03/15/2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
March 15, 2011
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 Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael 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.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 15, 2011
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of February 15, 2011, 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.
C - ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair and Vice Chair
Member Coates moved to reappoint Nicholas C. Fritsch as Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Member Dame moved to reappoint Thomas Coates as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
D - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-3):
1. Case: FLD2011-01001 – 900 Osceola Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP. (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; email: eda@jpfirm.com)
Location: 5.10 acres (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged) located on the west
side of N. Osceola Avenue at the terminus of Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet
north of Seminole Street
Community Development 2011-03-15 1
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning: Downtown (D) District.
Request: Amend a condition of approval (#2 on Development Order FLD2009-08030 dated
December 16, 2009) as follows: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a cross access
agreement be granted to Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1 from Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 2 the
owner of the subject property shall execute and record a perpetual access easement over and
across the proposed easement area shown on the approved site plan, to the satisfaction benefit
of the owner of Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1, so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola
Avenue only and be recorded and a copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the
City.
Proposed Use: Marina
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Old Clearwater Bay
Neighborhood Association.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2011-01001 2011-03-21
Jack Collier, member of the Clearwater Marina, LLC, requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Jack Collier Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Marine & Aviation Director Bill Morris, representing the City’s adjoining property,
requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Bill Morris Party Status. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Planner III Scott Kurleman said all gates will have a Knox Box
accessible by the owner of Lot One.
Ed Armstrong, representing the Applicant, said agreement language allowed the owner of
Lot One to be unresponsive and hinder development of the subject property. He said when the
owner of Lot One sold the subject property, an easement was retained over the subject property;
the sales agreement contemplated redevelopment of the subject property and relocation of the
easement. He said the new paved access is an improvement. He said it is not the role of the
CDB (Community Development Board) to impose a condition that can be thwarted by an
uncooperative neighbor; this issue is a civil dispute.
Party Status Holder Jack Collier said the owner of Lot One had requested that the
subject property owner contact the LLC’s attorney regarding the easement. He said the
attorney never was contacted and no other follow-up occurred. He expressed concern that
without permission, activity on the subject property included installation of curbs, landscaping,
and fences and vehicles were parked over the agreed upon easement. He said unreasonable
Community Development 2011-03-15 2
interference in the agreement referred to a possible sink hole, not construction activities. He
requested the board deny the proposal and allow the property owners to reach agreement.
In response to a question, Mr. Kurleman did not know if access by the owner of Lot One
was blocked during recent construction. The owner of the subject property had provided a more
desirable and direct access to Osceola Avenue for the owner of Lot One. He recommended
approval.
Party Status Holder Collier said changes are substantial. He said the subject property
owner had no right to change the access without approval of the owner of Lot One. He said the
subject property owner had not contacted the owner of Lot One to resolve easement issues.
In response to questions, Mr. Collier said the owner of Lot One’s main complaint is the
lack of access to his property. Mr. Collier did not have an opportunity to review the changes
and did not have photographs of the subject property. He only learned of the construction when
he received a letter from the City regarding today’s meeting. He said the Bait Lodge is leased.
Mr. Armstrong said most work on the subject property related to paving the access road,
as permitted by the City. He said the subject property owner is happy to provide the owner of
Lot One access to Osceola Avenue across an improved 24-foot wide road, which meets the
agreement’s intent. He said the Applicant returned to the CDB for relief after receiving no
response from the owner of Lot One.
Discussion ensued with comments that the new access road is a significant
improvement. It was felt the lack of access to Lot One was not a problem as Mr. Collier only
learned about changes yesterday. It was felt the subject property owner had complied with the
spirit of the special warranty deed. It was suggested the subject property owner should have
obtained written agreement before beginning work.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2011-01001 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
2. Case: FLD2011-01002 – 1000 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Kevin W. Phillips and Lana M. Phillips.
Agent: Steven A. Williamson, Esq. and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP. (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365)
Location: 0.23-acre property located on the west side of Eldorado, approximately 300
feet north of Juniper Street.
Atlas Page: 238A.
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck
for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line)
where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-204.E.
Proposed Use: Detached dwelling.
Community Development 2011-03-15 3
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2011-01002 2011-03-21
Member Coates moved to accept Ellen Crandall as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and the landscape ordinance. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Concerns were expressed that a zero setback from the CCCL (Coastal Construction
Control Line) would be imprudent and the artist’s conception shows landscaping west of the
CCCL, which is not permitted.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reviewed Code language that indicates the
request is permitted. It was recommended that Staff consider amending the Code to require a
construction setback from the CCCL. Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said this
request conforms to the established development pattern. It was stated the swimming pool will be
landward of the CCCL and its positioning is similar to at least 25 properties.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-01002 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed, plus a condition that no plantings shall be seaward of the CCCL. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
3. Case: FLD2011-01003 – 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email:
renee@northsideengineering.net)
Location: 0.253-acre property located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately
600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue.
Atlas Page: 306A.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 1,996 square-foot restaurant in the
Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square-feet, lot widths of 146.79 feet (Lakeview
Road) and 89.77 feet (Dempsey Street), front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and
four feet (to pavement), front (south) setbacks of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one foot (to
pavement), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five
feet (to pavement), a building height of 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof), and 16 off-street
parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-704.C., along with a reduction to the 15-foot perimeter
landscape buffer along Lakeview Road to four feet, a reduction to the 10-foot perimeter landscape
buffer along Dempsey Street to one foot, a reduction to the five-foot east perimeter landscape
buffer to three feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 7 percent
of the vehicular use area, and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both
the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Community Development 2011-03-15 4
Proposed Use: Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Lake Bellevue Association.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2011-01003 2011-03-21
CSF (Community Service Foundation) Executive Director Jerry Spilatro requested Party
Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Jerry Spilatro Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Michael Matheny requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Michael Matheny Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Keith Estes requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Keith Estes Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Kevin Sexton requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Kevin Sexton Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
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. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the request, which has been
modified. Staff recommends denial due to parking concerns.
In response to a question, Shelly Johnson, representing the Applicant, said the small
scale restaurant plans to serve Cajun style seafood. She said the applicant plans to invest
$300,000 in the property. She said the use is appropriate. She requested additional time to
make her presentation.
Member Coates moved to provide the applicant and City an additional three minutes
each for presentations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Ms. Johnson said revisions increased parking, which is within ranges permitted by Code.
She said significant landscaping is proposed, including a buffer along the rear of the property.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Pergolizzi as an expert witness in the fields of
transportation planning and as a certified planner. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2011-03-15 5
Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, said the parking study is based on the
Lakeview Grill, as originally agreed to by staff. He said his study results indicated parking will be
sufficient and well within the range required by Code. He felt the restaurant would attract walkers.
Ms. Johnson said modifications will be necessary regardless of the use of the building.
She said the proposal is a great opportunity for the City. In response to questions, she said the
restaurant intends to have five employees. Mr. Delk said more legal parking cannot be added.
The dumpster was moved to minimize impacts on neighbors. Ms. Johnson said a small rollout will
be used.
Party Status Holder Jerry Spilatro opposed the request, expressing concerns the parking
study is flawed, the restaurant will be noisy, generate additional traffic, and customers will park
and leave litter in CSF’s small lot next door.
Party Status Holder Michael Matheny opposed the request, stating proposed
landscaping is inadequate and the property is too small for a restaurant, which is not a proper
use in his neighborhood.
Party Status Holder Keith Estes supported the request, stating he has lived across the
street for 29 years and a restaurant would greatly improve the current site, which is in disarray.
He said the applicant is well qualified to operate a restaurant and he and neighbors look forward
to eating there.
Party Status Holder Kevin Sexton supported the request, stating he owns a business
next door. He said parking and safety issues were addressed and parking usually is available
by the cemetery.
Applicant Mark LeBlanc said he fell in love with the architectural detail of the building and
reviewed his efforts to meet City code and open a restaurant there.
In response to questions, Mr. Tefft said adding parking would impact landscaping, the
dumpster location, etc. Restaurants require more parking than retail uses. While the project
proposes two parking spaces more than minimum, he said less than 15 spaces per 1,000 square-
feet of restaurant use would be inadequate. He expressed concern parking would spill into
commercial properties and the neighborhood. Staff’s determination that the Lakeview Grill was
not comparable for a parking study was based on evidence in the report. Mr. Delk said offsite
parking is regularly available downtown. The applicant did not present a specific location for off-
site parking.
Party Status Holder Matheny said it would be unreasonable for restaurant patrons to
jaywalk across Lakeview on a curve.
Mr. Pergolizzi supported the parking study’s methodology using the Lakeview Grill. He
said many patrons can use the same parking space throughout the evening. He said parking on
the street is not prohibited.
Discussion ensued with comments that proposed parking is within the Code’s
acceptable range and on-street parking is available. It was suggested that the restaurant would
Community Development 2011-03-15 6
not be full all of the time and staff could be required to park off-site, freeing more space for
patrons. It was hoped the restaurant is successful and the owner could locate additional
parking space. It was agreed the applicant is persistent as this is the third time before the CDB.
Support for the project was expressed as the applicant is an experienced restaurateur. It was
felt the restaurant would provide a great opportunity for the location.
The Community Development Board recessed from 2:57 to 3:02 p.m.
See Exhibit: Conditions of Approval: FLD2011-01003 2011-03-21
Mr. Tefft and Mr. Delk reviewed proposed conditions of approval.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-01003 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby
make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: 1) That the development proposal
is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code (CDC) Tables 2-701.1
and 2-704; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standard for minimum off-
street parking as per CDC Table 2-704; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the
Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC Sections 2-704.C.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; 4) That the development
proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criterion set forth in CDC Section 2-704.C.5; and 5)
That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A. and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the
application complies with the City Community Development Code Section(s) noted above, with
conditions of approval as listed on the attached memorandum. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
E - DIRECTOR'S ITEM: (Item 1)
1. Clearwater Greenprint
Planner III Lauren Matzke reviewed Clearwater Greenprint committee efforts and adopted
strategies. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Community actions are required to
meet goals. In response to a question, Ms. Matzke said separated yard waste will be mulched
rather than added to the landfill.
Efforts to develop livable communities were applauded. It was recommended that the
building code require HVAC temperature controls in large buildings. State regulations based on
green Building LEED were encouraged. Other committee efforts encouraged community gardens
to produce food, improve neighborhood cohesiveness, and teach children how to grow food.
F-ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:23 p.m
C air `
Cdalmunity Development Board
7
Community Development 2011-03-15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01001 2011-03-15
CDB Meeting Date: March 15, 2011
Case Numbers: FLD2011-01001
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Addresses: 900 North Osceola Ave
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Amend a condition of approval (#2 on Development Order
FLD2009-08030 dated December 16, 2009) as follows: That,
prior to the issuance of any permits, a cross access agreement be
granted to Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1 from Clearwater Bay
Marina Lot 2 the owner of the subject property shall execute and
record a perpetual access easement over and across the proposed
easement area shown on the approved site plan, to the
satisfaction benefit of the owner of Clearwater Bay Marina Lot
1, so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue only
and be recorded and a copy of the recorded easement shall be
provided to the City.
ORIGINAL REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the
Downtown (D) District with a dock master building height of
17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-903.H.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
At its meeting of December 15, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved the
above referenced original request, subject to the following conditions:
1.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, any final plat if required by City Code or State law
be approved by appropriate parties;
2.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a cross access agreement be granted to Clearwater
Bay Marina Lot 1 from Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 2, to the satisfaction of the owner of Lot
1 so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue only and be recorded and a copy be
provided to the City;
3.That, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all chainlink fences be removed from
the site;
4.That, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, both emergency access points be gated
with a knox box and signed accordingly and only be accessed for emergency vehicles;
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01001 – Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01001 2011-03-15
5.That, all pilings be removed or completely screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-
ways with landscaping as approved by the Planning Department within one year from the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
6.That, should the pilings remain, they are made safe according to OSHA or other applicable
standards prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
7.That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the retaining wall on the north side
be repaired to prevent any further erosion;
8.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all vehicular and golf cart accesses
be improved with an acceptable all weather paving material;
9.That, no fence other than the proposed decorative wrought iron fence be installed along
Osceola Avenue;
10.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, all parking lot surfaces be redesigned to use
interlocking pavers, bricks or other similarly textured materials for parking lot accents only;
11.That, the transition area guidelines in the Old Bay character district are complied with when a
residential component is proposed;
12.That, the ownership of the upland area of 3.55 acres and the submerged area of 1.55 acres not
be divided;
13.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, there be a stipulation in all boat
leases that the lease will expire 180 days after the submission of a building permit for any
residential component on the upland property or the site will be reviewed as a mixed use
project;
14.That live aboard vessels be prohibited;
15.That there be no fueling facilities, boat launching or dry storage of boats;
16.That the slips be limited for private recreational boats, that there are no boat rentals, no jet ski
rentals and that no commercial boats conduct any business at the marina;
17.That, covered boatlifts, roof structures and vertical walls are not permitted;
18.That no servicing of boats or motors is permitted other than necessary minor repairs and
maintenance;
19.That the landscape be installed per the approved landscape plan prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy;
20.That all signage be permitted separately and comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
21.That all fences be permitted separately and comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
22.That no additions or changes are permitted to the existing boat slips unless approved with the
necessary city, state, federal or other applicable entities; and
23.That the sanitary sewage pump-out holding tank not be located over water.
Subsequent to this approval in 2009, the applicant has been negotiating with the owner of
Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1 to satisfy the requirements of condition of approval #2 to no avail.
The existing easement recorded in O.R. Book 14261, Page 1149 provides access to Clearwater
Bay Marina Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue; however, it traverses over the newly constructed
parking spaces for Clearwater Basin Marina. Clearwater Basin Marina has proposed a non-
exclusive perpetual access easement in a revised location for the owner of Clearwater Bay
Marina Lot 1. The original condition of approval required the access easement be provided to
and satisfy the owner of Lot 1. The newly proposed access easement has not satisfied the owner
of Lot 1 notwithstanding the fact that the proposed access easement does provide appropriate and
more desirable access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue.
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01001 – Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01001 2011-03-15
RECOMMENDATION:
The request to amend condition of approval #2 has been found to have no impact upon the
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth with the original approval granted by the CDB.
Moreover, the original condition of approval requiring access to Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1
from Osceola Avenue to the satisfaction of the owner of Lot 1 has been found to be overly
burdensome and restrictive for the owner of Clearwater Basin Marina. The revised location of
the access easement provides an adequate and more desirable route than the existing access
easement.
APPROVAL
Therefore, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the request
to amend condition of approval (#2 on Development Order FLD2009-08030 dated December 16,
2009) as follows: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a cross access agreement be granted
to Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1 from Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 2 the owner of the subject
property shall execute and record a perpetual access easement over and across the proposed
easement area shown on the approved site plan, to the satisfaction benefit of the owner of
Clearwater Bay Marina Lot 1, so as to provide access to Lot 1 from Osceola Avenue only and be
recorded and a copy of the recorded easement shall be provided to the City.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01001 – Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01002 2011-03-15
CDB Meeting Date: March 15, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-01002
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner/Applicant: Kevin W. and Lana M. Phillips
Agent: Steven A. Williamson , Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP
Address: 1000 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new
swimming pool and deck for an existing single-family detached
dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control
Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.
ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
Proposed: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING
Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES:
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Vacant Lot
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Water
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.22 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 300
feet north of Juniper Street. The property is presently a single-family detached dwelling. The
properties to the north, south, and east, are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District and the properties to the north and east are developed with detached dwellings. The
property to the south is a vacant lot. Land to the west is zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
District and is the Gulf of Mexico.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to add a pool and deck to the existing single-family detached dwelling. The
request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear (west) setback
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01002– Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01002 2011-03-15
to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool and decking. The pool and decking
will have a zero foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with houses south of the subject
property. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905.C.2 any requests to
modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two
development process.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is
discussed below.
Density: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category,
the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 9,882 square feet (0.22 acres), one
dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban
(RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.53 is
proposed.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential
Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five
feet, and a rear setback between zero and 15 feet. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of
zero feet with no reductions to front or side setbacks and is therefore compliant with the above
referenced requirements.
The reduction in the rear setback allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and
emerging development pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in the vicinity have or
appear to have zero foot setbacks to the CCCL. A setback of zero feet from the CCCL to an in
ground pool and deck was approved for 974 Eldorado (FLD2010-11031), 740 Eldorado Avenue
(FLD2009-10040) and for 1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004). In the case
of 740 Eldorado the subject property (1000 Eldorado) is located further to the north on the beach
and the CCCL is a greater distance from the mean high water line (approximately 500 feet).
Existing pools and decks to the south of the subject property are set back zero feet from the
CCCL for pool and decks based upon surveys provided for FLD2010-11031 (926 and 920
Eldorado). In addition, review of aerial photography show that several existing waterfront
properties in the vicinity appear to have up to zero foot structural setbacks to the CCCL
including 14 Somerset Street, 9 Cambria Street, 724, 734, 740, 770, 800, 804, 856, 880, 920,
926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970, 1002 Eldorado Avenue, 1154, 1160, 1170, 1176, 1188, 1192, and
1198 Mandalay Point Road. Please see Exhibit “C” of the applicant’s submission for aerial
photographs supporting these addresses. Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a
typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and
consistent with the emerging development pattern.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar
mechanical equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such
equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Compliance with
screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal.
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01002– Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01002 2011-03-15
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables
2-201.1 and 2-204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/ac 4.5 du/ac (1 unit) X
ISR 0.65 0.53 X
Minimum Setbacks Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet (to deck) X 1
1
See Analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity
or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the 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 visual, X
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01002– Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01002 2011-03-15
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of February 3, 2011 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 0.22 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 300 feet
north of Juniper Street;
2.That the property is currently developed with a single-family detached dwelling;
3.That the proposal is to add a pool and deck to an existing single-family detached dwelling;
4.That the proposal includes a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL) to deck;
5.That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.2, any requests to modify setback requirements from
the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and
6.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
204.E 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 approval for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck for an existing
-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
single
with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is
allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-204.E. with the following conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles;
2.That pool and deck be constructed no higher than 12 inches or less above existing grade; and
3.That outdoor mechanical equipment including air conditioning and pool equipment be
screened from view from adjacent streets and properties, and
4.That any rental of the single-family detached dwelling shall be for periods greater than 31
calendar days or one calendar month and that the appropriate Business Tax Receipt be
obtained.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Ellen Crandall, Planner II
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01002– Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01002 2011-03-15
Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01002– Page 5 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
CDB Meeting Date: March 15, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-01003
Agenda Item: D. 3.
Owners/Applicant: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc
Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
Address: 921 Lakeview Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 1,996 square foot
restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square
feet, lot widths of 146.79 feet (Lakeview Road) and 89.77 feet (Dempsey
Street), front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four
feet (to pavement), front (south) setbacks of 30.2 feet (to existing
building) and one-foot (to pavement), a side (east) setback of three feet
(to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement), a
building height of 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof), and 16 off-
street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
704.C., along with a reduction to the 15-foot perimeter landscape buffer
along Lakeview Road to four feet, a reduction to the 10-foot perimeter
landscape buffer along Dempsey Street to one-foot, a reduction to the
five-foot east perimeter landscape buffer to three feet, a reduction to the
interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 7 percent of the
vehicular use area, and reductions to the width of the foundation
landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five
feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant
Proposed: Restaurant
EXISTING North: Institutional (I) District
SURROUNDING
Cemetery
ZONING AND USES:
South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached dwellings
East: Commercial (C) District
Offices
West: Commercial (C) District
Manufacturing
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.253-acre subject property is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600
feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. The property is a through
lot, having street frontage on both Lakeview Road (north) and Dempsey Street (south). The
property consists of a 1,996 square foot two-story building with a large concrete pad at the south
side of the building and a small driveway at the north side of the building. However, the current
site does not have any Code compliant off-street parking spaces.
The subject property has been before the Community Development Board (CDB) on two
previous occasions with requests to establish a restaurant use. At its meeting of February 20,
2007, the CDB denied case FLD2006-05032, and at its meeting of June 15, 2010, the CDB
denied case FLD2010-03005.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal is to establish a restaurant use within the existing two-story building
and construct accessory off-street parking, storm water retention, landscaping and solid waste
facilities on the balance of the site. The applicant proposes to utilize the first floor of the
building for the restaurant use, while the second floor would exist only to provide access to the
roof.
While the building and parking lot locations, as well as other site improvements, are similar to
the prior restaurant application denied by the CDB in June 2010, this restaurant application is
different in the following:
?Under the prior application (FLD2010-03005) the 320 square foot second floor of the
building was to be used as an office for the proposed restaurant. As such, the project
required between 16 and 35 off-street parking spaces (a ratio of 7 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area). The current proposal does not use the second floor for any purpose;
therefore the parking requirement is between 14 and 30 off-street parking spaces (a ratio of 8
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area); and
?Under the prior application (FLD2010-03005) the dumpster was located along and accessed
from Dempsey Street. The current proposal located the dumpster within the center of the site
and is accessed from the drive aisle which connects only to Lakeview Road.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal
is for a restaurant of a total gross floor area of 1,996 square feet at a FAR of 0.18, which is below
the above referenced maximum.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.698, which is below the above referenced maximum.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area for restaurants in the Commercial (C) District may range from
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 11,018 square feet (0.253 acres), which
exceeds this comparative Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width
for restaurants in the C District may range from 35 – 100 feet. The lot width along Lakeview
Road is 146.79 feet, while the lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. The proposal
exceeds this comparative Code provision along Lakeview Road, and is within the permissible
range along Dempsey Street. This lesser lot width can be attributed to the pie-shape of some of
the lots that comprise the subject property and the curvature of the roadway.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum setbacks for restaurants in the C District may be within 15 – 25 feet (front) and zero –
10 feet (side). It is noted that through lots have front setback requirements on both street
frontages and side setback requirements from the perpendicular lot lines. The proposal includes
a front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four feet (to pavement), a front
(south) setback of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one-foot (to pavement), a side (east)
setback of three feet (to existing building), and a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement).
This proposal includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite
some time. As has been previously stated in relation to the prior iterations of this project, Staff is
supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any proposed use will
need setback reductions for this existing building. The proposed use of a restaurant requires
more parking than other less intense uses within the C District (such as retail sales, medical
clinics or offices), and the need to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible
results in restrictions to meeting setback and landscape buffering requirements. Other less
intense uses requiring fewer parking spaces could provide larger setbacks and buffers, but Staff
acknowledges that reductions to setback and buffer requirements would, to a lesser degree, still
be necessary for other less intense uses.
With this application, setbacks have been minimalized in order to provide even the minimum
number of required parking spaces, which in turn minimizes the ability to provide meaningful
landscape planting areas to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. Along
Lakeview Road, the smallest provided front setback at four feet is north of the western parking
row. Moving eastward, the eastern parking row is at an 8.5-foot setback to the north property
line, while the existing building is set back 18.1 feet at its nearest point to the property line
(northeast corner). Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is
only at a one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place any landscape buffering on-site
at this location to block the headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached
dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street. The southern ends of the parking rows are at a
3.5-foot (west) and three-foot (east) setback. The existing building is set back three feet from the
east property line. The proposed parking lot is set back five feet from the west property line,
which coincides with the required landscape buffer width. The proposed setbacks in this case
must be reviewed in light of its affect on other Code requirements as to their appropriateness and
ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for restaurants in the C District may range from 25 – 50 feet. The existing
building height is 29.25 feet (to the midpoint of the existing roof). Whether this existing
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
building is re-used for a restaurant or another permissible use in the C District, the existing
building height is acceptable and compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial
buildings.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking
requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the
Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
In the C District, the minimum off-street parking requirement for restaurants is between 7 and 15
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon the 1,996 square feet of gross floor
area for the existing building, the minimum off-street parking requirement would be between 14
and 30 spaces. The applicant is proposing 16 off-street parking spaces, which would provide
parking at a ratio of 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is noted that all of the
proposed off-street parking spaces are accessed solely from Lakeview Road and are located on
the west and south sides of the building.
The applicant has submitted an amended version of the same Parking Study that was provided as
a part of the prior application (FLD2010-03005) in an attempt to justify the requested reduction
in required off-street parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a
small neighborhood specialty restaurant (Cajun seafood). The methodology of the Parking Study
remains as it was for the previous submittal and review of this project, which was to conduct a
parking accumulation study of a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant. The Lakeview Grill
at 1510 Lakeview Road was analyzed by the applicant’s consultant as the similar restaurant in
January 2010. The study notes that the restaurants are similar in size, similar in lot size, both
specialty neighborhood restaurants, and both located in mixed-use areas. The Study also notes
that the Lakeview Grill contains 15 tables, is open from 9AM to 9PM with 3 to 4 total
employees, and has 10 code-compliant off-street parking spaces. In comparison, the Study notes
that the proposed restaurant would employ 5 staff and would serve dinner only on weeknights
(4:30PM – 10:00 PM) and lunch and dinner on Fridays and weekends (11AM – 10PM).
The Parking Study found that on the Friday the site was studied the parking demand was from a
low of zero occupied spaces (2PM) to 5 occupied spaces (7PM), while on the Saturday the site
was studied the parking demand was from a low of 2 occupied spaces (8PM) to a peak of 6
occupied spaces (11AM and 7PM). The Study determined a parking demand ratio of 2.55 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the Lakeview Grill. The Study concludes that, transferring
this parking demand ratio to this site would result in a need of five off-street parking spaces for
the proposed restaurant and, even if all five employees drove separately to work, that the total
demand would be 10 parking spaces. While City Staff approved the original methodology for
the Study, Staff disagrees with its findings now as it did when presented as part of the prior
application.
The Lakeview Grill is located on the southern edge of a much larger and more concentrated
commercial area than is the subject property, and further it is surrounded by relatively large
attached dwelling complexes and detached dwelling subdivisions that are not part of the make-up
of the neighborhood for the subject property. In its initial review of the Study, Staff questioned
why there were zero occupied spaces on the Friday the site was studied so Staff inquired of the
Lakeview Grill management about this circumstance, since there would be employees at the
restaurant even if there were no customers. The management stated that many employees and
customers walk or take a bus to that restaurant, which could account for zero vehicles in the
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
parking lot. For the subject property, there is not a similar concentration of commercial
businesses or a larger population in close proximity. For the subject property, there is a large
lake and a City park to the south and southeast, while there is a cemetery to the north and
northwest.
It is the position of the Planning and Development Department that the Code required off-street
parking of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area should be provided. Staff’s
concern with this restaurant proposal for this site is that without an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces, parking demand could result in spill-over parking onto adjacent properties and
into the rights-of-way. Such spill-over parking into the surrounding rights-of-way is within
residential areas, which would then be burdened with nonresidential parking resulting in traffic
congestion within the residential neighborhood. Re-using this existing structure is appropriate,
but with a less intense use that would have a smaller parking demand.
It is noted that in addition to the Parking Study, the applicant did subsequently conduct and
provide a sidewalk survey (dated February 23, 2011) that found that a large majority of the
public roadways within a ¼ mile radius of the subject property have sidewalks to facilitate non-
vehicular modes of transportation. While this survey does provide evidence that sidewalks exist
in the area to accommodate pedestrian traffic, it provides neither evidence to state how much
pedestrian traffic is currently occurring within what the Study identifies as an existing mixed-use
area, nor any evidence that the proposed restaurant would stimulate any pedestrian traffic from
the area.
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
upon the plans submitted, it is unclear of the location of such mechanical equipment, whether
such will be placed on the ground or on the roof area. The location and screening of such
mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this
application be approved by the CDB.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveway on Lakeview Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering
Department and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The existing building is served by overhead utilities. Should
this application be approved by the CDB, all utilities serving this building must be relocated
underground on-site in compliance with this requirement.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, there is a 15-foot wide landscape buffer
required along Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer required along Dempsey Street
and a five-foot wide landscape buffer required along the east and west sides of the site. The
proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four
feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to
one-foot (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
feet (to existing building). Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, 10% of the gross vehicular use
area shall be provided within interior landscape islands. The proposal includes a reduction to
this requirement from 10% to 7%. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings
shall be provided for 100 percent of a building facade with frontage along a street right-of-way,
excluding space necessary for building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped area. The proposal includes a reduction to the width of the foundation landscape area
on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G., the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment N/A N/A
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is 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 1
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
1
See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency.
The ability to meet the Code requirements for perimeter, interior and foundation landscape areas
is restricted by the property configuration, building location, stormwater requirements and the
provision of the greatest number of parking spaces possible. Given these design constraints, the
applicant has designed as much landscaping as possible within the planting areas provided.
Along Lakeview Road, the provided landscape buffer is the smallest to the north of the western
parking row where only a four-foot setback is provided. A minimum of 7.5 feet is provided
between the retention pond and Lakeview Road right-of-way, expanding to a larger dimension
north of the eastern parking row and at the northeast corner of the building. The front landscape
buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with cabbage palms, Japanese privet and winged
elm trees with underplantings consisting of white Indian hawthorn, minima jasmine, and
schefflera. Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is only at a
one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place landscaping on-site at this location. The
southern ends of the parking rows are at setbacks of 3.5 feet (west) and three feet (east) where a
dwarf podocarpus hedge and crape myrtle trees are proposed. That portion of the buffer adjacent
to the stormwater retention area will also include Japanese privet and schefflera.
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
The proposal includes a request to reduce the required amount of landscaping within the interior
landscape islands from 10% to 7% of the gross vehicular use area. The only area counted toward
interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This requested reduction is also a result
of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature
of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. The purpose of
interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and provide shade
to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors the other landscape reductions requested
where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended use. The
interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with crape myrtle trees with underplantings
consisting of dwarf podocarpus, schefflera, and white Indian hawthorn.
The proposal includes a reduction to the required foundation landscaping area facing Lakeview
Road and Dempsey Street from five feet wide to zero feet. On the north side, this reduction is
due to the need to provide sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical
wall retention pond in the front setback/buffer. On the south side, parking is located adjacent to
the building. Foundation landscaping is being provided on the east portion of the north and
south sides of the building, consisting of cabbage palms with podocarpus, schefflera and
simpson’s stopper.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides a 6-foot by 4.6 foot dumpster enclosure within the center of
the property. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards, including the
requirement the exterior of the enclosure to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of
the building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows
that are boarded up (CDC2010-00638, which has been referred to Building Division).
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.18 X
ISR 0.95 0.698 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 11,018 square feet (0.253 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A North: 146.79 feet X
South: 89.77 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 18.1 feet (to existing building) X
4.0 feet (to pavement)
South: 30.2 feet (to existing building) X
1.0 feet (to pavement)
Side: N/A East: 3 feet (to existing building) X
West: 5 feet (to pavement) X
Maximum Height N/A 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof) X
Minimum Determined by the 16 parking spaces X 1
Off-Street Parking Community Development (8.02 spaces per 1,000 sf)
Coordinator based on the
specific use and/or ITE
Manual standards
1
Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
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 – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.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 February 3, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 0.253-acre subject property is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately
600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue;
2.The subject property has approximately 146.79 feet of frontage along Lakeview Road and
approximately 89.77 feet of frontage along Dempsey Street;
3.At its meeting of February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board denied Case
FLD2006-05032 for this same property to permit a restaurant with similar characteristics;
4.At its meeting of June 15, 2010, the Community Development Board denied Case FLD2010-
03005 for this same property to permit a restaurant with similar characteristics;
5.This proposal is similar in design to the prior application under FLD2010-03005, but is
different in that the second floor of the existing building is no longer proposed to be utilized
(which has resulted in a smaller parking requirement), and the dumpster has been relocated
from adjacent to Dempsey Street to the center of the property;
6.Based upon the gross floor area of the existing building, a minimum of between 14 and 30
off-street parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant and the applicant has
proposed 16 parking spaces;
7.A Parking Study has been submitted to justify a parking space reduction that analyzed a
similar neighborhood specialty restaurant (Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road), finding
that adequate parking for the subject property would be available by the 16 provided spaces;
8.Staff disagrees with the Parking Study findings of adequate provided parking and would
require that 15 off-street parking space be provided per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
9.In order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal
includes reductions to required setbacks and landscape buffers; and
10.There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows that are boarded up
(CDC2010-00638, referred to Building Division).
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community
Development Code (CDC) Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 (with the exception of the minimum
off-street parking requirement);
2.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standard for minimum off-street
parking as per CDC Table 2-704;
3.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC
Sections 2-704.C.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6;
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criterion set forth in CDC
Section 2-704.C.5; and
5.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A.
DENIAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the
Flexible Development application to permit a 1,996 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 11,018 square feet, lot widths of 146.79 feet (Lakeview Road) and 89.77
feet (Dempsey Street), front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four feet (to
pavement), front (south) setbacks of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one-foot (to pavement), a
side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to
pavement), a building height of 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof), and 16 off-street parking
spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C., along with a reduction to the 15-foot perimeter landscape
buffer along Lakeview Road to four feet, a reduction to the 10-foot perimeter landscape buffer
along Dempsey Street to one-foot, a reduction to the five-foot east perimeter landscape buffer to
three feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 7 percent of the
vehicular use area, and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north
and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: ___________________________________
Robert 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\Lakeview 0921 Boiling Pot (C) 2011.03 - CDB - RT\Staff
Report 2011 03-15.docx
Community Development Board – March 15, 2011
FLD2011-01006 – Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FLD2011-01003 2011-03-15
Conditions of Approval:
1. That the business be open no earlier than 6:00am, or later than 10pm;
2. That if a license is obtained for the sale of alcoholic beverages, that it be a 2COP or lesser
license;
3. That there be no amplified entertainment on the premises;
4. That utilities associated with the redevelopment of the subject property be relocated
underground pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-912;
5. That all mechanical equipment be screened pursuant to Community Development Code
Section 3-201.D.1;
6. That the architectural elevations submitted to obtain a building permit be consistent with
those approved by the Community Development Board;
7. That the applicant, and all future applicants, must obtain and maintain a Business Tax
Receipt (BTR) for the restaurant; and
8. That a good faith effort be made to obtain additional parking for the restaurant.
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter A
G?
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for VrhAraey 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
2.
Case: FLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue
Yes No
Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Case: FLD201 1-01002 - 1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
Yes
No V
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
PRINT NAME
Yes ./ No
LL
O Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter _ ` , , ,?,,,?
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for rua 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
Case :kLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue
1
Yes J No _
2. Case: FLD201 1-01002 -1000 Ldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
Yes No \\
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
Yes \j No
I have conducted'a rsonal ' - vest' atio on t e ersonal site visit to the following r/o ep riles.
Sign? e-' ??- Date: -
PRINT NAME
Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner Ill.
`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 Pet?u 5, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
2.
3.
Case: FLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue
Yes No
Case: FLD201 1-01002 -1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
Yes
Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner Ill.
No
Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road
Review Manager. `.
Yes No
Signature:
Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Date
PRINT
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Fehrkary 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
2.
3
Case: FLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Yes X No
Case: FL?D22011-01002 -1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
Yes /`- No
Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road
Review Manager.
Yes "? No
Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
LL
O
} Clearwater
F-
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Communily 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 r
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Fehxx%xy 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201 01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Yes No
2. Case: F1,13201 -01002 -1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
Yes o
I have conducted erso al i?v sti ation on the personal site visit to the following prq2erties.
Date: rz?"l 05 k S
Signature:
PRINT NAM
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Fi lb m 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Yes No
2. Case: FLD201 1-01002 - 1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner H.
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
Yes No
al
Signature:
Date:
NAME
LL
0
y 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 Vebrhpy 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
2.
Case: FLD2011-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Yes No
Case: FLD201 1-01002 - 1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner Il.
Yes
No n/
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
Yes
No
PRINT NAME
"Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
FROM:
Community Development Board Members
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 15, 2011
DATE: March 10, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1.
Case: FLD201 1-01001 -- 900 Osceola Avenue
Yes No
2. Case: FLD201 1-01002 -1000 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Ellen Crandall, Planner Il.
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201 1-01003 - 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Development
Review Manager.
Yes No
Signature:
Planner A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
rization on the personal
E-1,'4 2%cHS
Date: (r5r
PRINT NAME