan area includes the
26.55 acres of Institutional (I) as well as some land designated Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
and Preservation (P) on the Future Land Use Map. Because all current and proposed
development would be located within the Institutional (I) area, for the purposes of the public
facilities analysis, only those land use changes within the boundaries of the proposed
Institutional expansion area will be analyzed. For those land use designations where both
residential and nonresidential development is allowed, the current public facilities demand
analysis will utilize the most intensive use and density allowed.
The Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre (residential
equivalent of 3 beds per unit) and a floor area ratio of 0.65. The subject property could yield a
maximum of 243 dwelling units (729 dormitory beds) or 551,556 square feet of nonresidential
floor area in the area currently designated Institutional (I) within the proposed Institutional (I)
expansion area. The Residential Low (RL) future land use category permits 5 dwelling units per
acre and a floor area ratio of 0.40. The portion of the subject property within the Institutional
expansion area designated Residential Low (RL) would allow up to 3 dwelling units (9
dormitory beds) or 12,197 square feet of nonresidential floor area. The Preservation (P) future
land use category permits a floor area ratio of 0.10, which could yield a maximum of 20,778
square feet of nonresidential floor area. The Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) future land use
category permits a floor area ratio of 0.25, which could yield up to 1,307 square feet of
nonresidential floor area within the proposed Institutional (I) expansion area. Water/Drainage
Feature and ROW do not have any development potential associated with the area.
Under the proposed Institutional (I) category, the subject area (26.55 acres total) could yield 331
dwelling units (993 dormitory beds) or a floor area of 751,736 square feet. Because the proposed
development agreement would limit the allowable development within the Master Plan area, and
all development will be within the Institutional expansion area, the public facilities demand
analysis for the proposed changes will be based on these proposed limits, which are up to
170,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area and up to 750 dormitory beds (equivalent of 250
dwelling units).
Roadways
The subject site is proposed to have direct access to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. According to the
traffic analysis submitted by the applicant and approved by the City’s Engineering Department,
potential traffic generation will be distributed along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard in the following
manner: 10% of the trips will be distributed east on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and 90% of the trips
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 15 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
will be distributed west on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The traffic analysis submitted by the
applicant utilizes different segment beginnings and ends than those included within the Pinellas
County Metropolitan Planning Organization Level of Service Report; therefore, the following
table does not utilize the trip distribution percentages provided within the secondary analysis.
The resulting figures assume that the net new trips generated would be distributed onto one
single adjacent segment without consideration to direction of traffic, thus presenting the
maximum potential traffic to be generated on the segment by the proposed parcel and related
land use change.
Table 1: Maximum Potential Traffic depicts traffic characteristics of the subject property based
on the current and proposed Future Land Use Map designations. The table indicates the
maximum potential trips generated by future land use category based on the traffic generation
rates in the Countywide Plan Rules. The table also shows the potential roadway level of service
impacts to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard under the current and proposed future land use designations.
Note: The Countywide Plan Rules traffic generation guidelines are the accepted methodology for
reviewing the roadway impacts of proposed Future Land Use Map amendments.
Courtney Campbell Causeway from the Hillsborough County Line to Bayshore Boulevard
currently operates at a level of service F, peak hour according to the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009 Level of Service Report. Trips generated by the
proposed future land use category would not further degrade the operating level of service, of the
PM peak hour.
Table 1: MAXIMUMPOTENTIAL TRAFFIC
(Proposed Institutional (I) area – 26.55 acres)
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard:
Existing Current Proposed Net New
Courtney Campbell Causeway Segment
12
Conditions FLUM FLUM Trips
(Hillsborough County Line to Bayshore Blvd)
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 3,777 5,098 1,321
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 359 484 125
Roadway Volume 52,000 55,777 57,098 1,321
Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour F F 4 F 4 F 4
Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour
Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable.
FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
1. Based on Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) calculations of 192 trips per acre per day for the Institutional (I) Future Land Use
Category (19.48 acres), 0.3 trips per acre per day for the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Category (4.77 acres), 3 trips per
acre per day for the Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) Future Land Use Category (0.12 acres) and 50 trips per acre per day for
the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Category (0.7 acres).
2. Based on PPC calculations of 192 trips per acre per day for the Institutional (I) Future Land Use Category.
3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
4. Based on the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation, indicates the estimated trip
generation for specific uses allowed in the current and proposed zoning districts based on the
th
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation 8 Edition. The analysis compares
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 16 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
trips generated by the current enrollment of the current use of the subject property (college) to
the proposed maximum enrollment of the current use of the subject property (college) and a
more intensive institutional use allowed within the proposed Institutional District (church).
Table 2: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON BY ZONING DESIGNATION
PM Peak Net
Avg. Net Change PM
Development Trips Change
Land Use Daily Average Peak
Potential Average PM Peak
Trips Daily Trips Trips
Rate Trips
EXISTING DESIGNATIONS: “I”, “P”, “OS/R” & “LDR” Zoning districts
( “I”, “P”, “R/OS”, “RL”, and “Water/Drainage Feature” Future Land Use categories)
University/College 1
3
575 students 1,369 0.21 121
N/A N/A
(2.38 trips/student)
PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS: “I” Zoning District (“I” Future Land Use Category)
1
University/College
4
925 students 2,202 833 0.21 194 73
(2.38 trips/student)
Church 2
5
751,736 SF 6,848 5,479 0.55 413 292
(9.11/1,000 SF GFA)
Notes:
GFA = Gross floor area. SF = Square foot. DU = Dwelling unit. N/A = Not applicable.
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 th Edition Land Use 550.
th
2. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8 Edition Land Use 560.
3. Existing enrollment of Clearwater Christian College (2010).
4. Proposed enrollment of Clearwater Christian College.
5. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying I Future land use map category is 0.65.
Two possible uses were analyzed in the Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation
table. University/College use reflects the current and proposed use of the subject area. Trip
generation rates for University/College uses are based on number of students, not density.
Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, this use and the increase in students would result in
an increase of 73 PM Peak trips. Church use was chosen because it is an intensive institutional
use. A church use developed at the maximum intensity in the Institutional (I) District (751,736
square feet) would result in an increase of 292 PM Peak trips on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
(Courtney Campbell Causeway). Both of the possible uses analyzed generate additional trips;
however, the Church use scenario analysis is for a greater development potential than the
proposed maximum density being limited by the Development Agreement accompanying this
application.
The traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant used real time data to develop an accurate
volume count for the adjacent segments of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard between McMullen Booth
Road and the Clearwater city limits, as well as for the intersections of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
and Bayshore Boulevard and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Damascus Road. This study indicates
that the existing roadway levels of service on these segments is D, peak hour, and the signals are
operating at level of service C. The additional trips generated by the proposed changes to the site
will not negatively affect the level of service on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the intersections will
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 17 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
Mass Transit
The citywide level of service for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan
amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject property is
located on a mass transit route.
Potable Water
The current future land use designations could use up to 66,835 gallons of potable water per day.
Under the proposed future land use designation, potable water demand could approach
approximately 82,100 gallons per day, which results in a net increase of 15,265 gallons.
Wastewater
The current future land use designations could produce up to 59,809 gallons of wastewater per
day. Under the proposed future land use designation, sewer demand could approach
approximately 72,190 gallons per day, which results in a net increase of 12,381 gallons.
Solid Waste
The current future land use designation could generate 988 tons of solid waste per year. Under
the proposed future land use designation, 2,157 tons of solid waste could be generated per year,
or an increase of 1,169 tons.
Recreation and Open Space
The City has sufficient parkland or recreational facility capacity to serve future development
under the proposed amendment. Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact
fees will be required for future development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Impact
fees will be determined as part of the development review process.
Public School Facilities
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the current Institutional (I)
plan category (potential of 243 residential units) and Residential Low (RL) plan category
(potential of 3 residential units) could generate the following number of students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 246 units = 36.90 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 246 units = 17.22 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 246 units = 24.60 students
TOTAL = 78.72 students
Based on factors established by the Pinellas County School Board, the proposed Institutional (I)
plan category (potential of 331 residential units) could generate the following number of
students.
Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 331 units = 46.65 students
Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 331 units = 23.17 students
High School: 0.10 students per unit x 331 units = 33.10 students
TOTAL= 105.92 students
An increase of 27.2 students could occur as a result of the proposed Future Land Use Map
amendment. The subject property is located within Concurrency Service Area (CSA) C for
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 18 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
elementary and Concurrency Service Area (CSA) C for middle schools. According to enrollment
and capacity data from the Pinellas County School District, there is available capacity within
both CSA C and the high school CSA to accommodate the potential additional students.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by the proposed
Future Land Use Map amendment will not degrade the existing level of service on Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard or the operational efficiency of the signalized intersections. There would be increased
demand for potable water, wastewater, and solid waste service, although the increase would not
negatively impact the City’s ability to meet the adopted level of service standards for these
public facilities. Open space and recreation facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the
proposed amendments.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The total area of the subject property is 131.05 acres, characterized primarily by wetland habitat
currently designated Preservation (P) and Water/Drainage Feature on the Future Land Use Map
(105.19 acres total). Smaller portions of the wetland area are designated Residential Low (RL)
and Commercial General (CG) which is inconsistent with the physical characteristics of those
areas of the property (4.46 acres total). The proposed map amendments would expand the
existing Institutional (I) area by changing the designation of Preservation (P), Residential Low
(RL), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature to Institutional (I) on the
Future Land Use Map, resulting in 26.55 acres of land designated Institutional (I).
The applicant received approval of a Petition for Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other
Surface Waters from SWFWMD on December 3, 2009, approving their specific purpose wetland
survey depicting location of the upland areas within the property boundaries. Upon approval of
this land use map amendment, the applicant intends to apply for additional changes to the
jurisdictional wetland boundaries in order to accommodate additional development within the
proposed Institutional (I) area. Prior to any development or construction activities on the site,
permits would be required from the appropriate regulatory agencies including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and SWFWMD.
The proposed plans would potentially impact 7.8 acres of habitat, a portion of which is currently
designated Institutional (I) on the Future Land Use Map. The applicant has provided a
Threatened and Endangered Species Report including an analysis of the species of animals and
habitat present within the area proposed to be impacted. Impacted habitat includes black
mangrove forest (2.48 acres), Brazilian pepper/landfill forest (1.75 acres), mixed grasses (1.55
acres), open water (1.11 acres) and small stands of pine and oak within the wetland boundaries.
According to this report, the majority of the areas being impacted are already degraded habitats;
however, 1.55 acres of high marine marsh dominated by specific species of mixed grasses (1.55
acres) is functional habitat that would be impacted by the proposed plans, should they be
permitted by the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 19 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
The applicant worked to minimize the impact to the high quality Preservation (P) areas, and has
submitted a Mitigation Plan for 99 acres of the wetlands area that would, according to the plan,
restore and enhance the degraded wetland ecosystem. The proposal addresses the objectives of
hydrologic restoration and habitat enhancement through the removal of Brazilian pepper,
restoration of habitat impacted by mosquito ditching, enhancing tidal creek flow, and creating a
hydraulic connection under Damascus Road.
The proposed land use change facilitates the development of a Master Plan for the college. The
accompanying development agreement (Case No. DVA2010-06001) limits any development to
the Institutional (I) area within the Master Plan and includes a new stormwater management
system and buffers between development and the surrounding wetlands consistent with the
Clearwater Community Development Code. A conservation easement would be placed on the
Mitigation Area in perpetuity, further restricting the future development potential within the
subject area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that although the proposal could result in
limited impacts to wetland habitat surrounding the college, the proposed mitigation strategies
could improve the overall wetland ecosystem. The applicant will need to receive further
approvals and permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies before any development could
take place. The Mitigation Plan, which would also need to be approved by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, would result in a net
increase of higher quality wetlands, while impacts to higher quality habitat is being minimized
by the plan. Any development would require compliance with the City’s tree preservation,
stormwater management, and wetland buffer requirements.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Due to the development on the subject site being restricted to the southeast portion of the site, the
location of the proposed Institutional (I) boundaries is logical and an appropriate classification.
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to ownership lines and proposed master
plan and mitigation areas.
The proposed Preservation (P) boundaries will make the zoning designations of some areas
currently zoned Residential Low (RL) and Commercial (C) consistent with the actual
characteristics of the area. The proposed boundaries will continue to maintain an extensive
buffer between the college in the southeast corner of the subject site and the residential uses
approximately 1,800 feet to the west. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard
to ownership lines and proposed master plan and mitigation areas.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of
streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 20 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Section 4-602.F.1]
The proposed Institutional (I) future land use and zoning designations permit a floor area ratio of
0.65 and a 0.85 impervious surface ratio. The subject property meets the minimum lot area of
40,000 square feet required for educational facilities uses in the Institutional (I) zoning district.
Any development of the property that does not meet minimum standard requirements will be
subject to the use criteria in the Flexible Standard Development process or Flexible Development
process.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The request for amendment to the Future Land Use Map involves a change from the Institutional
(I), Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Residential
Low (RL) and Water/Drainage Feature future land use categories to the (I), Preservation (P),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Water/Drainage Feature future land use categories. Also
involved is a request for rezoning from the Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Preservation (P),
Low Density Residential (LDR) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning districts to the
Institutional (I), Preservation (P), and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning districts.
The subject property is developed as a college. The site is surrounded by preservation and
wetland areas to the north and east, the Courtney Campbell Causeway to the south, and
residential uses to the west. The proposed amendment is compatible with the existing
neighborhood. The use and density of this property is proposed to be limited through a
companion development agreement application (Case No. DVA2010-06001).
The proposed Institutional (I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and
Water/Drainage Feature Future Land Use Map classifications and Institutional (I), Preservation
(P), and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning districts are consistent with both the City
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Rules, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not
degrade public services below acceptable levels, are compatible with the natural environment
with the approval of the Mitigation Plan and the granting of a conservation easement over lands
designated Preservation (P) are consistent with the development regulations of the City.
Approval of this land use map amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.
Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following actions on the request:
ACTION:
APPROVAL
Recommend of the Future Land Use Map amendment from the Institutional (I),
Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Residential Low
(RL) and Water/Drainage Feature categories to the Institutional (I), Preservation (P),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Water/Drainage Feature categories and the rezoning
request from the Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Preservation (P), Low Density Residential
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 21 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19
(LDR) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) districts to the Institutional (I), Preservation (P),
and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) districts.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _______________________________
Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III
Attachments:
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Current Future Land Use Map
Proposed Future Land Use Map
Current Zoning Map
Proposed Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010 - Case LUZ2010-06002 - Page 22 of 22
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1010 Exhibit Staff Report LUZ2010-06002 2010-10-19.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2010-06001 2010-10-19
CDB Meeting Date: October 19, 2010
Case Number: DVA2010-06001 (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Agenda Item: E3 (Related to E2)
Owners/Applicant: Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc.
Representative: Katherine E. Cole, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Addresses: 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to City Council, for an amended
Development Agreement between Clearwater Christian College
Private School, Inc. (property owner) and the City of Clearwater
previously approved by City Council on August 5, 2010 to revise the
master plan boundaries consistent with the Pinellas Planning
Council’s Alternative Compromise Recommendation accepted by
City Council on October 5, 2010.
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Open
ZONING DISTRICTS: Space/Recreation (OS/R), Low Density Residential
(LDR) and Preservation (P) Districts
Proposed: Institutional (I), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), and
Preservation (P)
CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Institutional (I), Commercial General (CG),
FUTURE LAND USE MAP Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS),
CATEGORIES: Residential Low (RL), and Water/Drainage Feature
Proposed:
Institutional (I), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open
Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature
PROPERTY USE: Current: Educational Facilities
Proposed: Educational Facilities up to 170,000 square feet of
nonresidential floor area (0.169 Floor Area Ratio) and
up to 750 Dormitory Beds/Residents (12.5 dwelling
units per acre) at a maximum height of 50 feet
EXISTING North: Preservation (P) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
SURROUNDING ZONING Districts
AND :
USESOpen Space and Wetlands
South: Preservation (P) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
Districts
Tourist Information, Causeway and Tampa Bay
East: Preservation (P) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
Open Space and Tampa Bay
West: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), Medium
Density Residential (MDR), Mobile Home Park (MHP),
and Commercial (C)
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
DVA2010-06001 – Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2010-06001 2010-10-19
Residential uses, Governmental use, and Vacant
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 131.05-acre site is located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard east of Bayshore Boulevard.
The subject property is developed with the Clearwater Christian College. The subject property has
approximately 1,440 feet of frontage along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard adjacent to Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) right-of-way and approximately 1,670 feet of frontage along Bayshore Boulevard.
Properties to the north and east of the subject property are zoned Preservation (P) and Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) districts and are primarily wetlands and open space comprising Coopers Bayou
and Tampa Bay. Properties to the south are zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) and Preservation (P)
districts. This land includes the Clearwater Visitors Center, the Courtney Campbell Causeway (Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard) and associated FDOT right-of-way. Across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is Tampa Bay. The
adjacent property to the southwest is zoned Commercial (C) District. One lot is developed with a FDOT
office, and the others are vacant. Properties to the west across Bayshore Boulevard are zoned Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Mobile Home Park
(MHP) Districts and are developed with attached and detached dwellings.
Development Proposal:
There is a companion application to amend the Future Land Use Map categories for the subject properties
from Institutional (I), Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS),
Residential Low (RL), and Water/Drainage Feature categories to Institutional (I), Preservation (P),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature categories, and to rezone this area from
Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), Low Density Residential (LDR) and
Preservation (P) districts to Institutional (I), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), and Preservation (P) districts
(LUZ2010-06002). This Future Land Use Map amendment would expand the portion of the property
designated Institutional (I) and appropriately designate areas within the College property where the future
land use designation and zoning are inconsistent with the surrounding areas or the actual use of the
property.
The amended development proposal divides the subject site into two areas, a Master Plan Area (28.55
acres) and a Mitigation Area (102.5 acres). The Master Plan Area consists of the proposed Institutional
(I), Preservation (P) and Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) land use designations. Development would be
concentrated within the proposed Institutional (I) area and shall be in substantial conformance with the
proposed Master Plan. The Master Plan depicts proposed locations for reconfigured parking as well as
expansion of the college’s residential dormitories and administrative space. The Mitigation Area would
be designated Preservation (P), Water/Drainage Feature, and Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) on the
Future Land Use Map. There would be no development potential within the Mitigation Area because of a
conservation easement, to be granted in perpetuity, and the transfer of development rights from these
Preservation (P) lands to the proposed Institutional (I) area.
Development Agreement:
The reason for the amended Development Agreement is proposed modifications to the companion
application to amend the Future Land Use Map categories and Zoning Atlas designations as the result of
an alternative compromise recommendation from the Pinellas Planning Council, which reduces the scope
of the proposed amendments. As a result of this change in circumstances, revisions to the Development
Agreement were necessary.
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
DVA2010-06001 – Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2010-06001 2010-10-19
The proposed Development Agreement amends the Development Agreement between Clearwater
Christian College Private School, Inc. and the City of Clearwater previously approved by City Council on
August 5, 2010 to revise the master plan boundaries consistent with the Pinellas Planning Council’s
Alternative Compromise Recommendation accepted by City Council on October 5, 2010, and includes
the following main provisions:
Replaces Exhibit A (Legal Description of the Master Plan Area and Mitigation Area), Exhibit B
?
(Master Plan), and Exhibit D (Project Future Land Use and Zoning Maps), to reflect contracted
boundaries for the proposed Institutional (I) area, consistent with the companion Future Land Use
Map amendment and rezoning (LUZ2010-06002). The revised Master Plan Area would be
reduced from 32.06 acres (originally proposed) to 28.55 acres of land, and the revised Mitigation
Area would increase from 98.99 acres (originally proposed) to 102.5 acres of land. Section 4.2 is
revised reducing the number of parking spaces shown on the Master Plan.
Revises Exhibit C, Mitigation Narrative, to clarify where impacts would occur because of
?
development. Language is also amended in order to adjust the time frame in which the
Mitigation Bank application must be submitted such that it would follow the approval of the
amended Development Agreement. Additional language is removed from a list of possible
mitigation activities allowable, to ensure that provisions elsewhere in the Mitigation Plan
requiring upgrades to the entire site’s stormwater facilities within the Master Plan Area are
absolutely required.
Adds a new Section 6.1.3.9, recognizing that a transfer of development rights will occur, in
?
accordance to provisions in the Code. Revises Sections 4.3 and 6.1.3.5 to incorporate references
to the new Section 6.1.3.9 and revises the maximum FAR from 0.149 to 0.169 to reflect the
contracted boundaries for the proposed Institutional (I) area as a result of the alternative
compromise recommendation from the Pinellas Planning Council.
Revises Section 6.1.3.6 to remove reference to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and to
?
add language requiring evacuation of all persons except emergency personnel after the issuance
of a hurricane watch by the National Hurricane Center.
Revises Section 5.2 to allow for two extensions of time of up to 12 months each, if requested by
?
the Developer, for the completion of the final approval of the amended Future Land Use Map, the
amendment of the Zoning Atlas to reflect the desired designations, and the final approval by the
appropriate local, state and federal permitting agencies of the proposed jurisdictional line as
shown on the revised Master Plan.
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent Development
Agreement. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development Agreement and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the original application and supporting materials
at its meeting of July 1, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to
the Community Development Board (CDB).
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by
the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial
competent evidence to support the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. That the 131.05-acre site is located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard east of Bayshore
Boulevard;
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
DVA2010-06001 – Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2010-06001 2010-10-19
2. That there is a companion application to amend the Future Land Use Map categories for the subject
properties from Institutional (I), Commercial General (CG), Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space
(R/OS), Residential Low (RL), and Water/Drainage Feature categories to Institutional (I),
Preservation (P), Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), and Water/Drainage Feature categories, and to
rezone this area from Institutional (I), Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), Low Density
Residential (LDR) and Preservation (P) districts to Institutional (I), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R),
and Preservation (P) districts (LUZ2010-06002);
3. That the CDB originally approved this project on August 3, 2010, under Case DVA2010-06001;
4. That this companion application has been modified from the original application, consistent with the
alternative compromise recommendation from the Pinellas Planning Council, reducing the scope of
the proposed amendments;
5. That the proposal is to amend the Master Plan and Mitigation Plan for the Clearwater Christian
College, consistent with the companion application; and
6. That the proposal allows for the use of transfer of development rights to be used in connection with
the development of the Master Plan Area.
Conclusions of Law:
1. That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the related site
plan proposal (FLD2010-06001);
2. That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606 of the
Community Development Code; and
3. That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends the , and recommendation to
the City Council, of an amended Development Agreement between Clearwater Christian College Private
School, Inc. (property owner) and the City of Clearwater previously approved by City Council on August
5, 2010 for the property at 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Lauren K. Matzke, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits (strikethrough)
?
Development Agreement as amended
?
Staff Resume
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Current Future Land Use Map
?
Proposed Future Land Use Map (Original)
?
Proposed Future Land Use Map (Alternative Compromise)
?
Current Zoning Map
?
Proposed Zoning Map (Original)
?
Proposed Zoning Map (Alternative Compromise)
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Development Agreements (DVA)\DVA2010-06001 - Gulf to Bay 3400 (I + P) 2010.07 - Approved - LKM\1st
Amendment October 2010\Gulf to Bay 3400 DVA Updated Staff Report for 10 19 10 CDB.docx
Community Development Board – October 19, 2010
DVA2010-06001 – Page 4 of 4
LL
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLDD2010-08001
Yes X
2. Case: FLD2010-08003
Presenter: A. Scott Ku
Yes Ix/
- 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
No
- 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
rleman, Planner III
No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
Yes X No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
S.IPloonirng Deportme;iflC D BlAgenrlos DRC & CDBICDB12010110 October 19,20M I Cover A/EA10 2010.doc
. J"
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes x No
3. Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No
I have conducted a personal investi« tion on the Personal site visit to the Wowint' properties.
hIA, Date: v
SignatUIT: (7
PRINT NAME
S'IPImming DepnrtmentlC D BlAgendns DRC & CDBICDB12010110 October 19, 20101I Corer MEMO 2010 doc
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2010-08001 - 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes L No
2. Case: FLD2010-08003 - 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
L
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
S:IPlaaning DeparbneatIC D 61Ageadas DRC & CDB3 CDB1201M/0 October 19.20M I Corer h4EA10 30/0.doc
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes ~ No
3. Case: 4VA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes ? No
I have conducted
Signature:
PRINT NAME
investirarioii diz the versonal site visit to the followin: vrotm-ties.
Date: r2,6-, O l Q 2--0
S.-IPlonning DeparrnierulC D BlAgeodos DRC & CDBICDB12010110 October 19. 201011 Corer AJF.A10 3010.dor
4
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney, Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2010-08001 - 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes \1" I No
2. Case: FLD2010-08003 - 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 -180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
No ,\\J
Yes
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP;.Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
J:Wlanning DeparbnenllCD B1Agendas DRC & CDB1CD6L010110 October 19,20M I Corer A[AA10 20/0.doc
4
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No V
3. Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP,z Planner III.
No
Yes
I have conducted ii rs .rl'al eves ration o the personal site visit to the following, pro pertie?
Signatur ': 71/ Y, 4 1 jl?_- Da t e:
C"? ?' CMG
PRINT NAME
S.Wlannino DeparbnentIC D BlAgendas DRC & CIMCDBI2010110 October 19, 20/011 Corer MEMO 2010do(
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney, Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist.
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
I. Case: FLD2010-08001
Yes
2. Case: FLD2010-08003
Presenter: A. Scott Ku
Yes
- 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
No
- 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
rleman, Planner III
No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
S. IPlruuiing DeporthrnentlC D BlAgendos DRC & CDBICDBI201000 October 19,20M 1 Corer MEA10 2010.doc
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No
3. Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes_ No
I have conducted a p ona _' ivestigatio?? on the personal site visit to the fnllowin? prope11
Signature: . -? Date:
PRINT NAME
S.IPlnniiing Depar-tmentlC D BL9gendas DRC & CDBICDB2010U0 October 19,20M / Corer AlFA102010.doc
r
`Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerl: Specialist:
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010 ak
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2010-08001 - 22 Bay Esplanad Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2010-08003 - 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes VA. No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
S. IPlrurning DeparthrneatlC D BlAgendns DRC & CDBICDBL20MIO October 19,20M 1 Corer HEA10 2010.doc
./'
11
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner 111.
Yes No
3. Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes
No 1-"
S.IPlanning DeparthnerntlC D B Agendas DRC & CDB1CDH12010I10 October 19, 201011 Coi ei- AdEA1O 2010.doc
` .f'
T?
earwa e
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2010-08001 - 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner- III
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2010-08003 - 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
S: /Planning DeparhnentlC D BlAgenrlns DRC & CDBICDB120I01IO October 19,20M I Corer A/EAlO 20I0.doc
.a`
i
Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No x
3. Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes
No
have conducted a personal investi(atiolt on the personal site visit to the Jollowhi.g properties.
Signature:
Date:
'9riQ)2 ?&rkex
PRINT NAME
S.IPlonning Depni'nnentlC D BlAgendns DRC & CDBICDBI20M10 Oclobcr 19,201W 1 Corer hlEA10 2010.doc
r
LL
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 19, 2010
DATE: October 14, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2010-08001 - 22 Bay Esplanade Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner- III
Yes l/ No
2. Case: FLD2010-08003 - 501 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Yes I/ No
3. Case: Case: FLD2010-09028 - 180 S. Gulfview Boulevard
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
Yes / No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: CPA2010-05001 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Presenter: Tammy Vrana, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Yes No
to q
S. (Planning DeparhrterntlC D BlAgendns DRC & CDBICDBL010I10 October 19,20M L1 Corer AIEA10 2010.doc
2. Case: LUZ2010-06002 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2010-06001)
Presenter: Lauren atzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No
Case: DVA2010-06001 - 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to LUZ2010-06002)
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III.
Yes No
I have con.ducledfpersonal iuvestiZaliou on the personal site visit to the followirr,- properties.
Signatur°
PRINT N
Date: A9 l y -/U
S.IPlnnriing DepnrbnentlC D BlAgenrlas DRC & CDBICDB12010110 October 19,201M / Cuter Afh-1/020/O.doc