05/17/2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 17, 2011
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice-Chair
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael Delk Planning & Development Director
Gina Clayton Planning & Development Assistant 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: April 19, 2011
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of April 19, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member
Norma Carlough did not vote.
D. CONTINUED ITEM: (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 272 feet (to building) and
10 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of 30
Community Development 2011-05-17 1
feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement), a building height of 42.33 feet, and 323 off-street parking
spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development
Code Section 2-704.C. along with a reduction to the perimeter buffer requirement along the south
property lines from 15 feet to zero feet, and a reduction from the required number of trees within
interior landscape islands from 34 to 27 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 & Island Estates Civic Association.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17.
Member Dame declared a conflict of interest and left the Chambers.
John Ricci, representing the Village on Island Estates Condominium Association, requested
Party Status. Member Coates moved to grant John Ricci Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting
Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Member Dame abstained. Motion carried.
Member DiPolito moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the fields of zoning,
site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member
Carlough voted “Aye”; Member Dame abstained. Motion carried.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the Staff Report. Planning and
Development Director Michael Delk said no one representing the applicant was present to accept
amendments to proposed conditions of approval.
Regarding the parking garage, it was recommended that it feature additional awnings and
different color paint.
Ed Armstrong, representing the applicant, said the Marine Aquarium had spent the last
month speaking with neighbors to mitigate neighborhood concerns.
Member Coates moved to accept Robert Pergolizzi as an expert witness in the fields of
transportation planning and as a certified planner. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted
“Aye”; Member Dame abstained. Motion carried.
Robert Pergolizzi, representing the applicant, reviewed changes that minimize
neighborhood impacts such as reducing outdoor seating, orienting seats toward the causeway and
Island Way, increasing buffers, adding trees and parking spaces, and consolidating two access
points to Windward Passage. He said the use is less intense than permitted. He said onsite
parking will offset Windward Passage traffic, resulting in a LOS (Level of Service) of C or better.
He said the promenade will allow visitors to walk along the waterway.
Party Status Holder John Ricci said he met many times with Clearwater Marine Aquarium
and City staff since November. He said his condominium association’s ad hoc committee had
Community Development 2011-05-17 2
studied safety issues. He recommended approval of the project. He anticipated the City and
aquarium will address any problems that should ensue.
Member Barker moved to approve Case FLD2011-02006 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval
as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and
Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Member Dame abstained.
Motion carried.
E – 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 – 6)
1. Case: FLD2011-03011 – 984 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Michael Cavill
Agent: Steven A. Williamson, Esq. and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP. (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365)
Location: 0.3 acre property located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 250
feet north of Juniper Street.
Atlas Page: 238A
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Request: Flexible Development approval for a single-family detached dwelling with accessory
swimming pool and deck within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a front
(east) setback of three feet where 10 feet is allowed but may be varied based on the criteria
specified in Community Development Code Section 2-204.E., and a rear (west) setback of zero
feet (to deck as measured from Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.
Proposed Use: Detached dwelling
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
See page 6 for motion of approval.
2. Case: FLD2011-02010 – 2159 Nursery Road Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Pensam Belleair Gardens, LLC.
Agent: Edward Mazur, Jr., Florida Design consultants, Inc. (3030 Starkey Blvd., New Port
Richey, FL 34655; phone: 727-849-7588; email: emazur@fldesign.com)
Location: 4.87 acres located on the south side of Nursery Road approximately 350 feet west
of the intersection of Nursery Road and Belcher Road.
Atlas Page: 316B.
Zoning: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to allow 146 existing attached dwellings in the Medium
High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot size of 212,137 square-feet, a lot width of 290
feet (along Belcher Road) and 271 feet (along Nursery Road), a building height of 29.3 feet, a front
(east) setback of 19.8 feet (to existing pavement and existing building) where 10 feet is allowable,
a front (north) setback 19.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.5 feet (to existing pavement) where 10
feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, a side (east) setback of 9 feet
Community Development 2011-05-17 3
(to existing building) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, a
side (north) setback of 80.1 feet (to existing building) and 0.7 feet (to existing pavement) where 10
feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, a side (south) setback of 24.2
feet (to existing building) and 23.4 feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, a side
(west) setback of 79.4 feet (to existing building) and 7.7 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is
allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, a rear (west) setback of 133.1 feet (to
existing building) and 3.1 feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied
based on the flexibility criteria and a rear (south) setback of 7.5 feet (to existing building) and 2.5
feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility
criteria, and 235 parking spaces a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-404.F. as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape
buffer along Nursery Road from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the side (north) landscape buffer
from 10 feet to 0.7 feet, a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to seven feet, a
reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 7.7 feet, a reduction to the rear (west)
landscape buffer from 10 feet to 3.1 feet, and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape buffer from
10 feet to 2.5 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G. and (2) permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
nonconforming structural setbacks, under the provisions of CDC Section 6-109.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Imperial Park.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
See page 6 for motion of approval.
3. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2011-02007 – 1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
Owner/Applicant: Capital Resources of Chicago, Inc.
Agent: Robert E. Gregg (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-796-8774
ext 331; email: archreg@aol.com)
Location: 1.44 acres located on the north side of E Street between S. Ft. Harrison and Hamlet
avenues & on the south side of D Street, approximately 120 feet east of S. Ft. Harrison Ave.
Atlas Page: 305B.
Zoning: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for 18,921 square-feet of wholesale/distribution/
warehouse facility use and 6,745 square-feet of office use in the Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 62,662 square-feet, a lot width of 390 feet (along E
Street), a lot width of 279 feet (along Pinellas Trail), a lot width of 90 feet (along D Street), a lot
width of 122 feet (along Hamlet Avenue), a front (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement)
and 39.3 feet (to existing building), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and
22 feet (to existing building), a front (north) setback of five feet (to existing pavement) and 44 feet
(to existing building), a front (east) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 21 feet (to
existing building), a building height of 32 feet (to top of tower), and 53 parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-1304.C as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the south
from 10 feet to four feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the west from 10
feet to zero feet a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the north from 10 feet to
five feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the east from 10 feet to zero feet
Community Development 2011-05-17 4
and reductions to both the south and north foundation landscape requirements from five feet to
zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Warehouse/Office
Neighborhood Associations: Old Clearwater Bay, Bayview Heights and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
See page 6 for motion of approval.
4. Case: FLD2011-02009 – 333 Hamden Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Didomizio Investments, Inc.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 County Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, Florida
34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479)
Location: 0.38 acre located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hamden and
Brightwater drives.
Atlas Page: 276A
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of 392 square-feet of dock area
(including two piers) for a total of 852 square-feet to an existing commercial dock associated with
an overnight accommodation in the Tourist (T) District with an increase in the width of the dock
from 30 feet (24 percent of the lot length) to 83.1 feet (66 percent of the lot width), and an increase
to the length of the dock from 13 feet (10.4 percent of the lot width) to 21 feet (16.8 percent of the
lot width) under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-601.C.3.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation/Dock
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition & Clearwater Beach Association.
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
See page 6 for motion of approval.
5. Case: FLD2011-03012 – 1996 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Gulf to Bay Investments, LLC
Agent: Rick Tommell, Avid Group (2300 Curlew Road, Suite 201, Palm Harbor, FL 34683;
phone: 727-789-9500;
Location: 0.50 acre located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and Hercules Avenue.
Atlas Page: 289A
Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development approval for a 2,600 square-foot restaurant in the Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 0.50 acre, a lot width of 148 feet along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard a lot width
of 138 feet along Hercules Avenue, front (south) setbacks of 31 feet (to building) and 21 feet (to
pavement), front (east) setbacks of 25.02 feet (to building) and 16.34 feet (to pavement), side
(west) setbacks of 77.66 feet (to building) and 8.66 feet (to pavement), side (north) setbacks of
49.91 feet (to building) and 5.2 feet (to pavement), a building height of 18.66 feet (to flat roof) and
23.4 feet (to highest point), and 25 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Community Development 2011-05-17 5
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704; and
a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffers along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Hercules Avenue
from 15 feet to 7 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.
Proposed Use: Restaurant
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Skycrest.
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
See below for motion of approval.
6. Case: FLD2011-02008 – 1001 Holt Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project, Inc.
Agent: Michael J. Palmer, P.E., Synergy Civil Engineering (3000 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Suite
201, Clearwater, FL P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-796-1926; fax:727-
470-1344, Mpalmer@synergycivileng.com)
Location: 2.87 acre property located on the east side of Holt Avenue between Palmetto and
Engman streets.
Atlas Page: 269B
Zoning: Institutional (I) District
Request: Flexible Development approval for a 64-bed Residential Shelter and 14 attached dwelling
units with a clubhouse in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 125,017 square-feet, lot
widths of 109.6 feet (Palmetto Street), 1,086.7 feet (Holt Avenue) and 124.73 feet (Engman
Street), front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of 25.01 feet (to
building) and 10.3 feet (to pavement), front (north) setbacks of 24.99 feet (to building), and side
(east) setbacks of 25.4 feet (to building), 19.96 feet (to pavement), and 10 feet (to dumpster
enclosure), a building height of 24 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and 60 off-street parking
spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Infill project under the provisions of the
Community Development Code Section 2-1204.C.
Proposed Use: Residential Shelter and Attached Dwellings
Neighborhood Associations: North Greenwood Community Coalition and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2011-03011, FLD2011-02010, FLD2011-
02007, FLD2011-02009, FLD2011-03012 and FLD2011-02008 on today’s Consent Agenda based
on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as
listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Norma
Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2011-05-17 6
F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-3)
1. Level Three Application
Case: LUP2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011-01001,
DVA2011-01001)
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475, LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (P.O. Box 6015, Palm
Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 888-977-1179).
Location: 1.52 acres, located on the south side of Sunset Point Road approximately 150
feet west of North Highland Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request: Future Land Use Map amendment from Residential/Office General (R/OG) Category,
Residential Urban (RU) Category and Commercial General (CG) Category to Residential/Office
/Retail (R/O/R).
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and services.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearview Lake Estates and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reported the Public Hearing for this property is
scheduled for May 19, 2011, after 6:00 p.m., in Chambers.
See Exhibit: Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.
Member Dame returned to Chambers.
Member Coates moved to accept Catherine Lee as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general for Cases LUP2011-01001
and REZ2011-01001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Norma Carlough did not vote.
Planner III Catherine Lee reviewed the Staff Report and recommended denial. There is a
significant amount of vacant commercial property nearby. Sunset Point Road is primarily a
residential corridor; this development would cause additional commercial traffic.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, said the Family Dollar Store will be a single-story
building. He said the bank building is decaying and not conducive to office use. He said the site
attracts graffiti, vagrants, and the homeless who intrude into the abutting neighborhood; nearby
residents support redevelopment. He said to the rear, there will be a 15-foot buffer and no vehicular
use. He said the area should be a high priority for redevelopment as the parcel is economically
underutilized. He said no one has objected to this proposal. He said he had letters and three pages
of petitions in support.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said most commercial vacancies are in one
shopping center; the shopping center closest to this project has vacancies in two small spaces. In
response to a concern that traffic backed up at the bank on Sunset Point Road on Friday evenings,
Mr. Pressman said business at the Family Dollar Store will not be concentrated to a few hours.
Community Development 2011-05-17 7
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said this area has not been declared blighted for
the establishment of a CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and does not qualify for
development as stated by Mr. Pressman. Ms. Lee said the use would conform to Code if the
land use plan and zoning are adopted. Mr. Delk said redevelopment goals and objectives
proposed
facilitate economic development. The abundance of vacant commercial space nearby does not bode
well for neighborhood property values.
Discussion ensued with comments that the store would be positive for the area and will not
cause traffic problems, the site is blighted, the developer is well known and respected, and the
national brand store will be well run. The lack of opposition by nearby residents was noted. It was
suggested nearby commercial vacancies could be the result of poor management. Concerns were
expressed that the location is not appropriate for a retail operation and the project does not meet City
requirements. It was felt the City’s Comprehensive Plan was well thought out and no compelling
reason had been presented for changes except to develop the property.
Member Dame moved to recommend denial of Case LUP2011-01001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion
was duly seconded. Members DiPolito and Dame and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Members Coates,
Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs voted “Nay.” Motion failed. Alternate Board Member Norma
Carlough did not vote.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case LUP2011-01001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and
hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: the development will be an
asset to the neighborhood and will end a blight condition and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law
that the application complies with the City Code Section(s) 4-603.F.1 – 6. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs voted “Aye”; Members DiPolito and
Dame and Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Board Member Norma Carlough did
not vote.
2. Level Three Application
Case: REZ2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001,
DVA2011-01001)
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475, LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (P.O. Box 6015, Palm
Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 888-977-1179).
Location: 1.52 acres, located on the south side of Sunset Point Road approximately 150
feet west of North Highland Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request: Zoning Atlas amendment from Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR),
to Commercial (C) District.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and services.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearview Lake Estates and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
Community Development 2011-05-17 8
Ms. Lee reviewed the Staff Report and recommended denial.
Mr. Pressman requested his presentation for the land use change be considered regarding
this zoning request.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case REZ2011-01001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and
hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: the development will be an
asset to the neighborhood and will end a blight condition and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law
that the application complies with the City Code Section(s) 4-603.F.1 – 6. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs voted “Aye”; Members DiPolito and
Dame and Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Board Member Norma Carlough did
not vote.
3. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001, REZ2011-
01001)
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475, LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (P.O. Box 6015, Palm
Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 888-977-1179).
Location: 1.52 acres, located on the south side of Sunset Point Road approximately 150
feet west of North Highland Avenue.
Atlas Page: 261A.
Request: Review of, and recommendation of denial to the City Council, of a Development
Agreement between Cay 1475, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per
Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Type of Amendment: Large scale.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services use of up to 8,320 square-feet of non-residential floor area
(0.125 Floor Area Ratio) at a maximum height of 25 feet
Neighborhood Associations: Clearview Lake Estates and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17.
Ms. Lee reviewed the Staff Report and recommended denial. The development order will
expire after 10 years. Ms. Dougall-Sides said future development of the site is bound by the land use
plan and zoning district.
Mr. Pressman said the site will work well for the proposed improvements and use by a
national company.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2011-01001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and
hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: the development will be an
asset to the neighborhood and will end a blight condition and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law
that the application complies with City Code Section(s) 4-603.F.1 – 6. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs voted “Aye”; Members DiPolito and
Dame and Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Board Member Norma Carlough did
not vote.
Community Development 2011-05-17 9
G. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
(2Q- Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 2011-05-17 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-02006
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owners/Applicant: Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee / Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
Address: 249 Windward Passage
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
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 272 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement), a
side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of
30 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement), a building height of 42.33
feet, and 323 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code
Section 2-704.C. along with a reduction to the perimeter buffer
requirement along the south property lines from 15 feet to zero feet, and
a reduction from the required number of trees within interior landscape
islands from 34 to 27 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with a two-year
Development Order.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Aquarium, Marina and Vacant Property
Proposed: Aquarium and Marina
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District and
SURROUNDING Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
ZONING AND USES: Offices and Attached Dwellings
South: Preservation (P) District
Mandalay Channel (Intracoastal Waterway)
East: Commercial (C) District and Preservation (P) District
Restaurant and Mandalay Channel
West: Commercial (C) District and Preservation (P) District
Offices and Mandalay Channel
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 4.52-acre subject property is located on the south side of Windward Passage approximately
210 feet west of Island Way. The property is comprised of three separate parcels of land that
when combined result in an awkward property configuration. These properties consist of the
existing 39,974 square foot, two-story Clearwater Marine Aquarium (CMA) building, a 25-dock
marina, and a mixture of improved and unimproved off-street parking (the majority of which
does not comply with current parking design standards). The eastern third of the subject
property is vacant.
It is noted that at its meeting of March 17, 2011, the City Council approved a subordination
agreement and approved the modification of the City’s’ reverter on the CMA property. The
subordination agreement provides, among other things, that the City subordinate its reverter
interest up to an $8.6 million loan. In return for the City’s subordination, the City obtains the
right of first refusal to acquire the first mortgage position and/or title, if applicable, to the
property should the City elect to exercise its reverter rights by paying off the existing
indebtedness in the event of the default or demise of the CMA property. Should the CMA fail
and/or default on the outstanding indebtedness, and BB&T pursues its mortgage rights, the City
would have the option to either obtain control of the entire CMA campus in return for payment
of the then existing debt balance or waive this option with BB&T then able to proceed with
foreclosure on the Parcels. The City has no obligation to purchase the mortgage nor is the City
guaranteeing any debt.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal that is currently before the Community Development Board (CDB)
will eliminate all of the existing conforming and non-conforming parking areas from the site and
consists of the following improvements:
The construction of an approximate 11,000 square feet of new floor area for the Clearwater
?
Marine Aquarium building to include a new lobby and gift shop, as well as a new outdoor
tank exhibit area with a 660-seat outdoor stadium;
The construction of several new outdoor aquatic tanks along the west side of the Clearwater
?
Marine Aquarium building;
The construction of a new 205-space, four-level parking garage between the Clearwater
?
Marine Aquarium building and Windward Passage;
The construction of a new 118-space surface parking lot on the eastern third of the subject
?
property;
The construction of a new 12-foot to 14-foot wide marina promenade along that portion of
?
the property abutting the Mandalay Channel;
The installation of a loading zone, dumpster enclosure and “T” turnaround for Fire
?
Department access at the termination of the right-of-way for Marina Way on the subject
property;
The installation of perimeter, interior and foundation landscaping throughout the site; and
?
The installation of stormwater drainage improvements including a vault beneath the surface
?
parking area.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 2 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Intensity: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum floor
area ratio (FAR) for properties with a future land use plan designation of CG is 0.55. The
proposed expansion will result in a total gross floor area of 52,323 square feet at a FAR of 0.265,
which is below the above referenced maximum.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum ISR for properties with a future land use plan designation of CG is 0.95.
The proposed ISR is 0.852, which is below the above referenced maximum.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The lot area of the subject
property is 197,167 square feet (4.53 acres) while the lot width along Windward Passage is 546.3
feet. It is noted that the lot area/width of the subject property exceeds that which is typical for
uses in the C District.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The development proposal includes a front
(north) setback of 15 feet (to building/pavement), rear (south) setbacks of 12 feet (to building)
and zero feet (to pavement), side (east) setbacks of 272 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to
pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), and north (side) setbacks of 30.6 feet
(to building) and 10 feet (to pavement). It is noted that the proposed setbacks are generally
consistent with what would typically be required in the C District and, for the most part, will not
result in required perimeter landscape buffers being reduced, or result in a site design that is out
of character for the surrounding area.
The requested front setback of 15 feet to the proposed parking garage and surface parking area
will help facilitate the opportunity to locate the facility in its proposed location which will in turn
enable parking garage to effectively have a second function as physical buffer from the principal
aquarium building and outdoor stadium/tank area and help mitigate any potential acoustic
impacts that may stem from these elements. The requested rear setback of zero feet is in order to
accommodate the construction of a paver brick promenade along the entire length of the
waterfront property line. The promenade will provide a clearly defined path for pedestrian
traffic along the waterfront and facilitate easy access to the existing marina/boat slips.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The greatest height for the entire project is for the
proposed sun shade over the outdoor stadium/tank area, which is 42.33 feet. The height of the
principal aquarium building is 22.5 feet, and the height of the parking garage is 31.5 feet. It is
noted that the proposed height is within the maximum range established for multiple uses within
the C District and is compatible with the surrounding buildings.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 3 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking
requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the
Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
It is noted that the existing city-marina requires a total of 24 off-street parking spaces (one space
per two slips), all of which are provided for and will be reserved exclusively for the use of
marina tenants.
The aquarium has been determined to have two distinct elements: the principal aquarium
building and the 660-seat outdoor stadium/tank area. The ITE Manual does not include an
aquarium land use category; therefore alternate, similar comparables were sought out within the
ITE Manual for the proposed use/elements. Based upon discussions with the applicant as well as
the City’s Traffic Engineering staff, the principal aquarium building was found to be most
consistent with the Museum land use; and as a Museum the off-street parking requirement for the
principal aquarium element was established as 1.32 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 67.35
spaces. The outdoor stadium/tank area was found to be most consistent with the Live Theater
land use; and as Live Theater the off-street parking requirement for the stadium element was
established as 1 space per three seats, or 217.80 spaces.
Based upon the above, the combined total of required off-street parking spaces for the principal
aquarium building, the outdoor stadium/tank area, and the marina is 309. The application
currently before the CDB proposes 323 off-street parking spaces, and therefore meets the
requirements of CDC Table 2-704.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project - Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-
704.C.6.d, in order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements:
?Changes in horizontal building planes;
?Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos,
balconies, railings, awnings, etc;
?Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?Building step-backs; and
?Distinctive roofs forms.
As part of their written response to address the above flexibility criterion, the applicant has
provided the following:
“The proposed development utilizes a number of design elements in order to form a cohesive,
visually interesting and attractive appearance. Each structure uses changes in horizontal
building planes which is visible at the main structure entrance and stadium. Architectural
columns, pilasters, porticos, and railings add interest on both structures which can be seen at the
parking garage corners and decks surrounding the show tanks. The incorporation of a variety of
materials and landscaping at both structures adds visual interest. Each structure’s fenestration
patterns are repetitive and rectilinear making it distinctive from surrounding projects and giving
the project its own identity. Each structure has unique roof forms which will set it apart from the
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 4 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
surrounding areas and make it a visual landmark to visitors. These elements make the aquarium
unique, visually interesting, and distinctive from surrounding areas.”
With regard to the aquarium building and outdoor stadium/tank area, staff generally agrees with
the applicant that the necessary design elements are being incorporated into the building design
and that said design will be visually interesting and attractive in its appearance. However, staff
cannot make the same finding with respect to the proposed parking garage.
The proposed architectural elevations for the parking garage have carried-over the same
fenestration pattern found on the aquarium building, and have incorporated columns and railings
as architectural details. However, the proposed columns add very little to the building aesthetic;
seemingly acting as a structural element only, and the building appears rather plain, unadorned
and devoid of any visually interesting and attractive architectural details. Further, there are no
discernable changes in horizontal building planes, no use of building step-backs, or anything that
would be considered a distinctive roof form. In short, the proposed parking garage does not
comply with the required Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion.
Staff acknowledges that incorporating changes in horizontal building planes and building step-
backs into a parking garage is difficult without compromising the functionality of the parking
garage itself. Because of this, staff feels strongly that even greater attention must be paid to the
incorporation of the other design elements into the final architectural elevations.
The plans do not identify any proposed building materials other than concrete and no further
specifics have been provided by the applicant in their written response. The parking garage
structure will be concrete with no apparent variation in texture, and the only other material
incorporated into the design is some type of metal railings for the staircase. Staff does not find
that the proposal constitutes variety in materials and textures. Therefore, staff recommends that
additional material be incorporated into the design; perhaps through the application of a
decorative metal trim (although a different metal from the railings) on the cap of the fenestrated
garage walls and stair towers. It is noted that through the incorporation of this trim into the
design, the roof of the parking garage would become more distinctive than as presently proposed.
Staff would also recommend that the fenestrated garage walls be textured differently from the
balance of the garage exterior. Through these modifications staff would find that the design
displays a variety in materials, colors and textures.
As previously noted, the proposed architectural elevations incorporate columns and railings as
architectural details, but that these do little to the overall building appearance. While it is not
desirous to add architectural details to the parking garage that would be out of character for not
only its style but also the style of the aquarium building and result in the creation of a less
cohesive overall design, staff feels that through the incorporation of awnings into the design
there will be a benefit to not only the appearance of the parking garage, but also to its
functionality. Therefore, staff recommends that an awning be added at the vehicular entry into
the parking garage (east elevation) as well as on the third level of the two fenestrated walls on
the north elevation. The awnings must be canvas, aluminum or another material acceptable to
the Planning and Development Department other than plastic, be of an adequate dimension to be
of meaningful aesthetic value, and be of a color compatible with the chosen color palette.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
The west elevation of the proposed parking garage appears rather monotonous with a solid
concrete wall, three sections of open parking deck, and an open stairwell. Staff would
recommend that the center section of open parking deck be modified in some manner to provide
architectural diversity to the elevation; perhaps through the utilization/installation of a living wall
or green wall. The installation of such a wall, aside from the obvious aesthetic appeal, may also
help to purify the air circulating from the parking garage and act as an acoustic control from the
parking garage as well.
Subject to the above discussed changes being incorporated into the final architectural design of
the parking garage, a positive finding can be made with regard to the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project flexibility criteria set forth in CDC Section 2-704.C.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based
upon the plans submitted, it does not appear that any mechanical equipment will be located on
the roof of the proposed buildings. Instead, any mechanical equipment would appear to be
located within the CMA facility itself, or along the south side of the building adjacent to the
promenade.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Windward Passage and where the property is accessed via Marina Way,
no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30
inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The
proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The existing building is served by overhead utilities. Should
this application be approved, all utilities serving this building must be relocated underground on-
site in compliance with this requirement.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-1202.D.1 and 3, there is a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer required along the property lines abutting the Mandalay Channel/Causeway right-of-way.
The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along the Mandalay
Channel/Causeway right-of-way from 15 feet to zero feet.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, one tree is required within an interior landscape island for
every 150 square feet of required greenspace. The proposal includes a reduction to this
requirement from 34 to 27.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G., the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 6 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
The majority of the perimeter landscape buffer either meets or, as in the case of the buffer
adjacent to Windward Passage, exceeds the minimums established in the Code. The exception to
this is the south perimeter buffer abutting the Mandalay Channel/Causeway right-of-way.
Perimeter buffers are typically desirable elements in the site design; however in the instance of
the required south perimeter buffer its provision would actually be an impediment to the
functionality of the site, impeding access to the existing, abutting marina/boat slips. As such, the
applicant has proposed the construction of a paver brick promenade along the entire length of the
waterfront property line. This promenade will provide a clearly defined path for pedestrian
traffic along the waterfront and facilitate easy access to the existing marina/boat slips. Some
landscaping will be provided between the aquarium building and the waterfront in the form of a
three-foot wide planter area consisting of pitch apple and a silver button wood hedge.
With regard to the interior of the surface parking area the proposal meets the majority of the
applicable Code requirements. However, the application does request a reduction of the
requirement to provide 34 trees within interior landscape islands (1 per 150 square feet of
required greenspace) to 27 trees. While only 79% of the otherwise required interior trees are to
be provided, it does not appear to be possible for the site to accommodate any further interior
trees without substantially impacting the number of available off-street parking spaces through
the addition of more landscape islands, or by planting further trees in the already proposed
landscape islands at the expense of reducing the spacing between the trees and compromising the
viability of all trees to be planted.
Solid Waste: The development proposal provides for a new 15-foot by 11-foot (approximate)
dumpster enclosure within the “T” turnaround area located off of Marina Way. The plans
indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards. It is a requirement that the
enclosure exterior must be consistent with the exterior materials and color of the building. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 7 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is no active Code Enforcement case for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.265 X
ISR 0.95 0.852 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 197,167 square feet (4.52 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 416.12 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 15 feet (to building) X
15 feet (to pavement)
Rear: N/A South: 12 feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to pavement)
Side: N/A North: 30.6 feet (to building) X
10 feet (to pavement)
East: 272 feet (to building) X
10 feet (to pavement)
West: 10 feet (to building) X
Maximum Height N/A 42.33 feet (outdoor stadium/tank area) X
22.5 feet (aquarium)
31.5 feet (parking garage)
Minimum Determined by the 323 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking Community Development
Coordinator based on the
specific use and/or ITE
Manual standards
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 8 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of
an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;
or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of
a working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following
design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building step backs; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of 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.The 4.52-acre subject property is located on the south side of Windward Passage
approximately 210 feet west of Island Way;
2.The subject property is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying future land use
plan designation of Commercial General (CG);
3.The subject property has approximately 416.12 feet of frontage along Windward Passage;
4.The building setbacks are 15 feet (front), 12 feet (rear), 272 feet, 10 feet and 30.6 feet (side);
5.The pavement setbacks are 15 feet (front), zero feet (rear), and 10 feet (sides);
6.The height of the sun shade for the outdoor stadium/tank area is 42.33 feet, the principal
aquarium building is 22.5 feet, and the parking garage is 31.5 feet;
7.Based upon discussions with the applicant and the City’s Traffic Engineering staff, as well as
in reviewing comparable land uses in the ITE Manual, the off-street parking requirement for
the development proposal has been determined to be 309 parking spaces and 323 parking
spaces are proposed; and
8.The development proposal will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community
Development Code (CDC) Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC
Sections 2-704.C;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A; and
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program
criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application 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 272 feet (to building)
and 10 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks
of 30 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement), a building height of 42.33 feet, and 323 off-street
parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C. along with a reduction to the perimeter buffer requirement
along the south property lines from 15 feet to zero feet, and a reduction from the required number
of trees within interior landscape islands from 34 to 27 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with a two-year Development
Order, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That any outstanding comments from the Engineering Department, Fire Department and
Parks and Recreation Department be addressed prior to the issuance of any building permits
or issuance of a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy, as applicable;
2.That the hours of operation and live presentation schedule remain generally consistent with
those times provided to staff by the applicant, and that any substantial variation to those
times require the approval of the Community Development Board;
3.That a decorative metal trim (although a different metal from the railings) be provided on the
cap of the fenestrated garage walls and stair towers;
4.That the fenestrated garage walls be textured differently from the balance of the garage
exterior;
5.That an awning be added at the vehicular entry into the parking garage (east elevation) as
well as on the third level of the two fenestrated walls on the north elevation. The awnings
must be canvas, aluminum or another material acceptable to the Planning and Development
Department other than plastic, be of an adequate dimension to be of meaningful aesthetic
value, and be of a color compatible with the chosen color palette;
6.That the center section of open parking deck on the west elevation be modified to provide
architectural diversity to the elevation through the utilization/installation of a living wall or
green wall;
7.That all utilities serving this building be relocated underground on-site in compliance with
the requirement of CDC Section 3-912;
8.That all lighting must be automatically controlled so that it is turned off when the business is
closed in compliance with the requirement of CDC Section 3-1202.G.2;
9.That, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1402.I.3, lighting levels in the parking garage shall meet or
exceed the current minimum Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) standards, and that
evidence depicting said compliance shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the parking garage;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02006 2011-05-17
10.That, pursuant to a written statement provided by the applicants representatives, only low-
level amplification be utilized during presentations, and that any amplified sound meet the
requirements of any applicable Code requirement;
11.That, pursuant to a written statement provided by the applicants representatives, the parking
garage shall be equipped with arms/gates to secure the parking garage when the aquarium is
closed, and that details of the arms/gates be provided to and approved by the Planning and
Development Department prior to the issuance of any building permits;
12.That the site and landscape plans be modified to provide for a pedestrian access between the
western edge of the “T” turnaround, the door at the northwest corner of the aquarium
building, and the promenade;
13.That the exterior of the dumpster enclosure must be consistent with the exterior materials and
colors of the buildings; and
14.That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Parking Easement granting an
easement from the Clearwater Marine Aquarium to the City for a total of twenty-four off-
street parking spaces on the subject property as depicted and identified on the site plan as
“Reserved for Municipal Slip Usage” (“Marina Spaces”) is recorded in the Public Records.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Windward Passage 249 Clearwater Marine Aquarium (C)
2011.05 - RT\Staff Report 2011 05-17.docx
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02006 – Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-03011
Agenda Item: D.4.
Owner/Applicant: Michael Cavill
Agent: Steven A. Williamson , Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP
Address: 984 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a single-family detached dwelling
with accessory swimming pool and deck within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District with a front (east) setback of
three feet where 10 feet is allowed but may be varied based on the
criteria specified in Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.,
and a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to deck as measured from
Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-204.E.
ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
Proposed: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING
Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES:
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Water
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.3 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 250
feet north of Juniper Street. The property is presently a vacant lot. The properties to the north,
south, and east, are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the properties
to the north and east are developed with detached dwellings. The property to the south is a vacant
lot. Land to the west is zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and is the Gulf of Mexico.
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct a single-family detached dwelling with accessory swimming pool
and deck. The request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear
(west) setback to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for the swimming pool/deck.
The swimming pool/deck will have a zero foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with
houses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Pursuant to Community Development
Code (CDC) Section 3-905.C.2 any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL
shall be considered through a Level Two development process.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is
discussed below.
Density: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category,
the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 12,759 square feet (0.3 acres), one
dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban
(RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.418
is proposed.
Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot area. The lot area of the subject property is 12,759 square feet which exceeds
the detached dwelling minimum standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot width. The subject property lot width is 110 feet which exceeds the detached
dwelling minimum standard of 50 feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill
projects, two parking spaces are required. The proposal is to provide three off-street parking
spaces as through two driveways and a single-car and a double-car garage for the dwelling,
which is consistent with the above.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar
mechanical equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such
equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing
units for air conditioners as well as pool equipment will be placed adjacent to the side of the
dwelling. Compliance with screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit
submittal.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912 all utilities including individual distribution lines shall
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. This proposal will
comply with this requirement.
Solid Waste: The dwelling unit will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal which
will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires these black barrels to be
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls, fences or other
appropriate screening materials will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential
Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five
feet, and a rear setback between zero and 15 feet. However these criteria are guidelines and may
be varied. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet with a front setback of 3 feet
(to stairs) and no reduction to side setbacks and is therefore compliant with the above referenced
requirements.
The reduction in the rear setback allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and
emerging development pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in the vicinity have or
appear to have zero foot setbacks to the CCCL. A setback of zero feet from the CCCL to an in
ground pool and deck was approved for 974 Eldorado (FLD2010-11031), 740 Eldorado Avenue
(FLD2009-10040) 1000 Eldorado (FLD2011-01002) and for 1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point
Road (FLD2009-02004). Existing pools and decks to the south of the subject property are set
back zero feet from the CCCL for pool and decks based upon surveys provided for FLD2010-
11031 (926 and 920 Eldorado). In addition, review of aerial photography show that several
existing waterfront properties in the vicinity appear to have up to zero foot structural setbacks to
the CCCL including 14 Somerset Street, 9 Cambria Street, 724, 734, 740, 770, 800, 804, 856,
880, 920, 926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970, 1002 Eldorado Avenue, 1154, 1160, 1170, 1176, 1188,
1192, and 1198 Mandalay Point Road. Please see Exhibit “C” of the applicant’s submission for
aerial photographs supporting these addresses. Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a
typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and
consistent with the emerging development pattern.
The reduction in the front setback allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and
emerging development pattern. Many of the existing single-family detached dwellings in the
vicinity have or appear to have reduced front setbacks of 3 feet or less. Review of aerial
photography show that several existing Eldorado properties in the vicinity appear to have front
setbacks of 3 feet including 920, 936, 946, 974, 1000, 1002, 1020, 1022, 1030, 1046, 1058, 1070,
1078, and 1086 Eldorado. Please see Exhibit “D” of the applicant’s submission for aerial
photographs supporting these addresses.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects,
the maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The building height of the
detached dwelling will maintain a maximum building height of 29.9 feet above base flood
elevation as measured to the midpoint of a sloped roof, which is consistent with the above, as
well as with the definition of “height, building or structure” as set forth in Article 8 of the CDC.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/ac 3.3 du/ac X
ISR 0.65 0.41 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 12,759 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 110 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10-25 feet East: 3 feet (to stairs) X 1
Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet (to deck) X
Maximum Height 30 feet 29.9 feet X
Minimum Off-Street Parking 2 spaces per dwelling unit 3 spaces X
1
See Analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity
or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of April 7, 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 0.3 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 250 feet
north of Juniper Street;
2.That the property is currently a vacant lot;
3.That the proposal is to construct a single-family detached dwelling with an accessory
swimming pool and deck;
4.That the proposal includes a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL) to deck, and a front setback of 3 feet (to stairs);
5.That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.2, any requests to modify setback requirements from
the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and
6.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
204.E of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development approval for a single-family detached dwelling with accessory
swimming pool and deck within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a
front (east) setback of three feet where 10 feet is allowed but may be varied based on the criteria
specified in Community Development Code Section 2-204.E., and a rear (west) setback of zero
feet (to deck as measured from Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as
a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
204.E, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03011 2011-05-17
Conditions of Approval:
1.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles as per CDC Section 3-
904.B;
2.That pool and deck be constructed no higher than 12 inches or less above existing grade; and
3.That outdoor mechanical equipment including air conditioning and pool equipment be
screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; and
4.That black barrels shall be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Ellen Crandall, Planner II
Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – May17, 2011
FLD2011-03011– Page 6 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-02010
Agenda Item: E.5.
Owner/Applicant: Pensam Belleair Gardens, LLC
Address: 2159 Nursery Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval (1) to allow 146 existing attached
dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
with a lot size of 212,137 square feet, a lot width of 290 feet (along
Belcher Road) and 271 feet (along Nursery Road), a building height of
29.3 feet, a front (east) setback of 19.8 feet (to existing pavement and
existing building) where 10 feet is allowable, a front (north) setback
19.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.5 feet (to existing pavement)
where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility
criteria, a side (east) setback of 9 feet (to existing building) where 10
feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, a
side (north) setback of 80.1 feet (to existing building) and 0.7 feet (to
existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based
on the flexibility criteria, a side (south) setback of 24.2 feet (to
existing building) and 23.4 feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is
allowable, a side (west) setback of 79.4 feet (to existing building) and
7.7 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied
based on the flexibility criteria, a rear (west) setback of 133.1 feet (to
existing building) and 3.1 feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is
allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria and a rear
(south) setback of 7.5 feet (to existing building) and 2.5 feet (to
existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based
on the flexibility criteria, and 235 parking spaces a Residential Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-404.F. as well as a reduction to the
perimeter landscape buffer along Nursery Road from 15 feet to 10
feet, a reduction to the side (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to
0.7 feet, a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to
seven feet, a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet
to 7.7 feet, a reduction to the rear (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet
to 3.1 feet, and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape buffer from 10
feet to 2.5 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. and
(2) permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
nonconforming structural setbacks, under the provisions of CDC
Section 6-109.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential High (RH)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached Dwellings
Proposed: Attached Dwellings
EXISTING North: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and
SURROUNDING Commercial (C) District
ZONING AND USES: Attached Dwellings and Office
South: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Attached Dwellings
East: Unincorporated
Detached Dwellings
West: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales and Office
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 4.87 acre property is located on the south side of Nursery Road approximately 350 feet west
of the intersection of Nursery Road and Belcher Road. The property has frontage on both
Nursery Road and Belcher Road and has ingress/egress areas on both frontages. The site
currently contains 146 apartments that were constructed in the early 1970’s and are located
within three groups of buildings. Each group of buildings includes a courtyard and swimming
pool to serve as an amenity for the residents. These apartments have been the source of multiple
housing violations including lack of heat, water intrusion, unsafe electrical issues and infestation
of rats and rodents. One group of these buildings has since been renovated and is currently
occupied. The other two groups of building are currently not occupied.
East of the site, across Belcher Road, is a Walgreens and an office and north of the site, across
Nursery Road is retail sales and office uses. South of the site, is a large apartment complex
(Belleair Pines) and west of the site are detached dwellings.
Development Proposal:
Due to changes in ownership and renovation schedules, two buildings have not been occupied
within the past six months. As they have not been occupied and over three million dollars in
renovation costs are proposed, the application is being processed as a Residential Infill along
with the Termination of Status of Nonconformity as the existing structures are not meeting
setback requirements. In addition to the complete renovation of the two buildings, the parking
lots will be resurfaced and restriped, handicap spaces will be added and landscape materials will
be installed where space allows. The existing structures all meet the required structural setbacks.
Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-102.E, if the use of a
nonconforming structure is abandoned for a period of six consecutive months, the future use of
the structure shall be brought into full compliance with all the requirements of the Development
Code; thus the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
Regarding the site, the parking lot surface will be improved and restriped along with the addition
of seven handicap spaces as the site currently has no handicap spaces. Additional interior
landscape islands are proposed along with enhanced buffers. The existing parking lot will remain
with setbacks to pavement as follows: a front (east) setback of 19.8 feet, a front (north) setback
of 9.5 feet, a side (north) setback of 0.7 feet, a side (south) setback of 23.4 feet, a side (west)
setback of 7.7 feet, a rear (west) setback of 3.1 feet and a rear (south) setback of 2.5 feet. The
development proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-401.1, the maximum
allowable density is 30 dwelling units per acre. Based on 4.87 acres, the site is permitted 146
dwelling units. The proposal is in compliance with the above as it has 146 dwelling units.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
404.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85 for RH. The overall proposed ISR is 0.73, which is
consistent with the above.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The subject property
is 212,137 square feet (4.87 acres). Also for comparative purposes, the minimum lot width
requirement for attached dwellings is 150 feet. The lot width along Belcher Road is 290 feet and
along Nursery Road it is 271 feet. Both the lot size and lot width are consistent with the above.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum front setback can range from
10 feet to 25 feet, the side can range from zero to 10 feet and the rear can range from zero to 15
feet. These setbacks are guidelines and may be varied based on the flexibility criteria.
With regard to the existing buildings, of the eight required structural setbacks all are all being
met except for the side (east) setback of nine feet (to existing building) and the rear (south)
setback of 7.5 feet (to existing building). Flexibility has also been requested with regard to the
setbacks to the existing off-street parking and vehicular use areas. The request includes a front
(east) setback of 19.8 feet, a front (north) setback of 9.5 feet, a side (north) setback of 0.7 feet, a
side (south) setback of 23.4 feet, a side (west) setback of 7.7 feet, a rear (west) setback of 3.1 feet
and a rear (south) setback of 2.5 feet. Understanding that Belleair Gardens developed in the early
1970’s, Staff supports the existing setbacks to pavement and structure.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the maximum allowable height for
attached dwellings is 30 feet. The existing buildings are all below 30 feet in height.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum required parking for
attached dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit (292 spaces). The site currently has 233
parking spaces and is able to add two more for a total of 235 parking spaces (1.6 spaces per unit).
A parking study done by the applicant found that the national average of parking spaces for
low/mid rise apartments is 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit. In addition a bus route is in the
immediate vicinity of Belleair. Again, understanding that Belleair Gardens developed in the early
1970’s, Staff supports the proposed reduction in parking spaces.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for setbacks. The criteria for Termination of Status of
Nonconformity, as per CDC Section 6-109 and outlined in the table below, including compliance
with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking
lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance
with the Code will be met with this development proposal.
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3-1202.D of the X
Community Development Code shall be installed.
2. Off-street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established X
in Section 3-1202.E of the Community Development Code.
3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory N/A
use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with
this development code.
4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to X
satisfy the requirements of this section.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, the Belcher Road frontage requires a 15-foot landscape
buffer, the Nursery Road frontage requires a 15-foot landscape buffer, and the remaining buffers
are required to be 10-foot wide. As discussed further, any opportunity to install landscaping has
been utilized. There are no off-street parking lots nor nonconforming signs, lighting, accessory
structures or uses located on the parcel. A Comprehensive Landscape Program has been
submitted to satisfy the landscape requirements.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Solid Waste: The proposal includes the provision of a trash compactor located near the western
property line and a refuse dumpster located north of the site. Both refuse areas will be screened
with wood stockade fence and gates. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s
Solid Waste Department.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utilities including individual distribution lines must
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Any new electric and
communication lines for this development will be installed underground on site in compliance
with this requirement. All electric panels, boxes and meters will be painted the same color as the
building.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer along both Nursery Road and Belcher Road and the remaining six buffers are required to
be 10-foot wide. Along Nursery Road the majority of the proposed landscape buffer is over 18
feet wide, a small area of 25 feet can only be 10 feet wide due to the existing parking lot. Along
Belcher Road the proposed landscape buffer is up to 17 feet wide in some areas. The side (south)
landscape buffer ranges from 12 feet to 19 feet in width exceeding the 10 feet wide requirement.
The remaining five buffers have proposed deviations to the width requirements. In these areas
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
there is no opportunity to remove pavement and increase the setback nor increase the landscape
buffer width as the structures are existing and the parking and drive aisle dimensions do not
exceed code requirements.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a
building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way. The foundation plantings must be
within an area that is a minimum of five feet wide and consist of at least two accent trees or three
palm trees for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of
required landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the
remainder to be ground cover. Foundation plantings meeting this requirement are proposed along
both the Nursery Road and Belcher Road facades.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area shall be
provided as landscape islands a minimum of eight feet wide and 150 square feet in size. The site
proposes 12 percent of the vehicular use areas to be landscape islands.
To mitigate for the inadequate perimeter landscape buffer widths, the applicant has proposed to
increase the buffer width along Nursery Road, Belcher Road and along the side (south) property
line. The proposal calls for over 50 trees, over 650 shrubs and over 1,000 groundcover plants to
be installed. Due to existing site constraints staff supports the requested landscape reductions.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of N/A N/A
the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel
proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed X
in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than
landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the
minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor
plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the
parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-401.1 and 2-404:
Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30/dua (RH) 146 dwelling units X
I.S.R. 0.85 (RH) 0.73 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 212,137 square feet X 1
Minimum Lot Width N/A Belcher Road 290 feet X 1
Nursery Road 271 feet X 1
Maximum Height 30 feet 29.3 feet X 1
Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet Belcher Road: 19.8 feet (to building) X 1
19.8 feet (to pavement)
Nursery Road: 19.6 feet (to building) X 1
9.5 feet (to pavement)
Side: 0 – 10 feet East: 9 feet (to building) X 1
North: 80.1 feet (to building) X 1
0.7 feet (to pavement)
South: 24.2 feet (to building) X 1
23.4 feet (to pavement)
West: 79.4 feet (to building) X 1
7.7 feet (to pavement)
Rear: 0 – 15 feet South: 7.5 feet (to building) X 1
2.5 feet (to pavement)
West: 133.1 feet (to building) X 1
3.1 feet (to pavement)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 2 /spaces per unit 1.6/ spaces per unit X 1
(292 parking spaces) (235 parking spaces)
1
See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-404.F
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of April 7, 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:
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
1.That the 4.87 acre subject property is located on the south side of Nursery Road
approximately 350 feet west of the intersection of Nursery Road and Belcher Road;
2.That the subject property is located within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.The site currently contains three groups of buildings consisting of 146 dwelling units;
4.Two groups of buildings are not occupied;
5.The proposal includes setback reductions to two of the eight required building setbacks;
6.The proposal includes setback reductions to existing pavement;
7.The proposal includes reductions to the perimeter landscape buffer requirements on Nursery
Road, to three side buffers and two rear buffers;
8.The proposal includes 235 parking spaces;
9.The existing buildings are all below 30 feet in height; and
10.There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-401.1. and 2-
404 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
404.F of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4.The development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G
of Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application (1) to allow 146 existing attached dwellings in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot size of 212,137 square feet, a lot
width of 290 feet (along Belcher Road) and 271 feet (along Nursery Road), a building height of
29.3 feet, a front (east) setback of 19.8 feet (to existing pavement and existing building) where
10 feet is allowable, a front (north) setback 19.6 feet (to existing building) and 9.5 feet (to
existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria,
a side (east) setback of 9 feet (to existing building) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied
based on the flexibility criteria, a side (north) setback of 80.1 feet (to existing building) and 0.7
feet (to existing pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility
criteria, a side (south) setback of 24.2 feet (to existing building) and 23.4 feet (to existing
pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, a side (west) setback of 79.4 feet (to existing building) and
7.7 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility
criteria, a rear (west) setback of 133.1 feet (to existing building) and 3.1 feet (to existing
pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria and a
rear (south) setback of 7.5 feet (to existing building) and 2.5 feet (to existing pavement) where
10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the flexibility criteria, and 235 parking spaces a
Residential Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-404.F. as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Nursery Road
from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the side (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 0.7 feet, a
reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to seven feet, a reduction to the side
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02010 2011-05-17
(west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 7.7 feet, a reduction to the rear (west) landscape buffer
from 10 feet to 3.1 feet, and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 2.5
feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 3-1202.G. and (2) permit a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for
nonconforming structural setbacks, under the provisions of CDC Section 6-109., subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and
building improvements;
2.That, prior to issuance of any building permits, the site data table be revised to reflect the
correct I.S.R of 0.85;
3.That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the last building, all of the
proposed landscaping shall be installed; and
4.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02010 – Page 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-02007
Agenda Item: E.3.
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Property Investments, LLC
Address: 1375 S Ft. Harrison and 509 D Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for 18,921 square feet of
wholesale/distribution/warehouse facility use and 6,745 square feet of
office use in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
with a lot area of 62,662 square feet, a lot width of 390 feet (along E
Street), a lot width of 279 feet (along the Pinellas Trail), a lot width
of 90 feet (along D Street), a lot width of 122 feet (along Hamlet
Avenue), a front (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement)
and 39.3 feet (to existing building), a front (west) setback of zero feet
(to existing pavement) and 22 feet (to existing building), a front
(north) setback of five feet (to existing pavement) and 44 feet (to
existing building), a front (east) setback of zero feet (to existing
pavement) and 21 feet (to existing building), a building height of 32
feet (to top of tower), and 53 parking spaces as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-1304.C as well as a reduction to the
perimeter landscape requirement on the south from 10 feet to four
feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the west
from 10 feet to zero feet a reduction to the perimeter landscape
requirement on the north from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the
perimeter landscape requirement on the east from 10 feet to zero feet
and reductions to both the south and north foundation landscape
requirements from five feet to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Industrial Limited (IL)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant
Proposed: Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse and Office
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
EXISTING North: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
SURROUNDING
Warehouse and Office
ZONING AND USES:
South: Commercial (C) District and Medium Density Residential
(MDR) District
Offices and Detached Dwellings
East: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
Medical Clinic and Office
West: Outside of City Limits – Town of Belleair
Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.44 acre subject property is located on the north side of E Street between S. Ft. Harrison
Avenue and Hamlet Avenue and on the south side of D Street. The property comprises three
separate parcels and has four front property lines and the remaining side and rear property lines
traverse vehicular cross access areas. The property contains two structures, one addressed off of
S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the other addressed off of D Street. A 3,578 square foot building
(formerly Segway of Tampa Bay) exists on D Street and a 21,650 square foot building (formerly
a distribution use) presently exists on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, as well as its associated off-street
parking. The site shares an ingress/egress area to both D Street and Hamlet Avenue with the
parcel located east of the D Street structure. The site also has ingress/egress areas along E Street.
West of the site, across S. Ft. Harrison Avenue, is the Belleair Country Club Golf Course and
east of the site, across Hamlet Avenue, is a medical clinic and office. South of the site, across E
Street, are detached dwellings and an office. Directly north of the site, across D Street, is an
office.
Development Proposal:
Previously the Development Review Committee (DRC) approved case FLS2006-09058 for retail
sales and service use (Segway of Tampa Bay) for the 509 D Street structure. This proposal is to
allow a warehouse use in the 509 D Street structure along with an office and warehouse use in
the S. Ft. Harrison structure. No changes are proposed for the D Street structure while the S. Ft.
Harrison structure has proposed to add approximately 800 square feet of floor area, mainly for an
elevator and entryway, and completely remodel the exterior façade to provide for a visually
interesting and attractive appearance. The existing structures all meet the required structural
setbacks. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-102.E, if the use of a
nonconforming structure is abandoned for a period of six consecutive months, the future use of
the structure shall be brought into full compliance with all the requirements of the Development
Code; thus the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application.
Regarding the site, paved areas will be removed along with parking along E Street. The parking
lot will be resealed and restriped and handicap access routes are proposed to comply with ADA
requirements. Additional interior landscape islands are proposed along with enhanced buffers.
The existing parking lot will remain with setbacks to pavement as follows: a front (south)
setback of four feet, a front (west) setback of zero feet, a front (north) setback of five feet, a front
(east) setback of zero feet, the remaining setbacks are to vehicular cross access - a side (east)
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
setback of zero feet, a side (north) setback of zero feet and a rear (east) setback of zero feet. The
development proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the CDC is
discussed below.
Intensity: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum
allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65 for Industrial Limited (IL). The proposal
is in compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 0.36.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85 for IL. The overall proposed ISR is 0.38, which is
consistent with the above.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for both offices and wholesale, distribution and
warehouse is 10,000 square feet. The subject property is 62,662 square feet (1.44 acres). Also
for comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for both offices and wholesale,
distribution and warehouse is 100 feet. The lot width along E Street is 390 feet, along Pinellas
Trail it is 279 feet, along Hamlet Avenue it is 122 feet and along D Street it is 90 feet. The
reduced lot width along D Street will not impede the normal and orderly development of
surrounding properties.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for both offices and wholesale, distribution and warehouse
is 20 feet and the side and rear setback for both offices and wholesale, distribution and
warehouse is 15 feet.
With regard to the existing building, the minimum required setbacks are all being met. Flexibility
has been requested with regard to the setbacks to the existing off-street parking and vehicular use
areas. The request includes a front (south) setback of four feet, a front (west) setback of zero
feet, a front (north) setback of five feet, a front (east) setback of zero feet, the remaining setbacks
are to vehicular cross access - a side (east) setback of zero feet, a side (north) setback of zero feet
and a rear (east) setback of zero feet. The setbacks to pavement along vehicular cross accesses
are permissible pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.A. While some pavement and parking is
proposed to be removed the front (south) setback of four feet, the front (west) setback of zero
feet, the front (north) of five feet and the front (east) setback of zero feet are to existing parking
spaces where there is no opportunity to remove pavement without impacting aisle widths or
number of parking spaces. Overall, the setbacks to pavement as requested are acceptable to Staff.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for offices is 30 feet and for wholesale, distribution and warehouse
is 50 feet. The proposed building height is 32 feet (to top of tower). The tower is the elevator
shaft which is permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than maximum height for the zoning
district. As the office height is 30 feet the maximum height of the elevator tower could be 46
feet. The remainder of the structure is 23 feet to the top of the parapet. The proposed elevator
tower height and top of parapet are within the above Code provisions.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, the minimum required parking for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
requirement for office is 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for 6,745
square feet of office floor area results in a requirement of 20 spaces and for warehouse the
requirement is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for 18,921 square feet
of warehouse results in a requirement of 28 spaces. This results in a requirement of 48 total
parking spaces. The site currently has 60 spaces; however after placement of new interior
landscape islands and removal of parking along E street the site proposes 53 parking spaces,
which is meets the above Code requirements.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Solid Waste: The proposal includes the provision of a solid waste refuse container located on the
north side of the Ft. Harrison building. It will be screened with a six foot high masonry wall
painted to match the building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid
Waste Department.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utilities including individual distribution lines must
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and
communication lines for this development will be installed underground on site in compliance
with this requirement. All electric panels, boxes and meters will be painted the same color as the
building.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 10-foot wide landscape
buffer along the Pinellas Trail, D Street, Hamlet Avenue and E Street. The other property lines
abut vehicular cross accesses and parking, therefore no buffer is required. The proposed buffer
along the Pinellas Trail ranges from 30 feet to zero feet wide with the majority of it meeting the
10-foot wide requirement. A small portion, approximately 15 feet in length, does not meet the
requirement. Similarly, the buffer along E Street ranges from 30 feet to four feet. The buffer is
proposed along E Street as parking spaces have been removed which fronted directly on E Street.
Regarding the Hamlet Avenue landscape buffer the majority of it is over 30 feet wide with the
only area being reduced to zero is for a concrete drive running parallel to Hamlet Avenue. The
existing buffer width along D Street is five feet wide and there is no opportunity to remove
parking spaces in this area. The proposed buffers include sabal palms and crape myrtle trees
along with Indian hawthorne, holly, liriope, cordgrass and viburnum.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a
building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way. The foundation plantings must be
within an area that is a minimum of five feet wide and consist of at least two accent trees or three
palm trees for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of
required landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the
remainder to be ground cover. The existing building has frontage along three street rights-of-
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
way. The façade along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue ranges from an eight foot to 13 foot wide area
with the required plantings; however the E Street façade and D Street façade do not have
foundation plantings along the entire façade and there is no opportunity to provide them.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area shall be
provided as landscape islands a minimum of eight feet wide and 150 square feet in size. The site
proposes 12.9 percent of the vehicular use areas to be landscape islands.
To mitigate for the lack of foundation plantings on two facades and inadequate perimeter
landscape buffer widths, the applicant has proposed to increase the buffer width along the
Pinellas Trail in most areas from 10 feet to 30 feet, increase the buffer width along Hamlet
Avenue from 10 feet to 30 feet in most areas and increase the interior landscape requirements
from 10 percent to 12.9 percent. Due to existing site constraints staff supports the requested
landscape reductions.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of N/A N/A
the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel
proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed X
in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than
landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the
minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor
plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the
parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-1301.1 and 2-1304:
Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.65 (IL) 0.36 X
ISR 0.85 (IL) 0.38 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 62,662 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width N/A E Street 390 feet X
Pinellas Trail 279 feet X
D Street 97 feet X
Hamlet Avenue 122 feet X
Maximum Height N/A 32 feet (to top of elevator tower) X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A E Street: 39.3 feet (to building) X 1
4 feet (to pavement)
Pinellas Trail: 22 feet (to building) X 1
0 feet (to pavement)
D Street: 44 feet (to building) X 1
5 feet (to pavement)
Hamlet Ave: 21 feet (to building) X 1
0 feet (to pavement)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 3 / 1,000 SF GFA 53 parking spaces X
(office)
1.5/1,000 SF GFA
(warehouse)
(48 parking spaces)
1
See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1304.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
?
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of 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 1.44 acre subject property is located on the north side of E Street between S. Ft.
Harrison Avenue and Hamlet Avenue and on the south side of D Street;
2.That the subject property is located within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
District and the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.The proposal includes a setback reductions to the existing buildings on all four front property
lines;
4.The proposal includes setback reductions to existing pavement from all four front property
lines;
5.The proposal includes reductions to the perimeter landscape buffer requirements on all four
front property boundaries;
6.The proposal includes reductions to the foundation landscape planting requirements;
7.The proposal includes 53 parking spaces;
8.The proposal includes a building height of 32 feet to top of elevator tower; and
9.There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1301.1. and
2-1304 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
1304.C of the Community Development Code;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02007 2011-05-17
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4.The development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G
of Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development approval for 18,921 square feet of wholesale/distribution/warehouse
facility use and 6,745 square feet of office use in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
District with a lot area of 62,662 square feet, a lot width of 390 feet (along E Street), a lot width
of 279 feet (along the Pinellas Trail), a lot width of 90 feet (along D Street), a lot width of 122
feet (along Hamlet Avenue), a front (south) setback of four feet (to existing pavement) and 39.3
feet (to existing building), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 22 feet
(to existing building), a front (north) setback of five feet (to existing pavement) and 44 feet (to
existing building), a front (east) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 21 feet (to
existing building), a building height of 32 feet (to top of tower), and 53 parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-1304.C as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the
south from 10 feet to four feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the west
from 10 feet to zero feet a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the north from 10
feet to five feet, a reduction to the perimeter landscape requirement on the east from 10 feet to
zero feet and reductions to both the south and north foundation landscape requirements from
five feet to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the site drainage and the system of ponds
and under drainage will be reviewed by a Florida Registered Professional engineer and the
results will be implemented in the construction documents as required and signed and sealed;
2.That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and
building improvements;
3.That, prior to issuance of any building permits, the landscape plant list be revised to indicate
the minimum size requirements;
4.That, all proposed signage be permitted separately;
5.That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, a unity of title be submitted for parcels
21-29-15-06462-016-0050, 21-29-15-06462-016-0060 and 21-29-15-06462-016-0080;
6.That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever
occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; and
7.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02007 – Page 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-02009
Agenda Item: E.6.
Owner: Didomizio Investments, Inc. a Florida Corporation
Applicant: Didomizio Investments, Inc. a Florida Corporation
Representative: Woods Consulting (Terri Skapik)
Addresses: 333 Hamden Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVLOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of 392 square
feet of dock area (including two piers) for a total of 852 square feet to
an existing commercial dock associated with an overnight
accommodation in the Tourist (T) District with an increase in the width
of the dock from 30 feet (24 percent of the lot length) to 83.1 feet (66
percent of the lot width), and an increase to the length of the dock from
13 feet (10.4 percent of the lot width) to 21 feet (16.8 percent of the lot
width) under the provisions of Community Development Code Section
3-601.C.3.
ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category
PROPERTY USE: Current: Commercial Dock (in association with an existing
overnight accommodation use)
Proposed: Commercial Dock (in association with an existing
overnight accommodation use)
EXISTING North: Preservation (P) District
SURROUNDING Clearwater Harbor
ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District
Overnight Accommodations
East: Tourist (T) District
Condominiums
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight Accommodations
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The subject property consists of 0.38 acres with a 21 unit hotel that has an accessory dock. The
property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Brightwater and Hamden Drives
within the Small Motel District of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan. The parcel is located
on Clearwater Harbor and has approximately 140 feet of waterfront frontage (125 feet measured
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
along the seawall). It is bounded by Hamden Drive (west), Brightwater Drive (south), and
Clearwater Harbor (north and east).
The property is surrounded by a similar uses. The properties located directly across Hamden
Drive and Brightwater Drive consists of overnight accommodations. The adjacent property
consists of condominiums. Similar land uses dominate the immediate area.
Development Proposal:
The expansion of the subject dock has already been completed. This request is for an after the
fact approval to legally allow the portion of the dock (including two piers) that has been
expanded to remain. As built, 392 square feet of decking area has been added to an existing
dock for a total of 852 square feet of dock area. The existing dock has been extended from 30
feet to 83.1 feet along the seawall that is 125 feet in width. The length of the dock has also been
extended outward into Clearwater Harbor from 13 feet to 21 feet. However, this increase of 8
feet of dock length reflects the two new piers which extend out 21 feet from the waterfront
property line or seawall. The piers were built approximately 10.5 feet east of the main dock.
The length of the main dock has remained at 13 feet which is the same length of the dock prior to
its expansion. A roof strucure has been added to the middle section of the dock which stands
approximately 10 feet above the mean high water line. One tie pole is located 28 feet outward of
the seawall and setback 3 feet from the northern extended property line. No covered boatlifts or
vertical walls have been built. The deck and piers are privately owned and operated by the hotel
and will be used only by hotel guests.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-601.C.3, a commercial dock is any dock, pier or wharf, including
boatlifts, that is used in connection with a hotel, motel or restaurant where the slips are not
rented, leased or sold; or such facilities constructed and maintained by the City of Clearwater,
Pinellas County or by any state or federal agency. Commercial docks shall only be permitted as a
Level Two (flexible development) use. As such, it is subject to the relevant review criteria.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
The dimensional standards
criteria for setbacks set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be located no
closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent
of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line on the
subject property is 125 feet; therefore the proposed dock/piers must be set back from both the
east and west extended property lines a minimum of 12.5 feet. The west side of the existing
dock is currently set back 26.1 feet and the east side will be setback 16.3 feet from the eastern
property line. The setbacks exceed the minimum required side setback and are compliant with
the standards in the CDC.
With regards to width, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line. As mentioned above, the length of the seawall is
125 feet. Thus, the maximum width of the dock can be 93.75 feet. The dock has been extended
from 30 feet to 83.1 feet along the waterfront property line. The 83.1 foot width of the dock is
66 percent of the width of the subject property, well below the 75 percent standard. The dock is
consistent with this Code provision.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
The same threshold that applies to width also applies to length; therefore the length of the dock is
limited to 93.75 feet. As previously stated, the length of the dock has been extended outward
into Clearwater Harbor from 13 feet to 21 feet. This increase of dock length reflects the two new
piers which extend out 21 feet from the waterfront property line or seawall. The length of the
main dock has remained at 13 feet which is the same length of the dock prior to its expansion.
Nonetheless, the piers are extending less than the maximum allowable length making each
compliant with the standards of the code.
In regards to the roof structure which covers the subject dock, CDC Section 3-601.C.1.k. only
permits roof structures on publicly owned facilities. Since the subject dock is a private dock to
be used only for purposes related to the hotel, the roof structure must be removed from the dock.
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject property (12.5 feet) East: 16.3 feet X
(Minimum)
10% of the width of the subject property (12.5 feet) West: 26.1 feet X
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject property (93.75 feet) 21 feet X
(Maximum)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject property (93.75 feet) 83.1 feet X
(Maximum)
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency with the Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.a-g. Specific
responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with
their application.
Consistent Inconsistent
a. Use and Compatibility: X
i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort,
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the
property;
ii) The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent
properties and the neighborhood in general; and
iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity.
b. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities: The use of the proposed dock shall X
not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the
adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall not
hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses including but
not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
c. Impacts on Navigation: The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on Marine Environment: X
i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas; and
ii) Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef
which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to
be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
e. Impacts on Water Quality: X
i) All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area
associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to
ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest
member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at
mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum); and
ii) The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage,
shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the
area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in
the area in which the dock is proposed to be located.
f. Impacts on Natural Resources: X
i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so
as to be contrary to the public interest; and
ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative,
terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one
or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or
feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which
would serve to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated
preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan,
national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated
preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands: The dock shall not have a material adverse X
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
The proposed dock is subordinate to the overnight accommodation use. Many docks to the north
and east extend much further into waterway. Thus, staff has determined the proposed dock to be
in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties, the neighborhood and the general
vicinity.
Regarding impacts on water recreation activities, navigation, marine environment, water quality,
natural resources and wetlands the City Harbormaster has reviewed the dock proposal and
indicates that there is compliance with those criteria.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
As previously discussed the development of the land (submerged) relating to scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character with adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity have been
found to be consistent.
The dock and piers will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development or redevelopment
of adjacent properties. Moreover, the dock and piers are consistent with the community
character of the immediate vicinity.
The dock and piers will not affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the
neighborhood as they meet state and local guidelines by not extending past the 25 percent
waterway width and no tie poles extend beyond 50 feet of the dock or piers.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no other outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of April 7, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the May 17, 2011, Community Development Board (CDB) meeting based upon
the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
1.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Residential
Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
2.That the 0.38 acres is located on the northeast side of Hamden Drive at the intersection of
Brightwater Drive and Hamden Drive;
3.That the parcel is located in the Small Motel District of Beach by Design;
4.That the site has approximately 125 feet of waterfront frontage/seawall on Clearwater Harbor
between the north and south property lines;
5.That the proposal does not require any deviations and as constructed its width and length are
compliant with the Dock Standards in the CDC;
6.That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding area;
7.That the applicant is correcting a code violation by applying for Level Two approval;
8.That the roof structure on the subject dock is not compliant with the Dock Standards in the
CDC and must be removed; and
9.That there are no other outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject
property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the width and length of the subject dock is consistent with the commercial dock review
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per
CDC Section 3-913.A; and
3.That the roof structure on the subject dock is not consistent with CDC Section 3-601.C.3.k.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of Flexible
Development approval to permit the addition of 392 square feet of dock area (including two
piers) for a total of 852 square feet to an existing commercial dock associated with an overnight
accommodation in the Tourist (T) District with an increase in the width of the dock from 30 feet
(24 percent of the lot length) to 83.1 feet (66 percent of the lot width), and an increase to the
length of the dock from 13 feet (10.4 percent of the lot width) to 21 feet (16.8 percent of the lot
width) under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-601.C.3. with the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the roof structure on the subject dock shall be removed in compliance with CDC
Section 3-601.C.3.k.;
2.That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the
vicinity; and
3.That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental
permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if
applicable, be submitted to the Planning and Development Department.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02009 2011-05-17
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Hamden 333 Didomizio Investments (Dock) (T) -2011.xx.
kwn\333 Hamden - Staff Report.docx
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02009 – Page 7 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-03012
Agenda Item: E.4.
Owner/Applicant: Gulf to Bay Investments, LLC
Representative: Rick Tommell, Avid Group
Address: 1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a 2,600 square foot restaurant
in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 0.50 acres, a lot
width of 148 feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard a lot width of 138
feet along Hercules Avenue, front (south) setback 31 feet (to
building) and 21 feet (to pavement), front (east) setbacks of 25.02
feet (to building) and 16.34 feet (to pavement), side (west)
setbacks of 77.66 feet (to building) and 8.66 feet (to pavement),
side (north) setbacks of 49.91 feet (to building) and 5.2 feet (to
pavement), a building height of 18.66 feet (to flat roof) and 23.4
feet (to highest point), and 25 off-street parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions
of Community Development Code Section 2-704; and a reduction
to the perimeter landscape buffers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and Hercules Avenue from 15 feet to 7 feet as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Automobile Service Station (vacant)
Proposed Use: Restaurant
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District
SURROUNDING Parking Lot
ZONING AND USES: South: Institutional (I) District
School
East: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales and Services
West: Commercial (C) District
Offices
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.50 acre site is located on the northwest side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the intersection of
Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Hercules Avenue. The site contains an existing 643 square foot
building, automated car wash, gas pumps and canopy. Planning staff determined that an
“automobile service station” land use was established on this site in 1988 and successively
occupied by Gulf Oil, Mobil Oil and BP. There are three driveways onto the site; two driveways
access the site from Gulf to Bay Boulevard and one from S. Hercules Avenue. The site has 144
feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 138 feet along Hercules Avenue.
Office uses are located adjacent to the north and west, with attached dwellings located farther
north. The area along Gulf to Bay Boulevard can be characterized as commercially developed
within the Commercial (C) District, with office and retail sales and services uses and another
automobile service station within close proximity of the subject property. Clearwater High
School is located across Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the south within the Institutional (I) District.
Commercial properties along Gulf to Bay Boulevard between S. Keene Road and S. Belcher
Road can be characterized as having a mix of building and parking lot locations on the individual
properties. Some properties have been designed with the building placed forward on the property
with parking to one side and the rear of the building, while others have the parking area in front
of the building.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to completely redevelop this site by demolishing the existing structures and
construct a new one-story, 2,600 square foot building at the southeast corner of the site for a
restaurant. The submitted materials and colors for the building are gray stone, copper roof cap,
Armagnac body stucco finish, and vanillin trim. The existing site is accessed by a driveway on
the east side along S. Hercules Avenue and by two driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The
project proposes to close the eastern driveway on Gulf to Bay Boulevard, as this driveway is too
close to S. Hercules Avenue. The remaining driveways will be improved to current Code
requirements for access. The applicant is proposing to close this eastern driveway and replace it
with a landscape buffer equal in depth as the proposed landscape buffer along S. Hercules Avenue.
A total of 25 parking spaces will be located to the side and rear of this new building. This site
layout satisfies the majority of Community Development Code (CDC), Building Code and Fire
Code requirements, albeit with necessary setback reductions.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55.
Based on the 0.50 acres, a maximum of 11,900 square feet of commercial floor area is
permissible under current regulations. The proposal is for 2,600 square feet, at a Floor Area
Ratio of 0.12, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 2 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1,
the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.68, which is consistent with the
Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for restaurants is 10,000 square feet. The
existing lot area for the subject property is 21,613 square feet. For comparative purposes, the
minimum lot width requirement for restaurants is 100 feet. The lot widths along Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and S. Hercules Avenue are 144 feet and 138 feet, respectively. The development
proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for restaurants.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Typically, the minimum front setback
requirement for a restaurant can range between 15 and 25 feet; and the side setback can range
between zero and 10 feet. However, the subject property is a corner lot, the south and east
portions of the property must meet a front setback, while the north and west sides must meet a
side setback. The proposal includes front (south) setbacks of 18.33 feet (to curb) and 24 feet (to
pavement), a front (east) setback of 16.34 setback (to curb), a side (north) setback of 5.2 feet (to
curb), and a side (west) setback of 8.66 feet (to curb).
Building and parking lot locations on most properties between S. Keene Road and S. Belcher
Road do not meet current required front, side or rear setback requirements. The adjacent office
building to the west and its associated parking lot to the north of the subject site is developed
with pavement at similar setbacks to those proposed at this site. Commercial property to the east
and southeast are presently developed with pavement at less than five foot in depth from the
property line, with many at a zero feet front setback. The existing church parking lot to the
northeast across S. Hercules Avenue is located approximately at a similar setback as the subject
property. The parking lot pavement at Clearwater High School across Gulf to Bay Boulevard is
at a zero-foot front setback. Based on this existing character of the surrounding area, the
proposed setbacks are compatible and consistent with this character of the surrounding
commercial properties. In addition, the removal of the eastern driveway to meet current spacing
requirements from intersections and upgrading of the landscaping within the front perimeter
buffers can be viewed as improvements to the overall site. Such enhancements will significantly
improve the visual appearance and safety at this intersection.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for restaurants can range between 25 and 50 feet. Following the
completion of the proposed architectural façade, the height of the flat roof will be 18.8 feet;
however an architectural detail on the buildings west and south elevation (facing Gulf to Bay
Boulevard) will have a height of 23.4 feet. In either instance the height is well below that which
may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 3 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
requirement for restaurants is between 7 and 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
which for a 2,600 square foot restaurant would result in a requirement between 18 and 39 spaces.
The applicant is proposing 25 off-street parking spaces, which would provide parking at a ratio
of 9.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
The applicant has submitted a Parking Study to justify the proposed number of off-street parking
spaces. The applicant’s consultant studied a 1,800 square foot Subway restaurant located at 2790
Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The study notes that this restaurant operates fifteen hours per day and it
is located in a plaza with ninety-seven shared parking spaces. It has a parking ratio of 4.3
vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area which is 7 parking spaces. However, a standard
restaurant with 1,800 square feet would require a minimum of 27 parking spaces. The submitted
study found that most vehicles visited this location between the restaurants opening (10 AM) to
just after lunch (2 PM) at a yearly average of 12 vehicles per hour. Although the studied site
consists of a restaurant that is less than the size of the proposed restaurant, the study shows that
at the restaurants peak period an average of twelve parking spaces were necessary to meet
parking demand. Furthermore, the applicant expects most customers to be foot traffic from
Clearwater High School located directly across Gulf to Bay Boulevard. While the proposed use
would typically require more parking spaces than the restaurant studied, the parking demand
study demonstrates that the proposed 25 off-street parking spaces will be adequate to meet the
demand of the new restaurant during all periods. As these 25 spaces are well within the
acceptable range for restaurants, positive findings can be made with regard to the requested off-
street parking reduction.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based
upon the plans submitted, it is unclear of the location of such mechanical equipment, whether
such will be placed on the ground or on the roof area. The location and screening of such
mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this
application be approved by the CDB.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to
be acceptable.
Solid Waste: The dumpster enclosure will be located in the northwest corner of the site. The
location allows for trouble-free access for solid waste vehicles. The enclosure shall be of similar
color and stucco finish as the principle structure. The proposal has been found to be acceptable
by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 4 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is a 15-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Hercules Avenue. However, due to the site
design, the landscape plans shows a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffers along Gulf to
Bay Boulevard and Hercules Avenue from 15 feet to 7 feet.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
Architectural theme
1. :
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
The ability to meet the Code requirements for perimeter areas is restricted by the property
configuration, building location, stormwater requirements and the provision of the greatest
number of parking spaces possible. Given these design constraints, the applicant has designed as
much landscaping as possible within the planting areas provided. Along S. Hercules Avenue, a
perimeter buffer of 7 feet is provided between the retention pond and S. Hercules Avenue right-
of-way which will be adequately planted and further enhanced with the addition of large natchez
crepe myrtles. The proposed 7-foot front landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard will be
planted with cabbage palms and crepe myrtles with underplantings consisting of Indian hawthorn
and sweet viburnum along the entire length of the property. Also, within the side perimeter
buffers, the landscape plans show that five mature live oak trees with large canopies will be
preserved to meet tree planting requirements. However, the landscape plan shows eight palm
trees located in the retention pond along Hercules Avenue. These palm trees will need to be
relocated on site or replace them with a minimum of two shade trees on site in an acceptable
location. Currently, the site contains only minor landscaping along the rights-of-way that have
not been properly maintained since the property became vacant. The proposed Comprehensive
Landscape Program improvements will enhance the visual appearance of the northwest corner of
the intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Hercules Avenue. In addition, foundation
planting and parking lot interior landscape requirements are compliant with code.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 5 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
Signage: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
It is noted that, the plans show an existing non-conforming freestanding sign from the previous
use. This freestanding sign shall be removed in compliance with CDC Section 6-104 prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Commercial General (CG) land use category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC
Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.12 X
ISR 0.90 0.68 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 21,613 sq. ft. (0.50 acres) X
Minimum N/A S. Hercules: 138 feet X
Lot Width
Gulf to Bay: 144 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: 16.34 feet (to curb) X
25.02 feet (to building)
South: 18.33 feet (to curb) X
24 feet (to pavement)
31 feet (to building)
Side: N/A North: 5.2 feet (to curb) X
5.41 feet (to curb)
5.91 feet (to curb)
West: 9.37 feet (to dumpster) X
9.63 feet (to dumpster)
8.66 feet (to curb)
10.1 feet (to curb
10.14 feet (to curb)
Maximum Height N/A 23.4 feet X
Minimum 7-15 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 25 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking (18-39 spaces) (9.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
?
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building step backs; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of April 7, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 0.50 acres is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Hercules
Avenue;
2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.The site presently is developed with an automobile service station, including an existing 630
square foot building, automated car wash, gas pumps and canopy;
4.The proposal is to completely redevelop this site by demolishing the existing structures to
permit a 2,600 square foot restaurant with 25 off-street parking spaces;
5.The proposal includes closing the eastern driveway on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and planting a 7
foot perimeter landscape buffer;
6.The existing eastern driveway on Gulf to Bay Boulevard does not meet current driveway
spacing requirements from intersections and its removal will reduce turning movements and
increase safety along Gulf to Bay Boulevard;
7.The proposal includes flexibility in the front (south) setbacks of 18.33 feet (to curb) and 24
feet (to pavement), front (east) setback of 16.34 feet (to pavement), side (west) setback of
8.66 feet (to pavement), side (north) setback of 5.2 feet (to pavement);
8.The setbacks will allow for the construction of a parking lot that is compliant with the
parking lot standards;
9.Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed setbacks at this site are
compatible and consistent the surrounding properties;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
10.The applicant proposes 25 off-street parking spaces at a ratio of 9.6 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area that is within the acceptable range for restaurants;
11.The proposal includes a reduction in the front perimeter landscape buffers from 15 feet to 7
feet and consists of Comprehensive Landscape Plan that will enhance the perimeter buffers
along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Hercules Avenue, which will improve the visual
appearance of this site; and
12.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-703 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4.The proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
Flexible Development application for a 2,600 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 0.50 acres, a lot width of 148 feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard a lot
width of 138 feet along Hercules Avenue, front (south) setbacks of 31 feet (to building) and 21
feet (to pavement), front (east) setbacks of 25.02 feet (to building) and 16.34 feet (to pavement),
side (west) setbacks of 77.66 feet (to building) and 8.66 feet (to pavement), side (north) setbacks
of 49.91 feet (to building) and 5.2 feet (to pavement), a building height of 18.66 feet (to flat roof)
and 23.4 feet (to highest point), and 25 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704;
and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Hercules
Avenue from 15 feet to 7 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202, subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual
materials, colors and elevations approved by the CDB;
2.That prior to the issuance of the any building permits, all outstanding comments from the
Engineering Department be addressed;
3.That prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall revise the landscaping
plan to relocate the trees shown in the retention pond to an acceptable area on site;
4.That the dumpster be located within an approved enclosure and the exterior of the dumpster
enclosure have a stucco finish the same color as the building;
5.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the existing non-conforming freestanding
sign at 1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard be removed in compliance with CDC Section 6-104;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-03012 2011-05-17
6.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outdoor lighting for this development
be approved as set forth in CDC Section 3-1302; and
7.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities including individual
distribution lines are installed underground as set forth in CDC Section 3-912.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Gulf to Bay 1996 GTB Subway (C) -2011.05-kwn\1996 GTB
Subway Staff Report.docx
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-03012 – Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-02008
Agenda Item: E.1.
Owners/Applicant: Homeless Emergency Project (HEP), Inc.
Representative:
Micheal Palmer, P.E., Synergy Civil Engineering, Inc.
Address:
1001, 1051, 1101, 1201 and 1231 Holt Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a 64-bed Residential Shelter and 14
attached dwelling units with a clubhouse in the Institutional (I) District
with a lot area of 125,017 square feet, lot widths of 109.6 feet (Palmetto
Street), 1,086.7 feet (Holt Avenue) and 124.73 feet (Engman Street),
front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of
25.01 feet (to building) and 10.3 feet (to pavement), front (north)
setbacks of 24.99 feet (to building) and side (east) setbacks of 25.4 feet
(to building), 19.96 feet (to pavement), and 10 feet (to dumpster
enclosure), a building height of 24 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof),
and 60 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Infill project under the provisions of the Community
Development Code Section 2-1204.C.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant land
Proposed: Residential Shelter
EXISTING North: Institutional (I) District
SURROUNDING
Child Day Care Center
ZONING AND USES:
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached dwellings
East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached dwellings
West: Institutional (I) District
School
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The subject property is 2.87 acres in area and consists of two parcels of land. It is bounded by
Holt Avenue (west), Fairburn Avenue (east), Engman Street (north) and Palmetto Street (south).
The property is not completely vacant of a land use. The southern portion of the property
fronting onto Holt Avenue and Palmetto Street and the northern portion of the property fronting
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
onto Engman Street currently serves as an off-street parking lot for the public school directly
across Holt Avenue. The central portion of the property is fenced vacant land that consists of a
number of live oak trees.
The property is surrounded by a variety of uses. To the immediate north is a child day care
center. To the east and south are detached dwellings and community residential homes that abut
the property. These properties front onto Fairburn Avenue and are zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District. To the west is Clearwater Intermediate School. The Homeless
Emergency Project (HEP) business office is located one city block to the east across Fairburn
Avenue.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to develop the site with a total of five buildings. Two buildings will temporarily
house male veterans and serve as a sixty-four bed/resident Residential Shelter. Another two
buildings will operate as temporary accommodations for woman veterans and their children in
fourteen attached dwelling units. The final proposed building will function as a club house for
residents to utilize as a social center. The proposed term of occupancy per resident/families is
twenty-four months. Furthermore, a total of sixty off-street parking spaces will be provided
amongst four shared parking lots between the buildings. All four parking lot driveways will
access Holt Avenue. The entire property will be fenced with a four to six foot gold colored
aluminum decorative fence and landscaped to soften the development on surrounding properties.
The two buildings designed to accommodate sixty-four single male veterans will be two-story
structures with 16,248 square feet of floor area (shown as VA Residential Shelters #3 and #4 on
site plan). The floor plan shows that each level will be divided into sixteen individual units for a
total of thirty-two units per building. Each unit will be approximately 500 square feet and will
consist of one bedroom, a bathroom, and a living room, but each unit will not have cooking
facilities. Also, there will be a total of eight handicap units, four units provided on the first floor
of each building. Each unit will be compliant with ADA regulations. The male residents will
utilize an existing off-site shared dining hall currently being used by other HEP tenants. The
buildings will be located on the southern portion of the site oriented toward Holt Avenue. These
two buildings will be identical in design. As mentioned above, each building will be two-stories
with the top of the highest point being 26.11 feet or 24 feet at midpoint of pitched roof from
existing grade, which is below the maximum height of 30 feet. These buildings are basically
rectangular in shape and will feature architectural elements similar to approved HEP properties
in the immediate area.
Residential Shelter #2 will consist of ten attached dwelling units designed to accommodate
women veterans and their dependents. It will be a two-story building with 10,284 square feet of
floor area. Two types of residential units are proposed in this building. Unit A will consist of
three bedrooms while Unit B will consist of two bedrooms. Unit A will have a floor area of
1,200 square feet per unit and Unit B will have a floor area of 914 square feet per unit. There
will be four A Units and six B Units per building for a total of ten dwelling units. No ADA
dwelling units are included in this building. The building will be two-stories with the top of the
highest point being 26.11 feet or 24 feet at midpoint of pitched roof from existing grade, which is
below the maximum height of 30 feet. These buildings will be less rectangular in shape by
projecting out to accommodate the different unit types. As with VA Residential Shelters #3 and
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
#4, Shelters #2 will feature architectural elements similar to approved HEP properties and will be
oriented towards Holt Avenue.
Residential Shelter #1 will be a single-story building to accommodate women veterans and their
dependents. It will consist of 5,142 square feet of floor area and comprise of four attached
dwelling units. The floor plan shows two A units and one Unit B, as described above. The fourth
unit type will be Unit C. This unit consists of four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and all other
necessary facilities. The height of this building will be 13.9 feet to the highest point above
existing grade, which is also below the maximum height of 30 feet. Lastly, the club house is
2,336 square foot single story building. It will consist of an exercise room, activity room,
computer room, sitting room, and an office space. The club house will be 15.1 feet at the highest
point above existing grade, which is also below the maximum height of 30 feet.
As previously mentioned, a variety of land uses surround the proposed site which is zoned for
institutional uses yet abuts a single family residential neighborhood to the east. However, the
mix of proposed building types, size and architectural designs although not typically associated
with single-family neighborhoods attempts to incorporate residential features similar to single
family residences, while trying to provide the character of a residential street.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 1201.1, the maximum
allowable density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre. The property has a lot area of 125,017 square
feet which allows for a maximum of thirty-five dwelling units. According to the Countywide
Plan Rules Section 2.3.3.7.3, residential shelters may be considered a residential equivalent use if
the residential shelter units do not qualify as dwelling units. Basically, this means that the
residential shelter may not have cooking facilities in each individual unit, where attached
dwelling units have such facilities. If the individual residential shelter units do not qualify as
dwelling units then regulations allow for three beds to qualify as one dwelling unit. The
proposed sixty-four individual residential shelter units do not have cooking facilities; therefore,
they meet the criteria and qualify as twenty-one dwelling units. The remaining two residential
buildings will have a combined fourteen attached dwelling units. As previously stated, the
property has a lot area of 125,017 square feet which allows for a maximum of thirty-five
dwelling units. The proposal is for a total of thirty-five dwelling units which is the maximum
development potential for the subject property.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1201.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed ISR is 0.59, which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there is no minimum required
lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Section 2-1203, the minimum lot area for residential
shelter/attached dwelling units is 10,000 square feet. The subject property is 125,017 square feet
in area. Pursuant to the same Tables, the minimum lot width for residential shelters is 100 feet.
The lot width of this site is 109.60 feet along Palmetto Street, a lot width of 1,086.7 feet along
Holt Ave., and a lot width of 124.73 feet along Engman Street. The proposal is consistent with
these Code provisions.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there are no minimum required setbacks for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
CDC Section 2-1203, the minimum setbacks for residential shelters/attached dwelling units in
the I District may be within 15 – 25 feet (front) and 10 feet (side). The proposal has a front
(west) setback of 10.3 feet (to proposed pavement) and 25.01 feet (to proposed building) along
Holt Avenue, front (north) setback of 24.99 feet (to proposed building) along Engman Street, and a
front (south) setback of 25 feet (to proposed building). The setbacks will allow for off-street
parking lots that meet the required number of off-street parking spaces for the intended land use.
The requested setbacks will not impact the required perimeter buffer along Holt Avenue. A ten
foot landscape perimeter buffer will be planted to soften the view of the parking lots pavement
from the street and adjacent properties. Also, each proposed building will meet the standard
front setback of 25 feet along Holt Avenue; therefore, the front setbacks to pavement will not
have a negative impact on the visual appearance along this side of the property.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there is no maximum required
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
pursuant to CDC Section 2-1203, the maximum allowable height for a residential
shelter/attached dwelling units is 30 feet. The highest of the proposed two-story structures, from
existing grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof is 24 feet, which is below the maximum height
of 30 feet. The proposed buildings will each display consistent architectural elements and colors,
as well as those of surrounding HEP properties. This development should enhance the character
of this area.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-1203 and 2-1204, the minimum
required number of required off-street parking spaces for a residential shelter is one space per
two residents, and the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for attached
dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit. A total of sixty off-street parking spaces are required
by code for this development. The site plan shows that a total of sixty parking spaces will be
provided on site; therefore, the number of parking spaces is compliant with these Code
provisions. Although there will be four parking lots serving the residents parking needs, the
number of parking spaces is evenly distributed to provide adequate parking spaces for each
building. In addition, ADA accessible walkways will be constructed connecting the parking lots
and buildings entrances to the existing sidewalk along Holt Avenue.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based
upon the plans submitted, the mechanical equipment will be located to the immediate side or rear
of the individual buildings. The location and screening of such mechanical equipment will be
reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this application be approved by the CDB.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
intersections of Palmetto Street and Holt Avenue, and Holt Avenue and Engman Street; as well
as at each parking lot entrance, 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 twenty-foot
sight visibility triangles. There is a proposed four to six foot decorative fence to enclose the
entire property shown on the site and landscape plans. Both plans show the fence encroaching
within the sight triangles along Holt Avenue. For this fence to be located as proposed, it shall
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
need to be revised to be compliant with the above referenced section of the CDC. The
groundcover and shrubs shown to be planted within the sight triangle meet the criteria.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utilities including individual distribution lines must
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Should this application
be approved by the CDB, all utilities serving this development must be relocated underground
on-site in compliance with this requirement.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, the location of this development plan
requires a ten foot wide landscape buffer along Palmetto Street, Holt Avenue, and Engman
Street, and a ten foot wide landscape buffer along the side yard. The proposal does not include
any reduction to any required landscape buffer. The landscape plan shows that all required
perimeter landscape buffers are compliant with Code standards. The applicant proposes a variety
of plantings within the perimeter buffer including such trees as muskogee crape myrtles, winged
elms, and southern magnolias. Shrubs and ground cover will include dwarf firebrush, dwarf
Indian hawthorn, jasmine, and big blue lily turf. In addition, the applicant proposes a wider
landscape perimeter buffer along the side (east) property line. Rather than providing the required
ten foot buffer, the landscape plan shows a twelve foot buffer that will consist of dwarf firebrush
shrubs, southern magnolias and slash pine trees between the subject property and the adjacent
single family residences. The landscape plan also shows that a number of existing mature live
oak trees will be preserved and provide shade over two of the parking lots. Each required
landscape perimeter buffer includes the required number of shrubbery, groundcover and trees to
soften the development adequately from the surrounding properties. The interior of the new
parking lots will also be landscaped to meet Code requirements. A sufficient number dwarf
Indian hawthorn shrubs and weeping yaupon holly trees will be planted within this landscaped
area. Also, adequate landscaping is provided between the decorative fence and public right-of-
ways.
The submitted landscape plan complies with Section 3-1202 for perimeter, fencing, foundation,
and interior parking lot landscaping and should provide adequate visual relief from the scale of
the parking lots and structures.
Solid Waste: The proposal includes the provision of adequate solid waste enclosures and trash
receptacles located within each parking lot. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the
City’s Solid Waste Department.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-1201.1 and
Table 2-1204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.65 0.40 X
ISR 0.85 0.59 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 125,017 square feet (2.87 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A North: 124.73 feet X
West: 1,086.7 feet X
South: 109.60 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 24.99 feet (to building) X
West: 10.3 feet (to pavement) X
15.3 feet (to pavement)
25 feet (to building)
South: 25 feet (to building) X
Side: N/A East: 10 feet (to dumpster enclosure) X
12.88 feet (to dumpster
enclosure)
Maximum Height N/A 26.11 feet (to midpoint of existing roof) X
Minimum Determined by the 60 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking Community Development (Res. Shelter 1 space per 2 residents)
Coordinator based on the (Attached Dwelling 2 spaces per unit)
specific use and/or ITE
Manual standards
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1204.A (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or
preservation of a working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of March 3, 2011, and recommended modifications to the development such as a
reduction in maximum development potential and removal of cooking facilities to qualify as a
residential shelter. The plans now reflect the necessary adjustments allowing the proposal to be
deemed legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based
upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 2.87 acres is located between Holt Avenue (west) and Fairburn Avenue (east) and between
Engman Street (north) and Palmetto Street (south);
2.That the subject property is located within the Institutional (I) District and the Institutional (I)
Future Land Use Plan category
3.Residential shelters and attached dwelling units are permitted uses in the Institutional
District;
4.The proposal is to redevelop the site with two new, two-story, 16,284 square foot residential
shelters with a total of 64 beds, 1 two-story 10,284 square foot residential building with ten
attached dwelling units, one single-story residential building with four attached dwelling units,
and a one-story 2,336 square foot club house for the Homeless Emergency Project (HEP);
5.Sixty off-street parking spaces will be provided which equals the number of required parking
for the combined uses of a 64 bed residential shelter and fourteen attached dwelling units;
6.Based on the maximum development potential, the subject property has a lot area of 125,017
that allows for a combined residential shelter and attached dwelling unit development of 35
dwelling units, as proposed;
7.The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.59, which is consistent with the Code provisions;
8.The proposed gross floor area for all proposed buildings is 0.40 which is below the allowable
FAR;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
9.The proposal includes flexibility to the front (west along Holt Avenue) setbacks of 10.3 feet
and 15.3 feet and a front (north along Engman Street) setback of 24.99 feet;
10.The highest proposed building from existing grade to the midpoint of the roofline to be 26.11
feet, which is below the maximum height of 30 feet;
11.The landscape plan complies with the landscape code requirements for perimeter, foundation,
and interior parking lot standards of the CDC;
12.The proposal is compatible with the adjacent properties; and
13.There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code
Sections 2-1201.1 and 2-1204 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2.3.3.7 of the Countywide
Plan Rules;
3.That the proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-1204.A; and
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A. of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
Flexible Development approval for a 64-bed Residential Shelter and 14 attached dwelling units
with a clubhouse in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 125,017 square feet, lot widths
of 109.6 feet (Palmetto Street), 1,086.7 feet (Holt Avenue) and 124.73 feet (Engman Street),
front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of 25.01 feet (to building)
and 10.3 feet (to pavement), front (north) setbacks of 24.99 feet (to building) and side (east)
setbacks of 25.4 feet (to building), 19.96 feet (to pavement), and 10 feet (to dumpster enclosure),
a building height of 24 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and 60 off-street parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Infill project under the provisions of the Community
Development Code Section 2-1204.C., subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed residential shelter and attached
dwelling unit buildings be consistent with the conceptual design, color, and elevations
submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB;
2.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities including individual
distribution lines must be installed underground, as set forth in CDC Section 3-912;
3.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified
arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of
arboriculture be submitted;
4.That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the site plan must show that all outdoor
mechanical equipment shall be completely screened on four sides by a fence, gate, wall,
mounds of earth, or vegetation from view from public streets and abutting properties. If such
screening is provided by means of a fence, gate, or wall, materials shall be consistent with
those used in the construction of and the architectural style of the principal building as set
forth in CDC Section 3-201.D;
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-02008 2011-05-17
5.That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the proposed fencing shall be approved as set
forth in CDC Section 3-904.A.;
6.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of
the Engineering Department;
7.That, prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall comply with the current
Transportation Impact fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff:
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Holt 1001 Homeless Emergency Project West (I) 2011.xx -
KWN\Holt 1001 (HEP) Staff Report.docx
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
FLD2011-02008 – Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: LUP2011-01001
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475 LLC
Address: 1475 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: E-1
STAFF REPORT
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
I.GENERAL INFORMATION
Request:
To amend the Future Land Use Map designations from Residential Urban
(RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Commercial General (CG) to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R)
Location:
1475 Sunset Point Road, located on the south side of Sunset Point Road,
approximately 150 feet west of Highland Avenue
Site Area:
66,211 square feet or 1.52 acres MOL
II.BACKGROUND
This case involves a 1.52-acre property located at 1475 Sunset Point Road and owned by
Cay 1475 LLC. The property is comprised of one parcel and is currently occupied by a
structure formerly used as a bank.
The request is to change the property’s Future Land Use Map designations of Residential
Urban (RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Commercial General (CG) to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R). The applicant has indicated that the intended use of the
property will be retail sales and services (Family Dollar).
A Development Agreement and a request for rezoning of the property from Office (O) and
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C) are being processed
concurrently with this case (see REZ2011-01001 and DVA2011-01001). The Development
Review Committee approved a Flexible Standard Development application for Family
Dollar at its March 3, 2011 meeting (issuance of development order pending approval of the
associated cases).
In June 2010 Belleair Development Group, LLC requested to amend the Future Land Use
Map designations to Commercial General (CG). On July 20, 2010 the Community
Development Board recommended denial of the request and on August 5, 2010, City
Council denied the request.
III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
A.Site Characteristics
The subject property functioned as a bank beginning in 1965 and ending in May 2007 with
the closure of Bank of America. The former bank site contains a building, parking lot, and
entrance on the north portion of the property fronting on Sunset Point Road, and a drive
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 -Page 1 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
through and drive isle traversing the eastern portion of the property, connecting to Highland
Avenue. The applicant intends to demolish the current building to develop the site as a
Family Dollar retail store.
B.Table 1: Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Conditions
Direction
Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
North: Single family residential Residential Urban (RU) Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
East: Vacant gas station Commercial General Commercial (C)
(CG)
South: Single family residential Residential Urban (RU) Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
West: Retail store Residential/Office Office (O)
General (R/OG)
C.Table 2: Uses and Intensities Allowed by Present and Requested Future Land Use
Designations
Present FLUM Present FLUM Present FLUM Requested FLUM
Designation Designation Designation Designation
Residential Urban Residential/Office Commercial General Residential/Office/
(RU) General (R/OG) (CG) Retail (R/O/R)
Primary Urban Low Density Medium Density Office; Retail; Residential;
Uses: Residential Residential/Office Personal Service; Residential
Overnight Equivalent; Office;
Accommodations; Retail; Overnight
Wholesale; Warehouse Accommodations;
Personal/Business
Services
Maximum 7.5 Dwelling Units 15 Dwelling Units Per 24 Dwelling Units Per 18 Dwelling Units Per
Density: Per Acre Acre Acre Acre
Maximum FAR 0.40; ISR 0.65 FAR 0.50; ISR 0.75 FAR 0.55; ISR 0.90 FAR 0.40; ISR 0.85
Intensity:
Consistent Low Medium Density Office (O); Medium Office (O); Office (O);
Zoning Residential (LMDR); Density Residential Commercial (C) Commercial (C);
Districts: Medium Density (MDR) Medium Density
Residential (MDR) 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.
A.Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan [Section 4-603.F.1]
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 - Page 2 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which
are not supportive of the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or
collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site
impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the
creation of “strip commercial” zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained
and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure
comprised of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The citywide design structure will serve
as a guide to development and land use decisions while protecting those elements that
make the city uniquely Clearwater.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Objective A.6.2 The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
Map A-14 (and Attachment) Neighborhood Shopping Centers and Surrounding Non-
residential Uses – Neighborhood Centers typically consist of a limited number of
commercial establishments that fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile of the
center.
Table 3: Parcels West of the Subject Property to King’s Highway Along Sunset
Point Road
Address(es) Linear FLUM Zoning Atlas Current Use 2 Building
13
Distance Designation Designation Size
1463 0’ Residential/Office Office (O) Retail store 4 3,680 SF
1465 General (R/OG)
1455 100’ Residential/Office Office (O) Dentist office 3,800 SF
General (R/OG)
1453 200’ Residential/Office Office (O) Veterinarian 4,200 SF
General (R/OG)
1425 300’ Residential/Office Office (O) Vacant 1,750 SF
General (R/OG)
1419 400’ Residential/Office Office (O) Daycare 4 4,688 SF
General (R/OG)
1413 500’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
(RH) Density Residential
(MHDR)
1872 667’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
1874 King’s (RH) Density Residential
Hwy (MHDR)
Notes:
1. Linear distance in feet from the western property edge of 1475 Sunset Point Road.
2. Current use for which a current Business Tax Receipt has been obtained and recorded in City permitting software.
3. Total finished building square footage (source: Pinellas County Property Appraiser)
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 - Page 3 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
4. Retail sales and services is allowable only as an accessory use in the Office (O) zoning district, and is therefore, in
these two cases, a nonconforming use.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The request conflicts with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan as indicated in the following. The proposed extension of
commercial uses along the predominantly residential Sunset Point Road corridor could
negatively impact the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and
south. Sunset Point Road, west of Highland Avenue, is primarily residential in nature
with office and some nonconforming retail uses (see Table 3). The Citywide Design
Structure, as shown on Map A-14, depicts the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and
Highland Avenue, Sunset Square Shopping Center, as a Neighborhood Shopping Center.
Neighborhood Centers are intended to fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile
of the center. This designated Neighborhood Center does not include the property to the
west of Highland Avenue as it recognizes there is sufficient commercially designated
land currently in place. The proposal to expand commercial use designations outside of
the Neighborhood Center creates more commercial land than is needed to support the
basic needs of the surrounding residents. Currently, the two shopping centers at the
southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and Highland Avenue have 19,490 square feet of
vacant commercial space. Approval of more land west of Highland Avenue for
commercial use will add more commercially designated property in a neighborhood that
has an overabundant supply of existing vacant commercial space.
The proposed amendment would allow for additional uses not allowed by two of the
three subject property’s current future land use designations. Some of these potential
uses are incompatible with the surrounding environment and envisioned character of the
neighborhood. While the applicant is proposing a Development Agreement that would
limit the more severe incompatible uses (adult entertainment, night clubs or bars and
new and used car sales), the Agreement only endures for ten years, at the end of which
the restrictions expire. However, at termination of the Development Agreement, the
Future Land Use Map designation, and allowed uses, stays with the property.
B.Consistency with the Countywide Plan Rules
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The purpose of the proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category, as specified in
Section 2.3.3.4.3 of the Countywide Plan Rules, is to depict those areas of the County
that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in residential, office and/or
retail commercial use; and to recognize such areas as well-suited for mixed-use of a
residential/office/retail character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation
facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas.
The site is located across the Sunset Point Road right-of-way from single family homes
to the north. To the immediate south are also single family homes. A vacant gas station
is located immediately east of the site. To the west is a small market (nonconforming
use).
Locational Characteristics, as specified in Section 2.3.3.4.3, state that the
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category is appropriate to locations where it would
serve as a transition from an urban activity center or more intensive nonresidential use to
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 - Page 4 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
residential, office or public/semi-public use; and in areas where the size and scale of
development will accommodate true mixed residential, office and retail use. These areas
are typically in proximity to and served by the arterial and major thoroughfare highway
network in and adjacent to activity centers where mixed-use development allows
interaction between uses and encourages mass transit and nonvehicular trips. The subject
property is not located in or adjacent to an activity center. However, the property is
located on a PSTA bus route.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The site is not located in or adjacent to an activity center. It is near Sunset Square
Shopping Center, which, as previously noted, is designated as a Neighborhood Shopping
Center and is intended to provide for the commercial needs of residents within one mile.
Additional commercial (retail) acreage in the vicinity is unneeded to serve the
neighborhood residents and the existing future land use category already serves as a
transition from the Neighborhood Center to surrounding residential. The proposed plan
amendment is not consistent with the purpose or the 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]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The subject property is located on the south side of Sunset Point Road, between Kings
Highway and North Highland Avenue. The character of the neighborhood is a mix of
single family residences, multi-family residences, retail, offices, and a gas station. To
the north and south are single family homes.
To the east is an automobile service station. But the property has not been used as such
since July 2003 and has been vacant since that time. To the west is a 3,680 square foot
building that contains two units, one a nonconforming retail store and the other is vacant
(formerly used as a printing shop).
The proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use designation primarily
permits residential, residential equivalent, office, retail, overnight accommodations,
personal/business services uses. Therefore, the category and district as proposed do not
appear appropriately located. Commercial uses (retail) are not compatible with single-
family uses. A less intensive use, such as office, would be more appropriate located
contiguous to single-family homes and fit in with the character of Sunset Point Road
west of Highland Avenue. The proposed change intensifies the uses allowed on the
portion of the property that abuts single family homes. If approved, this property would
be the only property in this area with the R/O/R designation. The existing R/OG
designation is more appropriate to the character of the neighborhood and allows for the
transition from commercial properties to the east to residential properties to the north,
south and west. This request is not compatible with the surrounding area and may
unreasonably affect the use of the property in the area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Future Land Use Map designation is not in character with the overall
Future Land Use Map designations in the area. It is not compatible with surrounding
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 - Page 5 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
uses and not consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area 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 4). The request
for amendment to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Map category
would allow four additional dwelling units, but 6,903 square feet fewer of nonresidential
floor area on the subject property.
Table 4. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations
0.08 AC (3,485 1.15 AC (50,094 0.29 AC 1.52 AC (66,211
Site Area
SF) SF) (12,632) SF)
Present FLUM Present
Present FLUM Requested FLUM
Designation FLUM
Net Change
Designation Designation
“R/OG”
Designation
“RU” “R/O/R”
“CG”
0 DUs 17 DUs 6 DUs 27 DUs 4 DUs
Maximum
1,394.0 SF 25,047.0 SF 6,947.6 SF 26,484.4 SF -6,904.2 SF
Development
0.40 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.40 FAR -0.08 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, but a decrease in the amount of allowable Floor Area Ratio (thus a decrease in
square footage). Currently the site is developed with a 10,586 square foot building,
giving the site a Floor Area Ratio of 0.16.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 - Page 6 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17
Table 5. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis
Maximum Potential Impact to Public Facilities/Services
Public
Capacity
Facility/ Net Change
Present FLUM Present FLUM Present FLUM Requested FLUM
Available?
Service
Designation Designation Designation Designation
“RU” “R/OG” “CG” “R/O/R”
Streets 1 Trip 1 19 Trips 1 13 Trips 1 49 Trips 1 16 Trips Yes
Potable 694.8 GPD 2 Yes
2 22
Water 156.2 GPD2,504.7 GPD 2,648.4 GPD -707 GPD
Wastewater 140.6 GPD 2 2,003.8 GPD 2 555.8 GPD 2 2,118.8 GPD 2 -581 GPD Yes
1.52 46.34 12.85 74 Yes
Solid Waste Tons/Year Ton/Year Ton/Year 135.07 Ton/Year Ton/Year
Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0 N/A
Public Yes
School
3
Facilities
0.51 Yes
Elementary 0.09 Students 2.55 Students 0.9 Students 4.05 Students Students
Middle 0.24 Yes
School 0.04 Students 1.19 Students 0.42 Students 1.89 Students Students
0.34 Yes
High School 0.06 Students 1.7 Students 0.6 Students 2.7 Students Students
Notes:
1. Based on P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules.
-
Residential Urban
-
Residential/Office General
-
Commercial General
-
Residential/Office/Retail
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 6 below, the potential additional maximum daily trips associated
with the requested amendment to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use
designation would not lower the operating level of service for Sunset Point Road.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 -Page 7 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17
Table 6: Maximum Potential Traffic
Sunset Point Rd Existing Current Proposed Net New
12
(Edgewater Dr/Alt US 19 to Keene Rd) Conditions FLUM FLUM Trips
Potential Additional Maximum Daily Trips N/A 351 515 164
Potential Additional Maximum PM Peak N/A 33 49 16
3
HourTrips
Roadway Volume 9,675 4 10,026 5 10,190 5 164
Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour C 4 C 5 C 5
Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour
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.
Based on PPC calculations of 178 trips per day per acre in the Residential/Office General (R/OG) future land use category.
Based on PPC calculations of 487 trips per day per acre in the Commercial General (CG) future land use category.
2. Based on PPC calculations of 339 trips per day per acre for in the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) 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 its determined that the traffic generated by the
proposed amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on
Sunset Point Road. There is an increase in demand of solid waste service, but there is
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:
No wetlands appear to be located on the subject property. This property is developed as
a drive-in bank and has trees and landscaping on site.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject property.
The intent of the applicant is to redevelop the property as a Family Dollar retail store.
The site is currently developed. The proposed redevelopment is required to be compliant
with the City’s tree preservation and storm water management requirements.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 -Page 8 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17
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 DENIAL of the request for Future Land Use Map amendment from the
Residential Urban (RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Commercial General (CG)
classifications to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) classification.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _______________________________
Catherine Lee
Planner III
Attachments:
Resume Future Land Use Map
Application for Future Land Use Plan Zoning Map
Amendment Existing Surrounding Use Map
Location Map Site Photographs
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01001 -Page 9 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511h Exhibit Staff Report LUP2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: REZ2011-01001
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475 LLC
Address: A Portion of 1475 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: E-2
STAFF REPORT
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
I.GENERAL INFORMATION
Request:
To amend the Zoning Atlas designations from Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Office (O)
Districts to the Commercial (C) District.
Location:
1475 Sunset Point Road, located on the south side of
Sunset Point Road, approximately 150 feet west of
Highland Avenue
Overall Site Area:
66,211 square feet or 1.52 acres MOL
Portion of Site Area
Subject to Amendment:
53,578 square feet or 1.23 acres MOL
II.BACKGROUND
This case involves a portion of a 1.52-acre property located at 1475 Sunset Point Road and
owned by Cay 1475 LLC. The property is comprised of one parcel and is currently occupied
by a structure formerly used as a bank. The property currently has three zoning
designations: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), Office (O) and Commercial (C).
The request is to change the property’s Zoning Atlas designations of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and Office (O) to Commercial (C). The applicant has indicated that the
intended use of the property will be retail sales and services (Family Dollar).
A Development Agreement and a request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of
the property from Residential Urban (RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and
Commercial General (CG) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) are being processed
concurrently with this case (see DVA2011-01001 and LUP2011-01001). The Development
Review Committee approved a Flexible Standard Development application for the Family
Dollar at its March 3, 2011 meeting (issuance of development order pending approval of the
associated cases).
In June 2010 Belleair Development Group, LLC requested to amend the Zoning Atlas
designations to Commercial (C). On July 20, 2010 the Community Development Board
recommended denial of the request and on August 5, 2010, City Council denied the request.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 -Page 1 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
A.Site Characteristics
The subject property functioned as a bank beginning in 1965 and ending in May 2007 with
the closure of Bank of America. The former bank site contains a building, parking lot, and
entrance on the north portion of the property fronting on Sunset Point Road, and a drive
through and drive isle traversing the eastern portion of the property, connecting to Highland
Avenue. The applicant intends to demolish the current building to develop the site as a
Family Dollar retail store.
B.Table 1: Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Conditions
Direction
Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
North: Single family residential Residential Urban (RU) Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
East: Vacant gas station Commercial General Commercial (C)
(CG)
South: Single family residential Residential Urban (RU) Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
West: Retail store Residential/Office Office (O)
General (R/OG)
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 [Sections 4-602.F.1 and 4-
602.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which
are not supportive of the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or
collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site
impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the
creation of “strip commercial” zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained
and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure
comprised of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The citywide design structure will serve
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 -Page 2 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
as a guide to development and land use decisions while protecting those elements that
make the city uniquely Clearwater.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Objective A.6.2 The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
Map A-14 (and Attachment) Neighborhood Shopping Centers and Surrounding Non-
residential Uses – Neighborhood Centers typically consist of a limited number of
commercial establishments that fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile of the
center.
Table 2: Parcels West of the Subject Property to King’s Highway Along Sunset
Point Road
Address(es) Linear FLUM Zoning Atlas Current Use 2 Building
13
Distance Designation Designation Size
1463 0’ Residential/Office Office (O) Retail store 4 3,680 SF
1465 General (R/OG)
1455 100’ Residential/Office Office (O) Dentist office 3,800 SF
General (R/OG)
1453 200’ Residential/Office Office (O) Veterinarian 4,200 SF
General (R/OG)
1425 300’ Residential/Office Office (O) Vacant 1,750 SF
General (R/OG)
1419 400’ Residential/Office Office (O) Daycare 4 4,688 SF
General (R/OG)
1413 500’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
(RH) Density Residential
(MHDR)
1872 667’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
1874 King’s (RH) Density Residential
Hwy (MHDR)
Notes:
1. Linear distance in feet from the western property edge of 1475 Sunset Point Road.
2. Current use for which a current Business Tax Receipt has been obtained and recorded in City permitting software.
3. Total finished building square footage (source: Pinellas County Property Appraiser)
4. Retail sales and services is allowable only as an accessory use in the Office (O) zoning district, and is therefore, in
these two cases, a nonconforming use.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The request conflicts with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan as indicated in the following. The proposed extension of
commercial uses along the predominantly residential Sunset Point Road corridor could
negatively impact the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and
south. Sunset Point Road, west of Highland Avenue, is primarily residential in nature
with office and nonconforming retail uses (see Table 2). The Citywide Design Structure,
as shown on Map A-14, depicts the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and Highland
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 - Page 3 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
Avenue, Sunset Square Shopping Center, as a Neighborhood Shopping Center.
Neighborhood Centers are intended to fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile
of the center. This Neighborhood Center does not include the property to the west of
Highland Avenue as it recognizes there is sufficient commercially designated land
currently in place. The proposal to expand commercial use designations outside of the
Neighborhood Center creates more commercial land than is needed to support the basic
needs of the surrounding residents. Currently, the two shopping centers at the southeast
corner of Sunset Point Road and Highland Avenue have 19,490 square feet of vacant
commercial space. Approval of more land west of Highland Avenue for commercial use
will add more commercially designated property in a neighborhood that has an
overabundant supply of existing vacant commercial space.
The proposed amendment would allow for additional uses not allowed by two of the
three subject property’s current zoning designations. Some of these potential uses are
incompatible with the surrounding environment and envisioned character of the
neighborhood. While the applicant is proposing a Development Agreement that would
limit the more severe incompatible uses (adult entertainment, night clubs or bars and
new and used car sales), the Agreement only endures for ten years, at the end of which
the restrictions expire. However, at termination of the Development Agreement, the
Zoning Atlas designation, and allowed uses, stays with the property.
B.Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood
[Sections 4-602.F.3 and 4-602.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The subject property is located on the south side of Sunset Point Road, between Kings
Highway and North Highland Avenue. The character of the neighborhood is a mix of
single family residences, multi-family residences, retail, offices, and a gas station. To
the north and south are single family homes.
To the east is an automobile service station. But the property has not been used as such
since July 2003 and has been vacant since that time. To the west is a 3,680 square foot
building that contains two units, one a nonconforming retail store and the other is vacant
(formerly used as a printing shop).
The proposed Commercial (C) District primarily permits overnight accommodations,
restaurants and retail sales and services uses. Therefore, the category and district as
proposed do not appear appropriately located. Commercial uses (retail) are generally not
compatible with single-family uses. A less intensive use, such as office, would be more
appropriate located contiguous to single-family homes and fit in with the character of
Sunset Point Road west of Highland Avenue. The proposed change intensifies the uses
allowed on the portion of the property that abuts single family homes. This request is not
compatible with the surrounding area and may unreasonably affect the use of the
property in the area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Zoning Atlas designation is not in character with the overall Zoning Atlas
designations in the area. It is not compatible with surrounding uses and not consistent
with the character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 - Page 4 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
C.Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-602.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Based on the proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use, the proposed
Commercial (C) District would permit four additional dwelling units, but 6,903 square
feet fewer of nonresidential floor area on the subject property (see Table 3).
Table 3. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations
0.08 AC (3,485 1.15 AC (50,094 0.29 AC 1.52 AC (66,211
Site Area
SF) SF) (12,632) SF)
Present FLUM Present
Present FLUM Requested FLUM
Designation FLUM
Net Change
Designation Designation
“R/OG”
Designation
“RU” “R/O/R”
“CG”
0 DUs 17 DUs 6 DUs 27 DUs 4 DUs
Maximum
1,394.0 SF 25,047.0 SF 6,947.6 SF 26,484.4 SF -6,904.2 SF
Development
0.40 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.40 FAR -0.08 FAR
Abbreviations:
FLUM – Future Land Use Map DUs – Dwelling units
AC – Acres FAR – Floor area ratio
SF – Square feet
The uses currently allowed under the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district
include attached and detached dwellings, community residential homes, non-residential
off-street parking, parks and recreation facilities, schools, and utility/infrastructure
facilities. The Office (O) District primarily permits offices, places of worship and
nursing homes.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 -Page 5 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
Table 4. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis
Maximum Potential Impact to Public Facilities/Services
Public
Capacity
Facility/ Net Change
Present FLUM Present FLUM Present FLUM Requested FLUM
Available?
Service
Designation Designation Designation Designation
“RU” “R/OG” “CG” “R/O/R”
Streets 1 Trip 1 19 Trips 1 13 Trips 1 49 Trips 1 16 Trips Yes
Potable 694.8 GPD 2 Yes
2 22
Water 156.2 GPD2,504.7 GPD 2,648.4 GPD -707 GPD
Wastewater 140.6 GPD 2 2,003.8 GPD 2 555.8 GPD 2 2,118.8 GPD 2 -581 GPD Yes
1.52 46.34 12.85 74 Yes
Solid Waste Tons/Year Ton/Year Ton/Year 135.07 Ton/Year Ton/Year
Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0 N/A
Public Yes
School
3
Facilities
0.51 Yes
Elementary 0.09 Students 2.55 Students 0.9 Students 4.05 Students Students
Middle 0.24 Yes
School 0.04 Students 1.19 Students 0.42 Students 1.89 Students Students
0.34 Yes
High School 0.06 Students 1.7 Students 0.6 Students 2.7 Students Students
Notes:
1. Based on P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules.
-
Residential Urban
-
Residential/Office General
-
Commercial General
-
Residential/Office/Retail
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 4, the potential additional maximum daily trips associated with the
requested amendment to the Commercial (C) District would not lower the operating
level of service for Sunset Point Road.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 -Page 6 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17
Table 5: 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: Office District
General Office Building 1 25,047 SF 5 275 N/A 1.49 37 N/A
(11.01 trips/1,000 SF
GFA)
Existing Drive-in Bank 2 10,586 SF 6 1,568 N/A 25.82 273 N/A
(148.15 trips/1,000 SF
GFA)
Existing Designation: Low Medium Density Residential District
Single-Family Detached 0 DU 0 N/A 1.02 0 N/A
3
Housing (9.57 trips/unit)
Proposed Designation: Commercial District
Free-Standing Discount 26,484 SF 7 1,516 -52 5.00 132 -141
4
Store (57.24 trips/1,000
SF GFA)
Abbreviations and Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable.
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 710.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 912.
3. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 210.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 815.
5. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying R/OG Future Land Use Map category is 0.50.
6. The Pinellas County Property Appraiser website provides the square footage.
7. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying R/O/R Future Land Use Map category is 0.40.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Free-Standing Discount Store developed at the maximum intensity in the Commercial
(C) District (26,484 square feet) would result in 132 PM Peak trips on Sunset Point
Road, which is less than the PM Peak trips for the current drive-in bank use. Even
though banks are considered an office use in the Community Development Code, the
trip generation characteristics of this use is similar to restaurants, gas stations, and other
service type uses. Therefore, a typical general office building use was also given as an
example to show traffic generation characteristics of a typical office use. In this
scenario, the proposal would result in an increase in PM Peak trips on Sunset Point
Road. However, 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 Sunset Point Road.
There is an increase in demand of solid waste service, but there is 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.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 -Page 7 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
D.Location of District Boundaries [Section 4-602.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries is consistent with the
boundaries of the subject property, which are irregularly shaped.
The proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries would consolidate the subject
property into a single zoning district. However, the proposed Commercial (C) District is
not compatible with the single-family uses to the north and south.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications
of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
V.RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Planning & Development Department recommends the
following action:
Recommend DENIAL of the request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) and Office (O) districts to the Commercial (C) District.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _______________________________
Catherine Lee
Planner III
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 – May 17, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01001 - Page 8 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0511i Exhibit Staff Report REZ2011-01001 2011-05-17.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
CDB Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Number: DVA2011-01001 (Related to LUP2011-01001 and REZ2011-01001)
Agenda Item: E.3. (Related to E.1 and E.2)
Owner/Applicant: Cay 1475 LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman
Address: 1475 Sunset Point Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION
Request: Review of a Development Agreement between Cay 1475 LLC (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per Community
Development Code Section 4-606.
Current/Proposed Zoning Current: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), Office
Districts: (O) and Commercial (C) Districts
Proposed: Commercial (C) District
Current/Proposed Future
Land Use Map Categories:
Current: Residential Urban (RU), Residential/Office General
(R/OG) and Commercial General (CG)
Proposed:
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R)
Property Use: Current: Vacant bank building
Proposed: Retail sales and services (Family Dollar store)
Existing Surrounding North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Zoning And Uses: Single family residential
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Single family residential
East: Commercial (C)
Vacant gas station
West: Office (O)
Retail store
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
This case involves a 1.52-acre property located at 1475 Sunset Point Road and owned by Cay
1475 LLC. The property is comprised of one parcel and is currently occupied by a structure
formerly used for drive-through banking. The site is located on the south side of Sunset Point
Road, approximately 150 feet west of Highland Avenue. The subject property contains a
building, parking lot, and entrance on the north portion of the property fronting on Sunset Point
Road, and a drive through and drive isle traversing the eastern portion of the property,
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
connecting to Highland Avenue. The subject property has approximately 300 feet of frontage
along Sunset Point Road and 75 feet of frontage along Highland Avenue.
Properties to the north and south of the subject property have a future land use map designation
of Residential Urban (RU) and are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The
property to the east has a future land use map designation of Commercial General (CG) and is
zoned Commercial (C). The property to the west has a future land use map designation of
Residential/Office General (R/OG) and is zoned Office (O).
Development Proposal:
A request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the property from Residential Urban
(RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Commercial General (CG) to
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) is being processed concurrently with this case. In addition, a
request for rezoning of the property from Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) to Commercial (C) is also being processed concurrently with this case. The
Development Review Committee approved a Flexible Standard Development application for the
Family Dollar at its March 3, 2011 meeting (issuance of development order pending approval of
the associated cases).
Development Agreement Request:
The Development Agreement associated with the 1.52-acre site limits the use and development
of the subject site to an 8,320 square foot Family Dollar store, whereas 26,484 square feet could
be allowed, for a period of 10 years. The Agreement sets forth public and private obligations and
requires redevelopment of the site to be consistent with the following requirements:
Requires the Developer to build a retail store and restricts certain uses, such as adult
1.
entertainment, night clubs or bars with on premises consumption and new and used car
sales;
Requires developer to obtain and maintain any approvals and permits necessary from
2.
Pinellas County, Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection;
Requires the property to be developed in conformance with the plan submitted as Exhibit
3.
1 to Exhibit B;
Limits the architectural style of the building to be consistent with the rendered drawings
4.
submitted as Exhibit 2 to Exhibit B;
Limits the building height to one story at a maximum of 20.5 feet.
5.
Additionally, the Development Agreement obligates the City to comply with the following:
1.Concurrently process the Future Land Use Map amendment under LUP2011-01001 and
Zoning Atlas amendment under REZ2011-01001;
2.Approve site and construction plan consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
the submitted site plan.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-606.F]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
In reaching a decision on whether to approve a development agreement, the Community
Development Code requires City Council to determine whether the development agreement is
consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which are not
supportive of the proposed development agreement include:
Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into
residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of “strip
commercial” zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for
commercial development at major intersections.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure comprised
of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The citywide design structure will serve as a guide to
development and land use decisions while protecting those elements that make the city uniquely
Clearwater.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Objective A.6.2 The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development
that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
Map A-14 (and Attachment) Neighborhood Shopping Centers and Surrounding Non-residential
Uses – Neighborhood Centers typically consist of a limited number of commercial
establishments that fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile of the center.
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
Table 1: Parcels West of the Subject Property to King’s Highway Along Sunset Point Road
Address(es) Linear FLUM Zoning Atlas Current Use 2 Building
13
Distance Designation Designation Size
1463 0’ Residential/Office Office (O) Retail store 4 3,680 SF
1465 General (R/OG)
1455 100’ Residential/Office Office (O) Dentist office 3,800 SF
General (R/OG)
1453 200’ Residential/Office Office (O) Veterinarian 4,200 SF
General (R/OG)
1425 300’ Residential/Office Office (O) Vacant 1,750 SF
General (R/OG)
1419 400’ Residential/Office Office (O) Daycare 4,688 SF
General (R/OG)
1413 500’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
(RH) Density Residential
(MHDR)
1872 667’ Residential High Medium High Vacant lot N/A
1874 King’s (RH) Density Residential
Hwy (MHDR)
Notes:
1. Linear distance in feet from the western property edge of 1475 Sunset Point Road.
2. Current use for which a current Business Tax Receipt has been obtained and recorded in City permitting software.
3. Total finished building square footage (source: Pinellas County Property Appraiser)
4. Retail sales and services is allowable only as an accessory use in the Office (O) zoning district, and is therefore, in
these two cases, a nonconforming use.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The development agreement conflicts with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan as indicated in the following. The proposed extension of commercial uses
along the predominantly residential Sunset Point Road corridor could negatively impact the
adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and south. Sunset Point Road, west
of Highland Avenue, is primarily residential in nature with office and some nonconforming retail
uses. As shown in Table 1, parcels west of the subject property are characterized by small office
buildings. In the Office (O) District, retail sales and services is only allowed as an accessory use.
This was intended to allow small shops in office parks that would serve the needs of the office
park employees. Therefore, in the two cases listed in Table 1 (a retail store and a daycare), the
retail sales and services uses are nonconforming and if ever abandoned for a period exceeding
six months, would not be allowed to be reestablished in the Office (O) District as primary uses.
The Citywide Design Structure, as shown on Map A-14, depicts the southeast corner of Sunset
Point Road and Highland Avenue, Sunset Square Shopping Center, as a Neighborhood Shopping
Center. Neighborhood Centers are intended to fulfill the basic needs of residents within one mile
of the center. This designated Neighborhood Center does not include the property to the west of
Highland Avenue as it recognizes there is sufficient commercially designated land currently in
place. The proposal to expand commercial use designations outside of the Neighborhood Center
creates more commercial land than is needed to support the basic needs of the surrounding
residents. Currently, the two shopping centers at the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and
Highland Avenue have 19,490 square feet of vacant commercial space. Approval of more land
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
west of Highland Avenue for commercial use will add more commercially designated property in
a neighborhood that has an overabundant supply of existing vacant commercial space.
The associated proposed future land use map and zoning atlas amendments would allow for
additional uses not allowed by two of the three subject property’s current future land use and
zoning designations. Some of these potential uses are incompatible with the surrounding
environment and envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposed Development
Agreement would limit the more severe incompatible uses (adult entertainment, night clubs or
bars and new and used car sales), but only for ten years, at which time the restrictions expire.
However, at termination of the Development Agreement, the Future Land Use Map designation,
the Zoning Atlas category and allowed uses, stay with the property.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. In summary, a public benefit must be exhibited for the City to
endure the obligations associated with a Development Agreement. The proposed Development
Agreement demonstrates no asset to the public, but rather is being used as a means to expand
strip commercial development in a neighborhood that already contains an overabundant supply
of vacant strip commercial. Approval of the proposed Development Agreement could undermine
the long term integrity of the primarily single family residential neighborhood as the result would
be an irreversible burden of more strip commercial development.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of April 7, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the 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 1.52-acre site is located on the south side of Sunset Point Road, approximately 150
feet west of Highland Avenue;
2.That there is a companion application to amend the Future Land Use Map designations for
the subject property from Residential Urban (RU), Residential/Office General (R/OG) and
Commercial General (CG) to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) designation (LUP2011-
01001), and to rezone the property from Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) districts to the Commercial (C) district (REZ2011-01001);
3.That the proposed Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Map designation limits
future expansion to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 and a maximum density of 18
dwelling units per acre; and
4.The proposed agreement endures for 10 years.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-01001 2011-05-17
1.That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the maximum requirements for
the construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal
(FLS2011-02002);
2.That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of Section 4-606
of the Community Development Code;
3.That the Development Agreement is inconsistent with and the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
DENIAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the ,
and recommendation of denial to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between Cay
1475, LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per Community Development
Code Section 4-606, for the property at 1475 Sunset Point Road.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Catherine Lee, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
?
Staff Resume
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Future Land Use Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Site Photographs
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Development Agreements (DVA)\DVA2011-01001 - Sunset Point Rd 1475- Cay 1475 LLC\Staff
Report\DVA2011-01001 Sunset Point Road 1475 DVA Staff Report for 5 17 11 CDB.docx
Community Development Board – May 17, 2011
DVA2011-01001 – Page 6 of 6
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICER;
?
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTF?+JZ
;/ 4-A-? Q C?7-4-4 k L d 49 4,c.??kSJQ- ECam.-, rLU.? t aF K??
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
y0 ? £ ?? WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
COUNTY CITY ? COUNTY ? OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY ? NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
DATE ON WHICH VOTE CCURRED MY POSITION IS:
7 ? ELECTIVE 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, count
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votil
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 dependir
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form befo
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 whit
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 th,
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; c
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 o
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 tha
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. ENE
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE-DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN: APR 2011,
• 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 S `"K-IAL RECORL)b AX.'_
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 tt
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of thi
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I? ?(-,4,1A L 1 -7A A-, Z- , hereby disclose that on !K-- A/ .20 4L
(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 m/y? relative, r
inured to the special gain or loss of b,
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of , whict
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:
CGS.?ru.?_u,J?
?yaS2? Sri c.?"La/j- oZoo?
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 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
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 May 17, 2011
DATE: May 12, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting of April 19, 2011
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD201 1-02008 -1001 Holt Avenue
Yes )C No
2. Case: FLD201 1-0301 1- 984 Eldorado Avenue
Yes X No
3. Case: FLD201 1-02007 -1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
Yes x No
S: (Planning DepartmenAC D BUgendas DRC & CDBICDBI20I P05 May 201111 Cover MEMO 2011. doc
4. Case: FLD201 1-03012 -1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes Y No
5. Case: FLD2011-02010 - 2159 Nursery Road
Yes y No
6. Case: FLD201 1-02009 - 333 Hamden Drive
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: LUP2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011-01001,
DVA2011-01001)
Yes No
2. Case: REZ201 1-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001,
DVA201 1 -0 100 1)
Yes X No
3. Case: DVA2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001, REZ2011-
01001)
Yes x No
Signature:
N
l
Date: 5z,;, Z
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBICDB12011105 May 201h] 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 May 17, 2011
DATE: May 12, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting of April 19, 2011
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD201 1-02008 - 1001 Holt Avenue
Yes
No
2. Case: FLD2011-03011-984 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
No
3. Case: FLD201 1-02007 - 1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
Yes No
S. (Planning Departmen6C D BW gendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011 W May 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
4. Case: FLD201 1-03012 -1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
5. Case: FLD2011-02010 - 2159 Nursery Road
Yes No
6. Case: FLD201 1-02009 - 333 Hamden Drive
Yes Nor
/ 11
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: LUP2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related
DVA201 1 -0 100 1)
Yes No
2. Case: REZ2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related
DVA2011-01001)
to REZ2011-01001,
to LUP2011-01001,
Yes No
3. Case: DVA2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001, REZ2011-
01001)
Yes
PRINT N
No- X
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D Bl4gendas DRC & CDBICDB12011105 May 201111 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 May 17, 2011
DATE: May 12, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting of April 19, 2011
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2/011-02008 - 1001 Holt Avenue
Yes \ No
2. Case: FLD2?0/1' 1-03011- 984 Eldorado Avenue
Yes V? No
3. Case: FLD201 1-02007 -1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
Yes No
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBI CDB12011105 May 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
4
5.
6.
Case: FLD201 1-03012 -1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
Case: FLD201 1-02010 - 2159 Nursery Road
No
Yes
X
Case: FLD201 1-02009 - 333 Hamden Drive
Yes X No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: LUP2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road
DVA2011-01001)
Yes No
2. Case: REZ2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road
DVA2011-01001)
Yes No
(Related to REZ201 1 -0100 1,
(Related to LUP2011-01001,
3. Case: DVA2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001, REZ2011-
01001)
Yes No
Date: ? ? Z/
PRINT NAME
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CD&CDBI2011105 May 2011d Cover MEMO 2011.doc
t
40
: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 May 17, 2011
DATE: May 12, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting of April 19, 2011
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD201 1-02008 - 1001 Holt Avenue
Yes No 1z
2. Case: FLD201 1-0301 1- 984 Eldorado Avenue
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201 1-02007 - 1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
Yes No
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBICDBI20I P05 May 201h] Cover MEMO 2011.doc
F--
Yes
4. Case: FLD201 1-03012 -1996 G if to Bay Boulevard
No
5. Case: FLD2011-02010 - 2159 Nursery Road
Yes No?
6. Case: FLD2011-02009 - 333 Hamd n Drive
Yes y/ No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items-1-3k
1. Case: LUP2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ201 1 -0 100 1,
DVA2011-01001)
Yes No v
` /
-
2. Case: REZ2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP201 1 -0 100 1,
DVA201 1 -0 100 1)
Yes No
3. Case: DVA201 1 -0 1001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP201 1 -0 100 1, REZ2011-
01001) I
Yes No J
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D Bl4gendas DRC & CDRCDBI2011 W May 201111 Cover MEMO 2011. doc
t ri
PRINT NAME
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 May 17, 2011
DATE: May 12, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting of April 19, 2011
CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Case: FLD201 1-02006 - 249 Windward Passage
Yes zZ No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-6)
1. Case: FLD2011-02008
Yes
2. Case: FLD2011-03011-
Yes
3. Case: FLD2011-02007
Yes
1001 Holt Avenue/
No v
984 Eldorado Avenue
No
1375 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 509 D Street
No
S:Wlanning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBICDB12011105 May 2011U Cover MEMO 2011.doc
4. Case: FLD2011-030 -1996 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
5. Case: FLD2011-02010 - 2159 Nursery Road
Yes No
6. Case: FLD201 1-02009
Yes - 333 Hamden, Drive`
No Z/
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-3):
1. Case: LUP201 1-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ201 1 -0 100 1,
DVA2011-01001) `
Yes No
2. Case: REZ2011-01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001,
DVA2011-01001) ?
Yes No
3. Case: DVA201 1 -01001 - 1475 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-01001, REZ2011-
01001)
Yes v No
Signature: Date: l i
PRINT NAME
S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BWgendas DRC & CDBICDBI201 DO5 May 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc