Loading...
04/19/2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 19, 2011 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice Chair Frank L. Dame Board Member Richard Adelson Board Member Brian A. Barker Board Member Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member Absent: Doreen DiPolito Board Member Kurt B. Hinrichs 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. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: March 15, 2011 Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of March 15, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO DATE UNCERTAIN: (Item 1) 1. Level Three Application Case: CPA2011-01001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department. Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan making substantive changes to the Future Land Use, Transportation, Conservation and Housing Elements; addressing recommendations within Clearwater Greenprint: A Community Action Plan for Sustainability; establishing Energy Conservation Areas and Energy Conservation Corridors; addressing urban agriculture; creating more detailed policies for pedestrian and bicycle facilities; addressing Complete Streets; establishing greenhouse gas reduction goals; addressing availability of current and future water sources; providing strategies to reduce energy use and to improve energy efficiency; incorporating sustainable design and low impact development practices into residential development design; and encouraging the use of alternative and renewable energy sources; making minor editorial changes. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Planner III. Community Development 2011-04-19 1 See Exhibit: Memorandum CPA2011-01001 2011-04-19 Member Coates moved to continue Case: CPA2011-01001 to a date uncertain. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO MAY 17, 2011: (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2011-02006 – 249 Windward Passage Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Inc. Agent: Housh Ghovaee and/or 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: 4.53 acres located on the south side of Windward Passage approximately 210 feet west of Island Way. Atlas Page: 267B. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of the Clearwater Marine Aquarium within the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 197,167 square-feet (4.526 acres), a lot width of 546.3 feet, a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to building/pavement), rear (south) setbacks of 12 feet (to building) and zero feet (to marina promenade), side (east) setbacks of 181 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of 30 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), a building height of 46.16 feet, and 311 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. along with reductions to the perimeter buffer requirements along the east property line from 10 feet to seven feet, the south property lines from 15 feet to zero feet, and the north (non-Windward Passage) property line from 10 feet to 5 feet, and a reduction from the required number of trees within interior landscape islands from 34 to 20 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with a two-year Development Order. Proposed Use: Aquarium. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Island Estates Civic Association. Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. See Exhibit: Memorandum FLD2011-02006 2011-04-19 Member Dame declared a conflict of interest. Acting Member Carlough moved to continue Case: FLD2011-02006 to May 17, 2011. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Adelson, and Barker, Acting Board Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Dame abstained. Motion carried. F – CONSENT AGENDA: Following cases are not contested by applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1 – 4) 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2008-12033 – 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee. Community Development 2011-04-19 2 Representative: Joe Burdette (email: hunraf@aol.com). Location: 2.689 acres located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning: Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation Districts. Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order. Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on lot acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square-feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 134 feet (to flat roof deck). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager. See Exhibit: Memorandum FLD2008-12033 2011-04-19 Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. In response to questions, Development Review Manager Robert Tefft said the applicant had requested a one-year extension. The completion date in the memorandum should read May 17, 2012. No pending Code changes would affect the extension. Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2008-12033 on today’s Consent Agenda to extend the timeframe of the Development Order to May 17, 2012, as permitted by Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, and Adelson, Acting Board Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. 2. Case: LUP2011-02003 – 2419 Nursery Road Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Unity Clearwater, Inc. Representative: Unity Clearwater Inc (2465 Nursery Road, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727-531-0992). Location: 1.243 acres, located on the south side of Nursery Road approximately 2347.5 feet west of U.S.19. Atlas Page: 317B. Request: Future Land Use Map amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category to Institutional (I) Category. Type of Amendment: Large scale. Proposed Use: Places of Worship. Neighborhood Associations: Morningside Meadows and Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition. Presenter: Priyanka Thatte, Urban Designer. See Exhibit: Staff Report: LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19 See page 4 for motion to recommend approval. 3. Case: REZ2011-02003 – 2419 Nursery Road Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Unity Clearwater, Inc. Representative: Unity Clearwater Inc (2465 Nursery Road, Clearwater, FL 33764; phone: 727-531-0992). Location: 1.243 acres, located on the south side of Nursery Road approximately 2347.5 feet west of U.S.19. Community Development 2011-04-19 3 Atlas Page: 317B. Request: Zoning Atlas amendment from Agricultural Estate (AE) to Institutional (I) District. Proposed Use: Places of Worship. Neighborhood Associations: Morningside Meadows and Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition. Presenter: Priyanka Thatte, Urban Designer. See Exhibit: Staff Report: REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19 See below for motion to recommend approval. 4. Level Three Application Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department. Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; replacing map #E-1 to update the boundaries of the Coastal Storm Area; modify references to water quality criteria regulations within the Conservation Element; correcting a reference to the 25-year floodplain map within the Conservation Element; correcting the classification of McMullen Booth Road as a County Road within the Capital Improvements Element. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Planner III. See Exhibit: Staff Report: CPA2011-03001 2011-04-19 Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Cases: LUP2011-02003, REZ2011- 02003 and CPA2011-03001 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). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1) 1. Level Two Application Case: FLD2011-02005 – 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Owner/Applicant: Mainstream Partners VIII, Ltd Agent: Tim Healey, Frontier Engineering, Inc. (P.O. Box 4750, Tampa, FL 33677; phone: 813-251-1069; fax 813-251-0179; email: frontierengineering@yahoo.com) Location: .45-acre property located at the intersections of Coronado Drive and 5th Street; 5th Street and Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning: Tourist (T) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a parking lot in the Tourist (T) District with a minimum lot area of 19,800 square-feet, a lot width of 60 feet (along Coronado Drive), a lot width of 219 feet (along Fifth Street), a lot width of 121.5 feet (along Hamden Drive), a front (west) setback of 33.4 feet, front (north) setbacks of 7.5 feet and 12.5 feet, a front (east) setback of 15.1 feet and 10.2 feet, a side (south) setback of 6 feet, side (west) setback of 4.5 feet, and a side (south) setback of 5.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and a reduction of interior landscape standards from 10% to 0% as no groundcover, 50% shrubs or one tree per 150 square-feet of greenspace/interior islands is proposed, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.E. Proposed Use: Parking lot Community Development 2011-04-19 4 Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner II. See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 Member Coates moved to accept Kevin Nurnberger as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner II Kevin Nurnberger reviewed the staff report. He said inside curbing is a Code requirement. The lot will have no signage. Tim Healey, representative for the applicant, said he had discussed drainage issues with Louis D'Amico, property owner to the south. Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said an agreement between the applicant and Mr. D'Amico would be acceptable as long as it does not contradict staff's presentation. Mr. Healey requested eliminating requirements for interior curbing and an onsite pay station. He said installation of curbing would not be cost effective; a manager, next door in the motel office facing the parking lot, will collect parking fees and monitor groundcover. Mr. Delk said staff would support a pay station next door as long as it is ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. In response to questions, applicant Tony Fernandez said the hotel and parking lot would be sold as one property; there is no Unity of Title. He said the parking lot will be used by the public and for overflow parking from his motel. Board Attorney Gina Grimes said the board does not have the ability to waive interior curbing; a proposal to remove Code-required curbing was not advertised. It was noted that the Code does not require a specific type of material for interior curbing. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-02005 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 except to delete Condition One and permit the pay station to be installed off site. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. H. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m air Community Development Board Community Development 2011-04-19 5 ?- FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING GUNI Lim i r-UH COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ©) L `t=om 4? A riTY ? COUNTY ? OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED E OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: ? ELECTIVE ?K APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votinc 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 TQ 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 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, F2 R-,-t /c Z- . D/4 --t 9- , hereby disclose that on AP'Z-I / / s , 20 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) - inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or - inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which I r'' A S 2 ?LJ ZD1/ c5 Zoo Z V'7 CJ?.Aec?4 /a?? ?,aSS«tG? ??eOLiCs¢, s7 ?L£2 ?9.a`?`fL /? '1..r? y?J ?1 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. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Barker, Brian Clearwater Community Development Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 4625 East Bay Drive, Suite 211 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ? COUNTY ? OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Lf CITY COUNTY Clearwater FL Pinellas cITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Clearwater te GATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION O ELECTIVE C? APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the 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 8B - 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 filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL. OFFICER'S INTEREST Brian Barker , hereby disclose that on April 19 ' 20 11 (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 Time Extension - FLD2008-12033- 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. 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: tr - 'ItA Date Filed Signature Brian Barker 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. 1/2000 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM CPA2011-01001 2011-04-19 To: Community Development Board Members From: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III Date: April 18, 2011 RE: CPA2011-01001 – Clearwater Greenprint comprehensive plan amendments City Council requested additional information relating to Clearwater Greenprint that will delay the project schedule. Therefore, the associated amendments to the comprehensive plan cannot move forward at this time. The Planning and Development Department requests a continuance of CPA2011-01001 until such time that Clearwater Greenprint proceeds forward for adoption. If you have any questions, please contact me at 562-4547. EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2011-02006 2011-04-19 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager RE: Request for Continuance FLD2011-02006 – 249 Windward Passage DATE: April 19, 2011 The applicant has requested that this case be continued to the Boards meeting of May 17, 2011, due to the full Board not being in attendance for this meeting. A copy of their letter of request is attached. S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Memorandum FLD2011-02006 2011-04-19.docx EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2008-12033 2011-04-19 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board FROM: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager RE: Request for Time Extension FLD2008-12033 – 619 South Gulfview Boulevard DATE: April 19, 2011 Attached is information related to the request by Joe Burdette, Agent for Shephard’s Beach Resort (owner), for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. This application was originally approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) at its meeting of November 17, 2009. It is noted that, pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407, the Planning & Development Director previously granted a six-month time extension for this project on November 3, 2010 (expiring May 17, 2011). Presently, a one-year time extension is being requested for the project to expire on November 17, 2012. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-407, extensions of time “shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed for economic reasons as it relates to the downturn of the local and national economy. The Code further directs that the CDB may consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are any pending or approved code amendments that would significantly affect the project. It is noted that this project was submitted prior to the adoption of Code amendments for overnight accommodations (Ord. No. 8044-09). These amendments have affected the project as follows: ?Based on Code amendments for hotels and related to the Hotel Density Reserve, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the hotel gross floor area, the accessory uses must be treated as primary uses for calculation of density/intensity. This application was approved with accessory uses representing 19.94 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area. Under a mixed use calculation, when subtracting the accessory use square footage from the original lot area square footage zoned Tourist District to recalculate the net lot acreage for calculating allowable density, the maximum base density is 75 rooms. The maximum number of rooms available when the lot acreage is less than 2.5 acres is 100 rooms. Therefore, the maximum number of rooms complying with the Hotel Density Reserve provisions is 175 rooms (75 + 100). This application was approved for 186 rooms. Since this application was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2008-12033 2011-04-19 a nonconforming use due to number of rooms. This determination does not prevent the allocation of the 68 rooms requested. The required parking ratio for overnight accommodations was amended to 1.2 parking spaces ? per unit. At this new parking ratio, 223 parking spaces would be required. From an amenities standpoint accessory to the hotel, based on current Code provisions, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area, parking for all uses must be calculated separately. Based on the accessory uses being 19.94 percent, the recalculated required parking to be 522 spaces. This application was approved providing a total of 384 parking spaces. Since this application was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to the number of parking spaces provided. Attachments: ? Letter of Request ? Time Extension Development Order of November 3, 2010 S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Inactive or Finished Applications\Gulfview S 0619 Shephards (T) 2009.11 - Approved\CDB Time Extension Memorandum 2011 04-19.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19 CDB Meeting: April 19, 2011 Case No: LUP2011-02003 Applicant: Unity Clearwater, Inc. Address: 2419 Nursery Road Agenda Item: E-1 STAFF REPORT LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT I.GENERAL INFORMATION Request: To amend the present Future Land Use Map designations from Residential Urban (RU) and Water/Drainage Feature to Institutional (I) and Water/Drainage Feature Location: 2419 Nursery Road, located on the south side of Nursery Road approximately 2347.5 feet west of U.S.19 Site Area: 54144.86 square feet or 1.243 acres MOL II.BACKGROUND A.Proposal This case involves a 1.243-acre property located at 2419 Nursery Road and owned by Unity Clearwater, Inc. The property is comprised of 1 parcel and is currently occupied by a structure used for single family dwelling. The request is to change the property’s Future Land Use Map designations of Residential Urban (RU) and Water/Drainage Feature to Institutional (I) and Water/Drainage Feature. The applicant has indicated that the intended future use of the property will be church support facilities. A request for an annexation along with rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate Residential District (A-E) (county) to Institutional (I) are being processed concurrently with this case. (See agenda item E-2) III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS A.Site Characteristics The subject property is a parcel located on the south side of Nursery Road and west of U.S.19. The property is currently used as a single family dwelling and approximately the southern half of the site is occupied by a natural pond. Adjacent to the property, on the east side is the Unity Church main campus and on the south, west and north of the site are single family dwellings. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 -Page 1 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Conditions Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas Designation North: Single family dwelling Residential Urban Low Medium Density (RU) Residential (LMDR) East: Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) South: Single family dwelling Residential Urban Single family Residential (RU) District (R3) West: Single family dwelling Residential Urban Agricultural Estate (RU) and Residential District (A-E) Water/Drainage (county) Feature C.Uses and Intensities Allowed by Present and Requested Future Land Use Designations Present FLUM Requested FLUM Designation Designation Institutional (I) Residential Urban (RU) Primary Uses: Urban Low Density Public/Private Schools; Residential Churches; Public Offices; Hospitals Maximum Density: 2.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre 12.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre (Hospital Bonus Provision FAR 1.0 Subject to Bonus Provisions) Maximum Intensity: FAR 0.30; ISR 0.60 FAR 0.65; ISR 0.85 Consistent Zoning Low Medium Density Institutional (I) and Districts: Residential (LMDR); Water/Drainage Feature Medium Density Residential (MDR) IV.REVIEW CRITERIA No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or Future Land Use Map shall be recommended for approval or receive a final action of approval unless it complies with the standards contained in Section 4-603.F, Community Development Code. D.Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan [Section 4-602.F.1] Recommended Findings of Fact: Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which support the proposed amendments include: Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 2 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Goal A.2 A sufficient variety and amount of Future Land Use categories shall be provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development. Objective A.2.1 Public institutions, such as hospitals, parks, utility facilities and government facilities, shall be provided sufficient land area to accommodate identified public needs. Policy A.5.3.7 Support the continued existence of the residential and institutional character along Nursery Road between Belcher and U.S. 19 by precluding the expansion of existing commercial areas. Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible. Recommended Conclusions of Law The request does not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. It will consolidate the church’s property into the appropriate category and enable the church to use it for accessory church related uses. E.Consistency with the Countywide Plan Rules Recommended Findings of Fact: Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Plan Rules states that the purpose of the Institutional (I) future land use classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now used, or appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource features. Section 2.3.3.7.3 also states that the Institutional (I) future land use classification is generally appropriate to those locations where educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are required to serve the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their relationship with surrounding uses and transportation access. The subject property is located on the west side of the main Unity Church campus and is surrounded on the other three sides by single family dwellings that have Residential Urban land use plan designation. Future use of the subject property with church support facilities is consistent with the purposes of the Institutional (I) future land use category and compatible with surrounding properties and the neighborhood. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan Rules. C. Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood [Section 4-603.F.3 and Section 4-603.F.6] Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 3 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Recommended Findings of Fact: Existing surrounding uses consist of the Unity Church main campus, single family dwellings and a natural pond. The future land use designation of surrounding properties include Institutional (I), Residential Urban (RU) and Water/Drainage Feature. The future expansion of church support facilities on the subject property is compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65. The proposed Institutional (I) and Water/Drainage Feature future land use designations are in character with the overall Future Land Use Map designation in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Institutional (I) future land use classification requested is consistent with the surrounding Institutional (I) future land use classifications that exist in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed future land use designation will allow church support facilities at a density and scale that is consistent with existing institutional and residential uses in the vicinity of the subject property. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is in character with the surrounding area. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed future land use designation is in character with the overall Future Land Use Map designation in the area. Further, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the surrounding properties and neighborhood. D. Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-603.F.4] Recommended Findings of Fact: To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and requested Future Land Use Map designations was analyzed (see Table 1). The request for amendment to the Institutional (I) Future Land Use Map category would allow five additional dwelling units or 37901.4 square feet of nonresidential floor area on the subject property. Table 1. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations Site Area 1.243 AC (54144.86 SF) Present FLUM Requested FLUM Net Change Designation Designation Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 4 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx “RU” “I” 7.5 DUs 12.5 Dus 5.0 Dus Existing Development 21657.9 SF 37901.4 SF 16243.5 SF 0.40 FAR 0.70 FAR 0.30 FAR 9.32 Dus 15.53 Dus 6.0 Dus Maximum Development 21657.9 SF 37901.4 SF 16243.5 SF 0.40 FAR 0.70 FAR 0.30 FAR Abbreviations: FLUM – Future Land Use Map Dus – Dwelling units AC – Acres FAR – Floor area ratio SF – Square feet The proposed change in designations would allow an increase in the number of dwelling units, and amount of allowable Floor Area Ratio (thus an increase in square footage). Table 2. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Maximum Potential Impact to Public Facilities/Services Public Capacity Present FLUM Facility/Service Available? Requested FLUM Designation Designation “I” “RU” Streets 85 Trips 1 129 Trips 1 Yes Potable Water 2427.58 GPD 2 3519.42 GPD 2 Yes Wastewater 2184.82 GPD 2 2815.53 GPD 2 Yes Solid Waste 23.63 Tons/Year 27.86 Ton/Year Yes Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 Yes Public School 3 Facilities Yes Elementary 0.15 Students 0.0 Students Yes Middle School 0.07 Students 0.0 Students Yes High School 0.10 Students 0.0 Students Yes Notes: 1. Based on average daily trips per acreage figure, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules. - Residential Urban - Institutional 2. GPD – Gallons per day. 3. Based on 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and 2.2 persons per unit. 4. Pinellas County School Board student generation rate per unit: - Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 1 unit - Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 1 unit - High School: 0.10 students per unit x 1 unit As shown in Table 3 below, the potential additional maximum daily trips associated with the requested for amendment to the Institutional (I) Future Land Use designation would not lower the operating level of service for Nursery Road. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 5 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Table 3: Maximum Potential Traffic Curren Existing ProposeNet Nursery Road t Conditiond New (US 19 to Belcher Road) FLUM 2 s FLUM Trips 1 Potential Additional Maximum Daily N/A 85 129 44 Trips Potential Additional Maximum PM Peak N/A 8 12 4 3 HourTrips Roadway Volume 7,803 4 7,888 5 7,932 5 44 Roadway Level of Service PM Peak D 4 B 5 B 5 Hour Adopted Roadway Level of Service D Peak Hour Standard Abbreviations and Notes: N/A = Not Applicable. FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. 1. Based on PPC calculations of 68 trips per day per acre in the Residential Urban (RU) future land use category. 2. Based on PPC calculations of 104 trips per day per acre for “religious/civic facilities” in the Institutional (I) future land use category 3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095. 4. Source: Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010 Level of Service Report. 5. Based on a comparison between the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010 Level of Service Report and the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Recommended Conclusions of Law Based upon the findings of fact, it is determined that the traffic generated by the proposed amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. There is a minimal impact to potable water, wastewater and solid waste service and City facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the proposed amendment. Furthermore, parkland, recreation facilities, public school facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed amendment. E. Impact on Natural Resources [Section 4-603.F.5] Recommended Findings of Fact: The intent of the owner is to use the existing building in the future for a church support use. There is a natural pond on the subject property. It occupies the rear side of the property. There is no impact to the pond and it is being designated on the map as “Water/Drainage Feature”. Recommended Conclusions of Law Based on current information, there is a natural pond on the subject property. Any future development of the property would require compliance with all applicable regulations, including the City’s tree preservation and storm water management requirements. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 6 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx V.REVIEW PROCEDURE Approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment does not guarantee the right to develop the subject property. The 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. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested, including transportation concurrency provisions of the Concurrency Management System in Division 9, Community Development Code. VI.RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Planning & Development Department recommends the following action: Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Future Land Use Map amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) and Water/Drainage Feature (Water) classification to the Institutional (I) and Water/Drainage Feature (Water) classification. Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: ___________________________ Priyanka Thatte, Urban Designer Attachments: Resume Application for Future Land Use Plan Amendment Location Map Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Existing Surrounding Use Map Site Photographs Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case LUP2011-02003 - Page 7 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19 CDB Meeting: April 19, 2011 Case No: REZ2011-02003 Applicant: Unity Clearwater, Inc. Address: 2419 Nursery Road Agenda Item: E-2 STAFF REPORT ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT I.GENERAL INFORMATION Request: To amend the Zoning Atlas designation from Agricultural Estate Residential District (A-E) (county) to Institutional (I) Location: 2419 Nursery Road, located on the south side of Nursery Road and approximately 2347.5 feet west of U.S.19 Site Area: 54144.86 square feet or 1.243 acres MOL II.BACKGROUND This case involves a 1.243-acre property located at 2419 Nursery Road and owned by Unity Clearwater, Inc. The property is comprised of one parcel and is currently occupied by a structure used for single family dwelling and a water body. The request is to change the property’s Zoning Atlas designation of Agricultural Estate Residential District (A-E) (county) to Institutional (I). A request for an annexation along with Future Land Use Map amendment for the property from the Residential Urban (RU) and Water to Institutional (I) and Water/Drainage Feature Future Land Use Map designation is also being processed concurrently with this case. (See agenda item E-1) III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS A.Site Characteristics The subject property is a parcel located on the south side of Nursery Road and west of U.S.19. The property is currently used as a single family dwelling and approximately the rear half of the site is natural pond. Adjacent to the property, on the east side, is the Unity Church main campus and on the south, west and north of the site are single family dwellings. B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Conditions Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Designation North: Single family dwellingResidential Urban Low Medium Density (RU)Residential (LMDR) East: Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) South: Single family dwellingResidential Urban Single family Residential Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 1 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Existing Conditions Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Designation (RU)District (R3) West: Single family dwellingResidential Urban Agricultural Estate (RU) and Residential District (A-E) Water/Drainage (county) Feature C.Uses and Intensities Allowed by Present and Requested Zoning Designations The current zoning designation for this parcel is Agricultural Estate Residential District (A-E) (county). The development under this zoning designation is comprised of large lot, rural/agricultural type of development. Urbanization of these areas is intended to be very limited with primary uses to consist of single-family dwellings in a rural environment, including limited farming activity. General agriculture may also be permitted within this district; however, due to the extensively urbanized character of the county, general agriculture may not be appropriate within a given area of this district and therefore requests for such uses may only be authorized within a given area of this district and therefore requests for such uses may only be authorized by the board of county commissioners on a case-by-case basis. The use permitted in this zone is single family dwellings and accessory uses to these may be permitted. The maximum area of the lot or parcel in an A-E district which may be covered by structures shall not exceed 25 percent. A minimum of 40 percent of the parcel must remain in open permeable open space. The proposed zoning designation for this parcel is Institutional (I). The allowable uses under this zoning category are Assisted Living Facilities, Cemeteries, Congregate Care, Educational Facilities, Governmental Uses, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Places of Worship, Parks and Recreation Facilities and Schools. The maximum intensity allowed under this zoning category is 0.65 FAR and 0.85 ISR. IV.REVIEW CRITERIA No amendment to the Zoning Atlas shall be recommended for approval or receive a final action of approval unless it complies with the standards contained in Section 4-602.F, Community Development Code. A.Consistency of Development with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code and City Regulations [Section 4-602.F.1 and 4- 602.F.2] Recommended Findings of Fact: Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which support the proposed amendments include: Objective A.2.1 Public institutions, such as hospitals, parks, utility facilities and government facilities, shall be provided sufficient land area to accommodate identified public needs. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 2 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Policy A.5.3.7 Support the continued existence of the residential and institutional character along Nursery Road between Belcher and U.S. 19 by precluding the expansion of existing commercial areas. Recommended Conclusions of Law The request does not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. The designation of the subject property under the Institutional (I) zoning classification provides additional land for planned development to meet public demand and need. The consolidation of the subject property into Institutional District will consolidate the church’s property into the appropriate district. Church support facilities on the subject property would be compatible with the surrounding environment and envisioned character of the neighborhood. B.Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood [Sections 4-602.F.3 and 4-602.F.4] Recommended Findings of Fact: Existing uses of surrounding properties consist of the Unity Church main campus, single family dwellings and water. Surrounding zoning includes the Institutional (I) District on adjacent church-owned property on the west and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) on the other three sides of the subject property. The future expansion use of church support facilities on the subject property is compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The Institutional (I) zoning district primarily permits school, church, public office and hospital uses. The proposed Institutional (I) zoning designation is in character with the overall zoning designations in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The proposed zoning designation will allow church support facilities at a density and scale that is consistent with existing institutional and residential uses in the vicinity of the subject property. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is in character with the surrounding area. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed zoning designation is in character with the overall zoning designation in the area. Further, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the surrounding properties and neighborhood. C.Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-602.F.5] Recommended Findings of Fact: To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and requested Future Land Use Map designations was analyzed (see Table 1 and companion agenda item E-1). The request for amendment to the Institutional (I) zoning designation would allow five additional dwelling units or 37901.4 square feet of nonresidential floor area on the subject property. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 3 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Table 1. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations Site Area 1.243 AC (54144.86 SF) Present FLUM Requested FLUM Net Change Designation Designation “RU” “I” 7.5 DUs 12.5 DUs 5.0 DUs Existing Development 21657.9 SF 37901.4 SF 16243.5 SF 0.40 FAR 0.70 FAR 0.30 FAR 9.32 DUs 15.53 DUs 0.0 DUs Maximum Development 21657.9 SF 37901.4 SF 16243.5 SF 0.40 FAR 0.70 FAR 0.30 FAR Abbreviations: FLUM – Future Land Use Map DUs – Dwelling units AC – Acres FAR – Floor area ratio SF – Square feet The proposed change in designations would allow an increase in the number of dwelling units, and amount of allowable Floor Area Ratio (thus an increase in square footage). Table 2. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Maximum Potential Impact to Public Facilities/Services Public Capacity Present FLUM Facility/Service Available? Requested FLUM Designation Designation “I” “RU” Streets 85 Trips 1 129 Trips 1 Yes Potable Water 2427.58 GPD 2 3519.42 GPD 2 Yes Wastewater 2184.82 GPD 2 2815.53 GPD 2 Yes Solid Waste 23.63 Tons/Year 27.86 Ton/Year Yes Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 Yes Public School 3 Facilities Yes Elementary 0.15 Students 0.0 Students Yes Middle School 0.07 Students 0.0 Students Yes High School 0.10 Students 0.0 Students Yes Need Notes: 1. Based on average daily trips per acreage figure, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules. - Residential Urban - Institutional 2. GPD – Gallons per day. 3. Based on 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and 2.2 persons per unit. 4. Pinellas County School Board student generation rate per unit: - Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x 1 unit - Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x 1 unit - High School: 0.10 students per unit x 1 unit Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 4 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Designation below indicates the estimated trip generation for specific uses allowed in the current and proposed zoning th districts based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation 8 Edition. The analysis compares trips generated by a single family residential use that would be probable under the existing zoning designation to a use representing the maximum development potential under the proposed zoning district, in this case a church. Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Atlas Designation PM Net Net Avg. Peak Change Development Change PM Peak Land Use Daily Trips PM Potential Avg Daily Trips Trips Avg Peak Trips Rate Trips Existing Designation: Agricultural Estate Residential District Single Family Detached 9 DU 3 86 N/A 1.02 9 N/A 1 Housing (9.57 trips/Dwelling unit) Proposed Designation: Institutional District Church 2 (9.11 trips/1,000 37,901 4 345 259 0.55 21 12 SF SF GFA) Abbreviations and Notes: N/A = Not Applicable. SF = Square Feet GFA = Gross Floor Area 1. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 210. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 560. 3. Total dwelling units permitted by the underlying RU Future Land Use Map category is 7.50. 4. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying I Future Land Use Map category is 0.70. Recommended Conclusions of Law Based upon the findings of fact, it its determined that the traffic generated by the proposed amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on Nursery Road. There is a minimal impact to potable water, wastewater and solid waste service as City facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the proposed amendment. Furthermore, parkland, recreation facilities, public school facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed amendment. D.Location of District Boundaries [Section 4-602.F.6] Recommended Findings of Fact: The location of the proposed Institutional (I) District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of the subject property. The proposed Institutional (I) District boundaries would consolidate the subject property into a single zoning district. The proposed Institutional (I) District is compatible with the single-family uses to the north, south and west. Recommended Conclusions of Law Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 5 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. V.REVIEW PROCEDURE Approval of the Zoning Atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop the subject property. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested, including transportation concurrency provisions of the Concurrency Management System in Division 9, Community Development Code. VI.RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Planning & Development Department recommends the following action: Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Zoning Atlas amendment from the Agricultural Estate Residential District (A-E) (county) to the Institutional (I) District. Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _________________________ Priyanka Thatte, Urban Designer Attachments: Resume Application for Future Land Use Plan Amendment Location Map Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Existing Surrounding Use Map Site Photographs Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 - Case REZ2011-02003 -Page 6 of 6 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0411 Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-02003 2011-04-19.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2011-03001 2011-04-19 CDB Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 Case Number: CPA2011-03001 Ordinance No.: 8256-11 Agenda Item: E. 4. CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Amendments INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department BACKGROUND: In January 2011, the Planning and Development Department worked with members from other departments within the city, to review certain elements of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. During this review, several policies were identified as requiring minor amendments during the next amendment stage of the Plan in order to correct inaccurate references and modify certain regulations. ANALYSIS: A total of three amendments are proposed to the text of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in Ordinance No. 8256-11. One amendment modifies references to water quality criteria regulations, one corrects a reference to the 25-year floodplain map, and another is editorial in nature. This text amendment is considered a large scale plan amendment and requires review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Please find a summary of each amendment below. 1. Amendment 1 – Revise Policy F.1.2.3 of the Conservation Element (Page 1 of Exhibit A of proposed ordinance and page F-3 of the Plan). Proposed Amendment 1 changes references to the water quality criteria regulations, removing reference to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and replacing it with reference to the provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. This change would allow the city to assess water quality utilizing a permit issued by the State that takes into account all local state, and federal water quality requirements. 2. Amendment 2 – Amend Policy F.1.8.9 of the Conservation Element (Page 1 of Exhibit A of proposed ordinance and page F-8 of the Plan). This proposed amendment corrects references to the 25-year floodplain, which was incorrectly written as the 26-year flood plain. 3. Amendment 3 – Amend the “FY2010/2011 ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT” Tables of the Capital Improvements Element (Pages 1 through 3 of Exhibit A of proposed ordinance and page I-14 through I-15 of the Plan). This proposed corrects the jurisdiction for McMullen Booth Road to County Road, for all segments of the road included within the roads level of service tables. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 CPA2011-03001– Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2011-03001 2011-04-19 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives contained in the Plan. The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are consistent with existing goals, policies and objectives in the Plan. 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments make two minor editorial modifications and revise language for water quality criteria regulations, consistent with other goals, objectives and policies within the Plan. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. 3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property, and therefore do not affect available uses. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed amendments are mostly editorial in nature except for the modified reference to water quality regulations. The proposed language, amending the standard by which water quality will be assessed to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), would allow for a higher level of accuracy at the local level as NPDES Permits are based on more locally based data. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments are not site specific, and therefore are not expected to adversely impact the use of any properties within the City of Clearwater. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 CPA2011-03001– Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2011-03001 2011-04-19 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION : The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan address minor editorial changes. These proposed amendments further the goals and many objectives already included in the Comprehensive Plan, will not result in inappropriate or incompatible uses, will not adversely affect the natural environment or impact the use of property in the immediate area, and sufficient public facilities exist to implement the proposed amendment. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8256-11 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Planning & Development Department Staff: _______________________________________ Lauren Matzke, AICP Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ?Ordinance No. 8256-11 and Exhibit A S:\Planning Department\COMPREHENSIVE PLAN\2011 Comp Plan Amendments\CPA2011-03001 - Misc Amendments\Staff Report\Ordinance No 8256-11 2011 04-19 CDB Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 CPA2011-03001– Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 CDB Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-02005 Agenda Item: D. 1. Owner/Applicant: Mainstream Partners VIII, Ltd Representative: Frontier Engineering, Inc Addresses: 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a parking lot in the Tourist (T) District with a minimum lot area of 19,800 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet (along Coronado Drive), a lot width of 219 feet (along Fifth Street), a lot width of 121.5 feet (along Hamden Drive), a front (west) setback of 33.4 feet, front (north) setbacks of 7.5 feet and 12.5 feet, a front (east) setback of 15.1 feet and 10.2 feet, a side (south) setback of 6 feet, side (west) setbacks of 4.5 feet and a side (south) setback of 5.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and a reduction of interior landscape standards from 10% to 0% as no groundcover, 50% shrubs or one tree per 150 square feet of greenspace is proposed, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.E. ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Residential Facilities High (RFH) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant land Proposed: Off-street parking lot EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Vacant land ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations East: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings West: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.45 acres is located on the south side of Fifth Street between Coronado and Hamden Drives. The site is a corner lot with dimensions of 110 feet by 150 feet. The site is currently vacant land. The property located directly across the Fifth Street is also a vacant property. Properties to the Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 north, west and south are developed with overnight accommodation uses. The property to the east along Hamden Drive consists of condominiums. Development Proposal: The proposal includes construction of a surface parking area for 28 vehicles. The applicant wishes to bring the property back into commerce rather than let it lie vacant and proposes this parking lot to be a temporary solution. The property is located in the Small Motel District of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan, an area dominated by businesses that do not have adequate parking facilities to meet the needs of visitors. The parking lot will have two driveways, one onto Fifth Street and the other onto Hamden Drive. The parking lot will be a pay parking lot that will operate 24 hours a day. Customers will pay for use of the parking lot at the front counter of the Gulf Beach Inn located at 415 Coronado Drive. The point of payment was originally proposed on- site at a pay station along Coronado Drive, as shown on the submitted site plan. Staff was made aware of this change after the Development Review Committee meeting. However, staff believes the on-site pay station should remain a part of this development proposal. The street sidewalk leading to the Gulf Beach Inn along Coronado Drive or the Inns entrance may not meet current ADA standards. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Residential Facilities High is 1.0. There are no buildings proposed for this development. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.61, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, Table 2-802 shows that the minimum lot area for off-street parking lots in the Tourist (T) District is 20,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 19,800 square feet (0.45 acres), which is less than the Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for off-street parking lots in the T District is 100 feet. The lot width along Coronado Drive is 60 feet, while the lot width along Fifth Street and Hamden Street is 219 feet and 121.5, respectively. The proposal does not meet this Code provision along Coronado Drive yet exceeds the Code provision along both Hamden Drive and Fifth Street. For these insufficiencies in lot area and width, it was necessary to process this request as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-803, there are no minimum setbacks for a Comprehen- sive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, as a point of comparison, parking lot front setbacks can range from 25 to 15 feet; and a side setback must be 10 feet. The applicant asks for flexibility from the minimum setbacks for front (north along Fifth Street) setbacks of 7.5 and 12.5 feet, front (east along Hamden Drive) setbacks of 10.2 feet and 15.1 feet, a side (south) setback of 6 feet, a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet, and a side (south) setback of 5.5 feet. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 The reduced setbacks will allow for an improved design that is compliant with the parking lot standards for parking stalls, drive aisles, and driveways set forth in Section 3-1402 of the CDC. This development recognizes a need for additional public parking lots in an area dominated by non-conforming motels in need of parking spaces. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required building height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. A parking garage or lot is permitted a maximum building height of fifty feet. However, no buildings are proposed for this project. Minimum Off-street Parking: According to Table 2-802 and 2-803 there is no minimum required number of off- street parking spaces for the proposed use. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards intersections with Coronado Drive, Fifth Street, and Hamden Drive, 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 proposed site and landscape design meet this requirement. Solid Waste: The proposal includes the provision of a trash receptacle at the west end of the parking lot along Coronado Drive. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Landscaping: This property is located in the Tourist District and as such, it is exempt from standard perimeter buffering landscaping. However, the property is subject to the design guidelines for parking areas in the Beach by Design and Section 3-1201.E., interior landscaping standards, of the CDC. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Develop- ment Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a 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. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 3 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 Consistent Inconsistent 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. The applicant is requesting a reduction from 10% to 0% in the interior landscaping requirements for a parking lot. The landscape plan shows that 1,137 square feet of interior landscape greenspace (10% of the Vehicle Use Area) will be provided; however, this space will not be landscaped with the required 1 tree per 150 square feet of greenspace, 50% coverage of shrubs, and groundcover per Section 3-1202.E.1. No trees, shrubs or groundcover is shown on the submitted landscape plan within the interior landscape islands. Two shade trees (live oaks) are proposed at the corner of Hamden Drive and Fifth Street. The staff believes to increase the landscape coverage one oak tree should be planted as shown on the landscape plan and the other should be planted within one interior parking lot island. An interior island with sufficient width to provide the required minimum of five feet from any impervious area should allow the tree to flourish. The staff also believes the applicant should provide adequate groundcover on each side of both driveways and within each interior island to enhance the view of the parking lot from the street. If such landscaping is installed in the sight visibility triangle it shall be compliant Section 3-904.A. of the CDC. Furthermore, no curbs are proposed. Pursuant to Section 3-1204.D. of the CDC, curbing shall be installed along the interior perimeter of the parking lot to ensure all landscaping will be protected from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In Addition, the Beach by Design guidelines for parking lots require a well-defined street boundary where the parking areas will be separated from public rights-of-way by a landscaped decorative wall, fence or other opaque landscape treatment of not less than three feet and not more than three and one-half feet in height. The submitted comprehensive landscape plan proposes to incorporate the features of the Beach by Design guidelines as described above. A three foot tall oleander hedge will be planted along the perimeter of the property to buffer the parking lot from street view. This vegetative buffer will consist of a continuous row of oleander shrubs that flower nine months of the year and will be dense enough to buffer the parking lot form street view. This plant material is hardy, drought tolerant and salt tolerant. In addition, to the vegetative buffer, two existing palms will be preserved and, as mentioned above, two shade trees (live oaks) will be planted as well. As stated above, the staff recommends that in order to adequately protect the hedge along the perimeter of the parking lot as shown on the plan, that curbing be installed to protect and maintain the landscape materials from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Although this parking lot and landscaping treatment is proposed as a temporary use, the additional landscaping and curbing recommended by staff will provide an improved site design that is in keeping with the objectives of the Beach by Design Plan and the interior landscaping standards of the CDC. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 4 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 Code Enforcement Analysis :There is no outstanding enforcement issue associated with this site. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and Table 2-803: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 1.0 N/A X ISR 0.95 0.60 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 19,800 square feet (0.45 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A North: 146.79 feet X East: 219 feet X South: 89.77 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 7.5 feet (to pavement) X 12.5 feet (to pavement) East: 10.2 feet (to pavement) X 15.1 feet (to pavement) West: 33.4 feet (to pavement) X Side: N/A South: 6 feet (to pavement) X 5.5 feet (to pavement) West: 4.5 feet (to pavement) X Maximum Height N/A N/A X Minimum Determined by the 28 off-street parking spaces X Off-Street Parking Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 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 designa- tion; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preserva- tion 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 per- mitted 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 follow- ing 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 – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 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 visual, X 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 March 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 0.45 acre subject property is located on the south side of Fifth Street between Coronado and Hamden Drives; 2.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Residential Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.The subject property is located within the Small Motel District of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan; 4.The proposal is to construct a 28-space pay public parking lot; 5.The lot area is 19,800 square feet, which requires flexibility from the 20,000 square feet required; 6.The proposal includes flexibility in the lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, front (north along Fifth Street) setbacks of 7.5 and 12.5 feet, front (east along Hamden Drive) setbacks from of 15.1 feet and 10.2 feet, a side (south) setback of 6 feet, a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet, and a side (south) setback of 5.5 feet; 7.The setbacks flexibility will allow for the construction of a parking lot that is compliant with the parking lot standards; 8.The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development and will provide needed public parking on the beach; and 9.There are no active code enforcement cases for the parcel. Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 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 is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803; 2.That the proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A; 4.That the proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; and 5.That the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to permit a parking lot in the Tourist (T) District with a minimum lot area of 19,800 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet (along Coronado Drive), a lot width of 219 feet (along Fifth Street), a lot width of 121.5 feet (along Hamden Drive), a front (west) setback of 33.4 feet, front (north) setbacks of 7.5 feet and 12.5 feet, a front (east) setback of 15.1 feet and 10.2 feet, a side (south) setback of 6 feet, side (west) setbacks of 4.5 feet and a side (south) setback of 5.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and a reduction of interior landscape standards from 10% to 5% as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G,subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That the pay station be installed on-site in the location shown on the submitted site plan and be the means used for the operation of the parking lot; 2. That groundcover landscaping be provided at the parking lot driveways along Fifth Street and Hamden Drive to soften the view of the paved area on adjacent properties; 3. That groundcover be planted within all interior landscape islands consistent with the requirements of the CDC Section 3-1202.E.1; 4. That one proposed shade tree (live oak) be planted within an interior landscape island consistent with the requirements of the CDC Section 3-1202.E.1; 5. That the interior perimeter of the parking lot be curbed to protect the landscaping from vehicular and pedestrian traffic as set forth in CDC Section 3-1204.D; 6. That a revised Comprehensive landscape plan be approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits; and 7. That a right-of-way use permit from the Engineering Department be obtained prior to the issuance of any permits for landscaping or construction work within the right-of-way. Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02005 2011-04-19 S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Coronado 401 Coronado Parking Lot (T) 2011.xx - KWN\Coronado 401 Staff Report.docx Community Development Board – April 19, 2011 FLD2011-02005 - Page 10 of 10 L.L 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; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2011-02005 - 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes ?/ No Case: FLD20117- Yes 249 Windward Passage No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1-4): Case: LUP201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BL4gendas DRC & CDBICDB12011 V April 2011 V Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No ?. / 3. Case: CPA201 1 -0 1001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan V Yes No DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 -619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Yes No S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI20I D04 April 2011 V Cover MEMO 2011.doc 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; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) Case: FLD201 1-02005 - 401 ronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes No Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 24 Windward Passage Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1-4): Case: LUP201 1-02003 - 241 ursery Road Yes No S. IPlanning DepartmentlC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011 W April 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No 3. Case: CPA2011-01001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gullview Blvd. Yes PRINT NAME No Date: T S. (Planning DepartmentiC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDB12011 W April 2011U Cover MEMO 2011.doc 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; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) 1. Case: FLD201 1-02005 - 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes X No 2. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1-4): 1. Case: LUP2011-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No S. (Planning Department) C D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDB12011104 April 2011 11 Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes X No 3. Case: CPA201 1 -0 1001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes V No DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Yes K No Signature: Date: R1Gw.oey X? PRINT NAME S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011104 April 2011 11 Cover MEMO 2011.doc LL Clearwater U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) 1. Case: FLD2011-02005 - 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1-4): 1. Case: LUP201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011104 April 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No 3. Case: CPA2011-01001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): No / 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Yes No I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature:, ??-- Date: PRINT S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI201 D04 April 2011 V Cover MEMO 2011.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; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) 1. Case: FLD201 1-02005 - 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes No X 2. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage ?'. l Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1-4): 1. Case: LUP201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes \ No S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBICDBOJP04 April 2011 V Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No 3. Case: CPA2011-01001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): No 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Yes Ih Signature: No site Date: l F? k D -c 2- PRINT NAME S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDMCDBI201 PO4 April 2011U Cover MEMO 2011.doc L.L 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; Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 19, 2011 DATE: April 14, 2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 15, 2011 Revised Development Review staff rooster (for your book) Revised City of Clearwater Community Development Board City expert witnesses & resume list Resume for Kevin Nurnberger Level Two Applications (Item 1-2) 1. Case: FLD201 1-02005 - 401 Coronado Drive & 406 Hamden Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-02006 - 249 Windward Passage Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATION Qtem 1-4): 1. Case: LUP201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road Yes No V S. lPlanning DepartmentlC D Bl4gendas DRC & CDBICDB12011 W April 2011 V Cover MEMO 2011.doc 2. Case: REZ201 1-02003 - 2419 Nursery Road t Yes No 3. Case: CPA201 1 -0 1 001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No 4. Case: CPA2011-03 001 Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Yes No DIRECTOR'S (Item 1): 1. Case: Time Extension - FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Yes No PRINT NAME S.• (Planning DepartmentlC D BL4gendas DRC & CDBICDB WI P04 April 20ll V Cover MEMO 2011.doc