Loading...
07/19/2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER July 19, 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 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: June 21, 2011 Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of June 21, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. D – 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 – 3) 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2011-05019 – 355 Park Place Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Mid-Pinellas Office Park, Inc. c/o Hallmark Development Applicant: The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. Agent: Sean P. Cashen, P.E. LEED, Gulf Coast Consulting Inc. (13825 Icot Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater, Florida 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-432-0365; email: scashen@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com) Location: 6.16-acre property located along the west side of Hampton Road approximately 725 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Atlas Page: 291A Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit 108 attached dwelling units in the Commercial (C) District as a part of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI), with a lot area of 268,330 square-feet (6.16 acres), a lot width of 200 feet, front (east) setbacks of 16.3 feet (to Community Development 2011-07-19 1 proposed pavement) and 98.9 feet (to proposed building), side (east) setbacks of 37.1 feet (to proposed pavement) and 111.8 feet (to proposed building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 108.6 feet (to proposed building), rear (southwest) setbacks of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 91 feet (to proposed building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 10 feet (to proposed building), rear (west) setback of 15 feet (to proposed garage) and 19 feet (to proposed pavement), a rear (southwest) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building), a rear (west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building), rear (northwest) setbacks of 14.9 feet (to proposed pavement) and 27.2 feet (to proposed building), a rear (northwest) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building), and side (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 23.3 feet (to proposed structure), a building height of 37 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and 219 off- street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, under the Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-704, as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Hampton Road from 15 feet to 10 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition; Wood Valley Neighborhood Watch; Brigadoon of Clearwater HOA Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Agenda for Staff Report. Member DiPolito moved to accept Kevin Nurnberger as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Nicole Martin, with J.M.G. Realty Inc., property manager of the abutting Grand Reserve property, questioned income qualifications for the apartment development. Ms. Martin said she did not request Party Status. Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, said up to 20% of the 108 units may be set aside for affordable housing, which would have income restrictions. He said income qualifications and rates for the remaining units had not been determined. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-05019 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. 2. Case: FLD2011-05020 – 2460 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Goli Inc. Mainstream c/o Staleton, Johnson, McDowell P.A. Applicant: Leaders Casual Furniture Agent: Tim Healy, Frontier Engineering, Inc. (P.O. Box 4750, Tampa, FL 33677; phone: 813-251-0169; fax: 813-251-0179; email: frontierengineering@yahoo.com) Location: 0.51 acre property located on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of the Old Coachman Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard intersection. Atlas Page: 290B Zoning: Commercial (C) District Community Development 2011-07-19 2 Request: A Flexible Development approval to permit a 6,652 square-foot Retail Sales and Service use (Furniture Store) in the Commercial (C) District in an existing building with a lot area of 22,307 square-feet, a lot width of 80 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 79.97 feet (along Shelley Street), front (south) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 11.7 feet (to proposed curb) and 66.79 feet (to existing building); front (north) setbacks of 5.6 feet (to proposed curb) and 100.81 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 14.08 feet (to existing building), side (east) setbacks of zero feet (to existing building) and 3 feet (to proposed curb), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 27 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), a reduction in the front landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5.6 feet (along Shelley Street), a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, a reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and to not be required to provide a curb along the northwest access driveway area as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Service Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-05020 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, 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, Dame, Adelson, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member Barker abstained. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Case: FLD2009-03014 – 1105 Druid Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: J.A. Churchill, LLC. st Agent: Randy Wedding, Wedding & Stephenson Architects, Inc. (300 1 Ave S, Suite 402, St Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-821-6610; fax: 727-894-4216). Location: 1.608 acres located at the southeast corner of Druid Road and S Myrtle Avenue Atlas Page: 296A. Zoning: High Density Residential (HDR) District. Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order. Proposed Use: Assisted Living Facility (112-beds). Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition; and South Clearwater Citizens for Progressive Action. Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II. See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-03014 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval Community Development 2011-07-19 3 as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 - 2) 1. Level Two Application Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to DVA2011-04001) Owners: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, LLC. Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email: eda@jpfirm.com). Location: 11.637 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. Atlas Page: 298B. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: (1) Flexible Development application to permit 40,000 square-feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square-feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square-feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square-feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square-feet) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 506,892 square-feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard of 820 feet and 617 feet along S. Belcher Road, a front (north) setback (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback (S. Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk), a west setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement), a maximum building height of 35 feet, and 409 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order as well as a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to two feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.; and (2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-lot subdivision for retail sales and service, office, restaurants, automobile service station and attached dwellings. Proposed Use: 40,000 square-feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square-feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square-feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square-feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square-feet). Neighborhood Associations: Oakgrove Estates Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners Association, and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. See Agenda for Staff Report and see Exhibit: Staff Memo FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 for updated Conditions of Approval. Member DiPolito declared a conflict of interest. Member Coates moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs and Chair Fritsch and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried unanimously. Community Development 2011-07-19 4 Planner III Scott Kurleman reviewed the staff report. Ed Armstrong, representative for the applicant, opposed condition of approval 15. He said the Code does not require installation of internal reclaimed water systems on this commercial property. Member Coates moved to accept Ed Mazur as an expert witness in the field of civil engineering. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs and Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried unanimously. Ed Mazur, representative for the applicant, said the City’s reclaimed water line will extend along Druid Road to a point west of Belcher Road and will not be adjacent to the commercial property as required by Code; the condition of approval should not be required. He said the commercial property is approximately 800 feet from the City’s reclaimed water line. He said landscaping will include drought resistant plants, minimizing the need for reclaimed water. In response to a question, Mr. Mazur said the entire property is owned by the same entity; only the commercial parcels will be developed by the time reclaimed water becomes available. Mr. Armstrong said the subject commercial property has been under contract to individual owners for approximately 120 days. He said the location of residential buildings has not been determined, making it difficult to lay a reclaimed water line across the residential property. He said the applicant wants to avoid tie-in problems for future residential property owners. He said the three commercial properties will feature independent irrigation systems and will hook-up to City reclaimed water when it becomes available. Mr. Armstrong said installing these reclaimed water lines would cost about $40,000, is not required by Code, and would be an inordinate burden on the commercial development. In response to a question, he said the median at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard entrance will be redesigned to limit traffic to right-in and right-out. Member Barker moved to accept Elliot Shoberg as an expert witness in the field of stormwater management. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs and Chair Fritsch and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried unanimously. Engineering Manager Elliot Shoberg said the 2010 CDB (Community Development Board) approval of this site’s development agreement included this condition of approval. The entire property has one owner. He reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Plan related to reclaimed water systems, reporting this development is classified as a subdivision and requires installation. The City has no current plans to install reclaimed water lines along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. One resident expressed concern that the development’s density and traffic would make it difficult for nearby residents to access Druid Road, especially during flooding. Discussion ensued with comments that reclaimed water is not available for the commercial site and this condition was approved in the original development agreement, which governs both parcels. Community Development 2011-07-19 5 Mr. Armstrong said the properties are not a unified parcel. Each parcel met requirements for a separate development and required two public art fees. Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 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: a connection to City reclaimed water is not available for the commercial parcel where development is proposed, and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with City Community Development Code Section 3-1910.D, and to approve the Conditions of Approval, excluding Condition 15, which required installation of internal reclaimed water systems. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates and Dame and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Members Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs, and Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion failed. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs and Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Case: FLD2011-04017 – 21810 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: DDR Southwest Clearwater Development, LLC Agent: Nick Sanfilippo, SR Tenant Supervisor (3500 Piedmont Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30305; phone: 404-460-0993; fax: 404-846-7920; email: nsanfilippo@ddr.com) Location: 2.57-acre property located on the west side of US Highway 19 North, approximately 786 feet north of the Drew Street and US Highway 19 North intersection. Atlas Page: 281B Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 12,000 square-foot Charter School in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,362 square-foot shopping center with no changes to the lot size, area, setbacks, height, or parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project, under provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. Proposed Use: School Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Coachman Ridge Homeowners Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to accept Kevin Nurnberger as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate member Carlough did not vote. Cyndi Tarapani, representative for the applicant, requested additional time. Member Coates moved to provide the applicant and staff 20 minutes each for presentations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate member Carlough did not vote. Planner III Kevin Nurnberger reviewed the staff report. Charter schools are not a permitted use in commercial zones. Community Development 2011-07-19 6 Member Barker moved to accept Cyndi Tarapani as an expert witness in the field of planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate member Carlough did not vote. Ms. Tarapani said the property owner has had a difficult time leasing space in the shopping center. She said the school will be operated by a non-profit and managed by a firm that will hire staff and administration. While open to Pinellas County students for no fee, she said the charter school is different from other public schools as it has its own Board of Directors, teachers, and facilities and is required to be creative and innovative. She said this zoning issue was only recently discovered. She said the City’s comprehensive policy does not require a charter school to be a public educational facility. She said the proposal meets the purpose of comprehensive infill; the use is consistent with surrounding uses, and is allowable in the district. She said the site is within walking distance of St. Petersburg College and after-school jobs. She said the high school will not hinder use of other buildings or adversely impact other tenants. She said the charter school should not be treated the same as a public school because they are different. She said the public education facility definition does not include charter schools. Planning Director Michael Delk said staff had offered to return the application fee once they discovered a provision prohibiting this use in commercial zoning. Staff supported this use until finding that Florida Statutes indicate that charter schools are part of the public school system. Clearwater High School is zoned Institutional. Discussion ensued with comments that while comprehensive infill language could be considered ambiguous, Florida Statute is clear on this issue; charter schools are public educational facilities. Support was expressed for opportunities to improve educational facilities. It was felt while the proposed location is not suitable for elementary or middle school students, it is appropriate for high school students. Ms. Tarapani said charter schools are distinctly different from schools operated by the school district and are not public educational facilities. She said charter schools are not subject to listed plan categories. Member Coates moved to deny Case FLD2011-04017 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 Coates, DiPolito, Dame, Adelson, Barker and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Hinrichs voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. F - LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Item 1) 1. Level Three Application Case: DVA2011-04001 – 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (Related to FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002) Owners/Applicants: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email: eda@jpfirm.com). Community Development 2011-07-19 7 Location: 11.637 acres located at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. Atlas Page: 298B. Zoning: Commercial (C) District. Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amendment to the Development Agreement between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 4-606. Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Service, Office, Automobile Service Station and Restaurant uses of up to 90,000 square-feet of floor area (0.20 Floor Area Ratio) at a maximum height of 35 feet. Neighborhood Associations: Oakgrove Estates Homeowners Association, Morningside Meadows Homeowners Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. Member DiPolito declared a conflict of interest. See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2011-04001 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 Coates, Dame, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs and Acting Member Carlough and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member DiPolito abstained. Motion carried unanimously. G - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: (Item 1) 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC Agent: Todd Pressman (P.O. Box 6015, Palm Harbor, FL 35684; phone: 727-804-1760; fax: 1-888-977-1179). Request: An appeal of a determination made by an administrative official in the administration of Section 4-202.G.1., Community Development Code, with regard to an application not being accepted during the twelve month time period after the denial of a substantially similar Level Three application affecting the same property or any portion thereof. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager See Agenda for Staff Report. 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 and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. Development Review Manager Robert Tefft said staff had determined the recently submitted concept plan to amend the land use map and rezone the subject Sunset Point Road property was substantially similar to requests the City Council had considered and denied on August 5, 2010 and May 19, 2011. Community Development 2011-07-19 8 Todd Pressman, representative for the applicant, said to address City Council concerns substantial changes were made to the plan by significantly reducing expansion of commercial zoning to the west. He said the request was scaled back and the buildings and parking lot were relocated. Mr. Delk said the parcels and use remain the same. The site plan was reconfigured. Code requirements to grant an appeal were reviewed. It was commented that attempts to change zoning on Sunset Point Road west of Highland Avenue are not substantially different than previous requests and this proposal also would intrude into a neighborhood. It was noted the three onsite elements only can be shuffled so many ways and the plan reduces the amount of land zoned commercial. It was stated the applicant only requests the ability to make application in a shorter time. Member Dame moved to deny the appeal, Case APP2011-00005, and affirm the Staff's development order denying the application based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Staff's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members DiPolito, Dame, Adelson, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye'; Members Coates, Barker, and Hinrichs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote. ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Regarding Case: FLD2010-09027, Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes reported the Circuit Court had overturned the CDB's February 15, 2011, decision that WorkNet is not a government use and determined the use at 1315 Cleveland Street complies with City Code. H -ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. i C air Co munity Development Board Attest- / /, a.`LL Board Repo Community Development 2011-07-19 9 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST E-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARRDD,,�COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE O(L O -Do re e v� BOARD,COUNCIL, CICOMMISSI'OI`NA MAILING AUTH Y OR COMMIT E ON 1 153 �• 1( L K WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF CITY COUNT CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 33/b ( 1 lnettcs NAM OF POLITICAL UBDIVIS O : DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITIO IS: �u `u 1 9 ) t ) ❑ ELECTIVE ) APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « ELECTED OFFICERS: • In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Dore eV■ 'D I P0 lax, , hereby disclose that on U I 9 ,20 I I (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my r-lative, • X inured to the special gain or loss of _ • °r "� - . ._ I ,by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: C, -�: r rv. LL .1-- evut to t6e, *,x,..c t.t. �1R_ 1,U-recl� 40 13,e r- ornn 62.r-v e.es i-F L$ =�-- c,5 • FLD 020 i -6 � Ot8I Piz-Fact 1 -DLi-00 - L / 49 s- 67.a.b4o fltis t , TVA aoit -o 0 — albs C -b \ (k\ \ Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR . COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE Bgr, Brian Clearwater Community Development Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL.COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ----462-6,East Bay Drive, Suite 211 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY CITY d COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY • Clearwater Pinellas NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED vct MY POSITION IS: �d I ITI CI ELECTIVE I2f APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county,city,or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,council, commission, authority, or committee.It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143,Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason,please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. • • INSTRUCTIONS.FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained(including the 'parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S.,and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre,one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative"includes only the officers 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. • r R • t x f i • f t • * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. • IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 • PAGE 1 • APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the • agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Brian Barker ,hereby disclose that on July 19 ,20 11 : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss.of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • X inured to the special gain or loss of . Deuel&Associates ,by whom I am retained;or • inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: FLD2011-05020-2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard -The engineering firm by whom I am employed, Deuel &Associates, prepared the Boundary and Topographic Survey for the subject site. • • 7 /7 // Date Filed Signature Brian Barker NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM OB-EFF.1/2000 • PAGE 2 • EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-05019 Agenda Item: D. 4. Owners/Applicant: Mid-Pinellas Office park, Inc. Representative: Sean P. Cashen, P.E., LEED AP Address: 355 Park Place Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit 108 attached dwelling units in the Commercial (C) District as a part of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI), with a lot area of 268,330 square feet (6.16 acres), a lot width of 200 feet, front (east) setbacks of 16.3 feet (to pavement) and 98.9 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 37.1 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 108.6 feet (to building), rear (southwest) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 91 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building), rear (west) setback of 15 feet (to garage) and 19 feet (to pavement), a rear (southwest) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building), a rear (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), rear (northwest) setbacks of 14.9 feet (to pavement) and 27.2 feet (to building), a rear (northwest) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building), and side (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 23.3 feet (to structure), a building height of 37 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and 219 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, under the Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-704, as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Hampton Road from 15 feet to 10 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant land Proposed: Attached Dwellings EXISTING North: C District Attached Dwellings SURROUNDING South: C District Office and Retail Sales and Services ZONING AND East: Office (O) District Office USES: West: C District Office Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The subject property is 6.16 acres of vacant land located along the west side of Hampton Road approximately 725 feet north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The property is known as Parcel 6 and is a part of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The DRI’s development order was adopted by the Clearwater City Commission on September 1, 1983. An amendment was adopted by the City Commission on February 1, 2001 reducing the approved office and retail square footage for the subject property; adding a land use conversion factor for Parcel 6 for the conversion of approved office development to multi-family and/or hotel development. This development proposes the creation of 108 attached dwelling units. The property is surrounded by a mix of uses. To the immediate north is a multi-family residential development. The abutting property to the west consists of an office building. To the south are properties which consist of retail sales and service uses that front onto Gulf to Bay Boulevard. To the east, across Hampton Road, is another office building. Development Proposal: The proposal is to develop the site with a total of five buildings. Four buildings will be residential with a total of 108 attached dwellings; the fifth building is a clubhouse. The residential buildings will consist of two building types, Type III and Type XXVI. Three of the five buildings will be Type III buildings which will be three-story structures with 10,425 square feet of floor area. This building type will have a total of 24 attached dwellings (eight units per floor). A fourth building will be a Type XXVI three-story structure that will have 14,317 square feet of floor area and a total of 36 attached dwellings (12 units per floor). The final proposed building will function as a club house with an outdoor pool for residents to utilize as a social center. Furthermore, a total of 219 off-street parking spaces will be provided on site. The entire property will be landscaped to meet code and to soften the development on surrounding properties. Although Building Type III and Type XXVI are dissimilar in floor area, each building will be architecturally similar in structural design. These buildings are basically rectangular in shape and will feature architectural elements such as balconies, eaves and roof hangs. The individual units in any building are identical to units built in the other buildings. The standard unit is approximately 1,900 square foot and consists of two bedrooms and two baths. Each building will be thirty-seven feet in height to the midpoint of the pitched roof. Density: Pursuant to Ordinance 6678-01, Parcel 6 was approved for a conversion rate of 1,000 square feet of office development to 2.40 multi-family units with a maximum development potential of 240 units. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable density is 18 dwelling units per acre. The property has a lot area of 268,330 square feet which allows for a maximum of 110 dwelling units. The proposal is for a total of 108 dwelling units which is below the maximum development potential for the subject property. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed ISR is 0.63, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 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, typically the CDC requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 – 15,000 square feet for attached dwelling units. The subject property is 268,330 square feet in area which exceeds the lot area requirement. The minimum lot width for attached dwellings is between 100 - 150 square feet. The lot width of this site is 200 feet along Hampton Road. The proposal is consistent with the lot width provision. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC, the minimum setbacks for attached dwelling units are 15-25 feet (front), 0-10 feet (side) and 10-15 feet (rear). The proposal has front (east) setbacks of 16.3 feet (to proposed pavement) and 98.9 feet (to proposed building) along Hampton Road. While the front setback is within the allowable range, the location of the existing retention pond which a portion of is a part of the subject property, will allow the front and side (east) setbacks to appear greater in width, giving the development a more visually appealing view from Hampton Road. The remaining proposed structures will be setback 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. This proposed building setback will be landscaped to meet perimeter landscape requirements, as well as to soften the view of the project on adjoining properties. In addition, the setbacks will allow for off-street parking lots that meet the required number of off-street parking spaces and are compliant with the design standards for parking lots in CDC Section 3-1402. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum required height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC, typically the maximum allowable height for attached dwelling units can range between 30 and 130 feet. The highest of the point of the proposed structures, from existing grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof is 37 feet, which within in the range of acceptable building height. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC, the minimum required number of required off- street parking spaces for attached dwelling units is two spaces per dwelling unit. A total of 216 off-street parking spaces are required by code for this development. The site plan shows that a total of 219 parking spaces will be provided on site; therefore, the number of parking spaces is compliant with these Code provisions. In addition, seven ADA compliant parking spaces are required by code CDC Section 3-1409. The plan shows that nine ADA compliant parking spaces will be provided on site. 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 driveway of Hampton Road; as well as at each internal shared entrance to the site from the adjoining property, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within twenty-foot sight visibility triangles. As shown on the submitted landscape plan, any proposed landscaping within the sight triangles meets this criterion. 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, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Hampton Road and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along all side and rear property boundaries. Along Hampton Road, the landscape buffer width ranges from11 feet to 18 feet; it cannot be altered without impacting a drive aisle designed by constraints caused by the retention pond. In addition, the required number of trees per feet cannot be achieved in the perimeter buffer behind Building No. 4 due to concerns by the Fire Department. Rescue ladders could potentially be obstructed by the vegetation creating safety concerns for rescue of persons residing on the third floor. 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 foundation plantings for Building No. 1 that fronts onto Hampton Road, is shown to meet and exceed this criteria in regards to number of trees, shrubs, and groundcover within a five foot buffer on the landscape plan. 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 10.5 percent of the vehicular use areas to be landscape islands. To mitigate for the deviations to the landscape buffer requirements along the front, the applicant has proposed additional accent and shade trees within the required perimeter landscape buffers as well as designed a pattern of planting that is wider in areas to make up for the deficiency in the width of the buffer. More landscaping will be installed within the buffers and foundation planting than is typically required by CDC Section 3-1202. Over 100 trees and a large number of shrubs/groundcover plants are proposed to be installed. Due to existing site constraints staff supports the requested landscape reductions. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria. Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 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. Solid Waste: The proposal includes the provision of an adequate solid waste enclosures and trash receptacles located on site. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: All signage must meet Code requirements or the applicant will need to submit their sign request for review and approval in the Comprehensive Sign Program. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 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 0.40 0.19 X ISR 0.85 0.63 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 268,330 square feet (6.16 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 200 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: 16.3 feet (to pavement) X 98.9 feet (to building) Side: N/A East: 37.1 feet (to pavement) X 111.8 feet (to building) North: 10 feet (to pavement) X 23.3 feet (to building) Rear: N/A South: 10 feet (to pavement) X 108.6 (to building) 10 feet (to pavement) 10 feet (to building) 6 feet (to pavement) 10 feet (to building) Northwest: 14.9 feet (to pavement) X 27.2 (to building) 10 feet (to building) Southwest: 10 feet (to pavement) X 91 feet (to building) West: 15 feet (to garage) X 19 feet (pavement) 10 feet (building) Maximum Height N/A 37 feet (to midpoint of existing roof) X Minimum Determined by the 219 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking Community Development (Attached Dwelling 2 spaces per unit) Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 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 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 – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 2, 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 6.16 acres is vacant land located along the west side of Hampton Road approximately 725 feet north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard; 2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.The subject parcel is a part of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI); 4.Based on the underlying future land use, attached dwelling units are permitted uses in the Commercial District; 5.Based on the maximum development potential, the subject property has a lot area of 268,330 square feet that allows for an attached dwelling unit development of 108 dwelling units; 6.The proposal is to develop the site with four, three-story buildings and a clubhouse; 7.219 off-street parking spaces will be provided which is above the number of required parking spaces for 108 attached dwelling units; 8.The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.63, which is consistent with the Code provisions; 9.The proposal includes front (east along Hampton Road) setbacks of 16.3 feet (to pavement) and 98.9 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 37.1 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 108.6 feet (to building), rear (southwest) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 91 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building), rear (west) setback of 15 feet (to garage) and 19 feet (to pavement), rear (southwest) setbacks of 6 feet (to slab) and 10 feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), rear (northwest) setbacks of 14.9 Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 feet (to pavement) and 27.2 feet (to building), a rear (northwest) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 23.3 feet (to structure); 10.The highest proposed building from existing grade to the midpoint of the roofline to be 37 feet, which is within the allowable range for maximum height; 11.The landscape plan complies with the landscape code requirements for 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 2-701.1 and 2-704 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 2-704.A; 4.That the proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program as per Community Development Code Section 2-1202.G.; 5.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 6.That, the development proposal is consistent with the Park Place DRI. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit 108 attached dwelling units in the Commercial (C) District as a part of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI), with a lot area of 268,330 square feet (6.16 acres), a lot width of 200 feet, front (east) setbacks of 16.3 feet (to pavement) and 98.9 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 37.1 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 108.6 feet (to building), rear (southwest) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 91 feet (to building), rear (south) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building), rear (west) setback of 15 feet (to garage) and 19 feet (to pavement), rear (southwest) setbacks of 6 feet (to slab) and 10 feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), rear (northwest) setbacks of 14.9 feet (to pavement) and 27.2 feet (to building), a rear (northwest) setback of 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 23.3 feet (to structure), a building height of 37 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and 219 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, under the Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2- 704, as well as a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Hampton Road from 15 feet to 10 feet as 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 the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed attached dwelling unit buildings be consistent with the design, color, and elevations approved 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; Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05019 2011-07-19 3.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 buildings as set forth in CDC Section 3-201.D;and 4.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Engineering Department. 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\Park Place 355 (DRI) - Lakeside Apartments (C) 2011.xx - KWN\Lakeside at Park Place 355 Staff Report.docx Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-05019 – Page 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-05020 Agenda Item: D. 5. Owner: Goli Inc. Mainstream Applicant: Leaders Casual Furniture Address: 2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a 6,652 square foot Retail Sales and Service use (Furniture Store) in the Commercial (C) District in an existing building with a lot area of 22,307 square feet, a lot width of 80 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 79.97 feet (along Shelley Street), front (south) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 11.7 feet (to proposed curb) and 66.79 feet (to existing building); front (north) setbacks of 5.6 feet (to proposed curb) and 100.81 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 14.08 feet (to existing building), side (east) setbacks of zero feet (to existing building) and 3 feet (to proposed curb), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 27 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction in the front landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5.6 feet (along Shelley Street), a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, a reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and to not be required to provide a curb along the northwest access driveway area as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services East: Commercial (C) District Commercial Building West: Commercial (C) District Restaurant Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.51 acre subject property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of the Old Coachman Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard intersection. It is a double frontage lot with ingress/egress onto Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Shelley Street. The site consists of an existing 6,652 square foot building with twenty-seven off-street parking spaces. Parking areas are located to the north and south sides of the building. There are five parking spaces located in the front of the building (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and the remaining spaces are located to the rear of the building. The lot is narrow with an 80 foot width; however, it is a deep lot (approximately 280 feet) which accounts for the existing site layout. The building is set back 67 feet from the front property line along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 137 feet from Shelley Street. It is approximately 65.4 feet wide and is sited adjacent to the east property line. Entry to the building from the rear is accessible by a sidewalk from the parking area. The subject property also shares a right-of-way access drive along the western side of the property with the adjacent property owner. A portion of this access drive runs along the properties western property line; however, the exit onto Shelley Street is fully on the subject property. This access drive is an exit only onto Shelley Street. To the south, directly across Gulf to Bay Boulevard is Home Depot. Located to the north are detached dwellings. To the east and west are commercial properties which consist of a restaurant and various retail sales and services uses. Development Proposal: The application proposes to establish a retail sale and service use (Leaders Furniture store) in the existing 6,652 commercial building. This store will only serve as a showroom and will not serve as a distribution center. Previously this location was occupied by an insurance company who moved out of the city in 2009. Since then the subject property which is non-conforming with regard to setbacks, has been vacant which required the applicant to file an application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The site conforms to current standards for minimum lot area, impervious surface ratio (I.S.R.) and floor area ratio (F.A.R.) and no changes are proposed. The existing building and pavement setbacks are nonconforming to current Code requirements. Minor changes will occur to existing setbacks as the applicant will provide pin curbs to protect landscaped areas on the subject property. The existing building height for this tenant space is less than the maximum height for the minimum standard Code requirement. The applicant proposes to make some minor modifications to the structure by adding larger storefront windows. They also plan to make alterations to the building’s façade by removing the existing overhang and its support columns to install a new awning. Such changes should enhance the view of the building from the street. Other site improvements will include restriping the parking lot, ensuring handicap access routes comply with ADA requirements, and adding landscaping within allowable areas. The site has 27 off-street parking spaces. The dimensions of the parking spaces are compliant with current standards for parking lot design. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. The proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 Floor Area Ratio: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.55. The overall proposed FAR is 0.30, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.81, 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 retail sales and services is 10,000 square feet. The subject property has a lot area of 22,307 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement for a retail sales and services is 100 feet. The width of the subject property is 80 feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 79.97 feet along Shelley Street; however, this criterion cannot be met due to the existing configuration of the lot. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum front setback requirement for retail sales and services can range between 15 and 25 feet and the side setback for retail sales and services can range between zero and 10 feet. With regard to setbacks to the existing building, no changes are proposed to the site that would affect the existing setbacks. However, flexibility has been requested with regard to the setbacks to the existing off-street parking and vehicular use areas. The request includes front (south) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 11.7 feet (to proposed curb); a front (north) setback of 5.6 feet (to proposed curb), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement), and a side (east) setback of 3 feet (to proposed curb). These requests reflect a lesser setback than what exists to provide pin curbs within the on-site parking areas to protect landscaping. As such, the setbacks to existing pavement and proposed curbs are acceptable to Staff. 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 retail sales and services can range between 25 and 50 feet. The existing building height is 16 feet (to flat roof). The proposed building height of 16 feet is less than the Code provisions. 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 retail sales and service uses is between 4 and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for a 6,652 square foot building would result in a requirement between 26 and 33 spaces. The site has 27 parking spaces. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 The applicant has submitted a Parking Study to justify the proposed number of off-street parking spaces. The applicant’s consultant studied an 8,254 square foot Leaders Furniture Store at 30950 US Highway 19. This store location is a 14,405 shopping center with two tenant spaces. The Leaders Furniture Store is one tenant and the other tenant space is vacant. The study notes that this location is representative of a standalone building with exclusive parking and access, and serves as a preferable study site. The hours of operation for the studied location were between 10 am – 7 pm daily. This study found the weekday peak hour to be between 1 pm and 2 pm in which 7 vehicles parked on site and the weekend peak hour was between noon and 1 pm in which 10 vehicles parked on site. It determined that a parking ratio of 1.2 per 1,000 square feet of building area was adequate to serve an 8,254 building. Therefore, the parking demand study demonstrates that the proposed 27 off-street parking spaces will be adequate for a 6,652 square foot building to meet the demand of the new use during all periods of hours of operation. As previously mentioned, the site has 27 off-street parking spaces that are within the range of required number of spaces; therefore, positive findings can be made with regard to the off-street parking. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a fifteen-foot wide landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, a ten-foot wide landscape buffer along Shelley Street, and five-foot landscape buffers on each side. The request is for flexibility for a reduction to the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction in the front landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5.6 feet (along Shelley Street), a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet. Although the side setbacks are requested to zero feet, this does not accurately reflect on-site conditions. A 3 to 10 foot wide perimeter buffer exists for approximately 75 percent of the eastern property line; however, due to the building being built to the property line a reduction in perimeter buffer from 5 feet to zero feet has been requested. Similar conditions exist along the western property line where 33 percent of the side yard consists of a buffer that ranges between 2 to 10 feet in width because a portion of the access driveway lies on the subject property. For this reason a request for a reduction to the western side buffer width is necessary. Due to the existing site conditions and necessary improvements to the site to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment and Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria, the front, side, and rear perimeter buffers cannot be increased without altering the parking lot dimensions resulting in a reduction to the number of parking spaces. To mitigate for the deviations to the landscape buffer requirements along the front, side, and rear setbacks, the applicant has proposed adding trees and groundcover as well as retaining existing live oak trees within the existing perimeter landscape buffers to make up for the deficiency in the width of the buffers to visually enhance the property. Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-1202.E.1 and 3-1202.E.2, 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 and 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. Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 As built, green space on site is scarce to provide the required plantings around the building. Although the applicant proposes to remove two trees from in front of the building to allow for a new unobstructed canopy, twenty-three groundcover plants and grasses will be planted to enhance the view of the façade from the street. As previously mentioned, where green space is available, the applicant proposes to retain on site mature trees as well as provide additional trees and groundcover. Due to the site constraints staff supports the requested landscape reductions. The applicant is also asking for flexibility from CDC Section 3-1204.D., that requires all landscaping be protected from vehicular and pedestrian traffic by the installation of curbing and wheel stops, or other protective devices along the perimeter of any landscaping which adjoins vehicular use areas or sidewalks. The applicant will provide six inch above grade pin curbing around the subject properties front and rear parking areas to comply with code. However, the applicant does not wish to provide any type of protective device for the landscaped area that abuts the shared driveway along the rear portion of western side of the property. The applicant has determined that this existing access drive although located on the subject property will be utilized primarily by the adjacent business customers exiting that property onto Shelley Street (a one-way exit only). The applicant submitted an “easement for common way” between the two properties acknowledging the benefit of the access drive for each property. For this reason, Staff supports the request to not require the applicant to provide pin curb only along the access drive exit onto Shelley Street from the subject property. The remaining curbs shall be installed as shown on the site plan. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 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. Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 Solid Waste: The applicant has proposed to use one black barrel and one recycle bin for general office waste. The applicant will also bail most waste generated by the use on site and transport it to Leaders Furniture Distribution center for recycling and collection. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. 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. Signage: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. It is noted that pursuant to Section 6-104 of the Community Development Code, in the event a building permit is required for the redevelopment of a principal use/structure nonconforming signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance. The most recent submittal does not include this information. Without a sign inventory of existing signs located on the subject property it cannot be determined whether this Code is met. It has been attached as a condition of approval that all existing and future signage must meet the requirements of Code. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 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 0.30 X ISR 0.90 0.81 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 22,307 sq. ft. (0.51 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A Gulf to Bay: 80 feet X Shelley: 79.97 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 5.6 feet (to pavement) X 100.81 feet (to building) South: Zero feet (to pavement) X 11.7 feet (to curb) 66.79 feet (to building) Side: N/A East: Zero feet (to building) X 3 feet (to curb) West: Zero feet (to pavement) X 14.08 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 16 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum 4-5 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 27 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (26-33spaces) Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 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. 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 - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 2, 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 0.51 acres is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of the Old Coachman Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard intersection; 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 is currently improved with an approximate 6,652 square foot commercial building; 4.The application proposes to utilize the existing 6,652 square-foot commercial building previously an insurance office as a furniture store; 5.The subject property is presently non-conforming with respect to the existing building and off-street parking area not meeting the minimum required setbacks; 6.The applicant proposes to provide pin curbs within all parking areas adjacent to landscaping; 7.The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program will provide additional landscaping within green spaces as well as retain existing live oak trees.; 8.The proposal has no impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height, as they presently exist; 9.The proposed use will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming setbacks for the off-street parking area; 10.The submitted parking demand study demonstrates that the proposed 27 off-street parking spaces will be adequate for a 6,652 square foot building to meet the demand of the new use during all periods of hours of operation; Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 11.No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements; 12.Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed use is compatible and consistent with this character of the immediate area; and 13.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 to permit a 6,652 square foot Retail Sales and Service use (Furniture Store) in the Commercial (C) District in an existing building with a lot area of 22,307 square feet, a lot width of 80 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 79.97 feet (along Shelley Street), front (south) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 11.7 feet (to proposed curb) and 66.79 feet (to existing building); front (north) setbacks of 5.6 feet (to proposed curb) and 100.81 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement) and 14.08 feet (to existing building), side (east) setbacks of zero feet (to existing building) and 3 feet (to proposed curb), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 27 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 11.7 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction in the front landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5.6 feet (along Shelley Street), a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, a reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and to not be required to provide a curb along the northwest access driveway area as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under Provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., 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 the issuance of a building permit, all outstanding comments from the Solid Waste Department shall be addressed; 3.That all existing and any future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff; Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-05020 2011-07-19 4.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. 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 2460 - Leaders Casual Furniture (C) -2011.xx- KWN\Staff Report.docx Community Development Board - July 19, 2011 FLD2011- 05020 – Page 11 EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2009-03015 2011-07-19 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board FROM: Matt Jackson Planning II RE: Request for Time Extension FLD2009-03014 – 1105 Druid Road DATE: July 19, 2011 Attached is information related to the request by C. Randolph Wedding, on behalf of Canterbury Wedding & Stephenson, Architects, for an extension of time relative to the above referenced project located at 1105 Druid Road. A one-year extension is being requested which would expire on July 21, 2012. Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time “shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that good cause may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that legal actions taken against the property which clouded the title have been resolved and they are now ready to secure building permits. It should be noted that, pursuant to Section 4-407, the Planning Director has previously granted a one-year extension to resolve the legal issues. The Code further directs that the Community Development Board may consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code amendments which would significantly affect the project. Attachments: Letter of Request Time Extension Development Order July 09, 2010 Maps and Photos S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Inactive or Finished Applications\Druid 1105 Assisted Living Facility (HDR) 2009.07 - Approved - MJJ\Time Extension Memorandum for 07.19.2011 CDB.doc EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-04018/ PLT2011-04002 (Related to DVA2011-04001) Agenda Item: D. 1. (Related to E. 1.) Owners/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, LLC Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP Address: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development application to permit 40,000 square feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and 617 feet along S. Belcher Road, a front (north) setback (Gulf to Bay Blvd.) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback (S. Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk), a west setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement), a maximum building height of 35 feet, and 409 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order as well as a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to two feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G.; and (2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-lot subdivision for retail sales and service, office, restaurants, automobile service station and attached dwellings. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant (former mobile home parks) Proposed: Retail Sales and Services uses (40,000 square feet), Automobile Service Station use (5,559 square feet), Office use (4,200 square feet) and Restaurant uses (9,400 square feet) - total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Retail Sales uses and Automobile Service Station ZONING AND USES: South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Vacant (former mobile home park) East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales uses West: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts Automobile Sales ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. The subject property was previously developed with 102 mobile homes, which was part of a large mobile home park and a smaller mobile home park with a total of 295 mobile homes (all mobile homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The former mobile home park property has been divided into two parts. Under LUZ2009-12003 the applicant amended the land use designation for this northern portion (Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and rezoned it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District. Additionally, the applicant amended the land use designation for the southern portion (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential Medium (RM) and rezoned it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District. At the same time FLD2009-12045, for the southern portion, and FLD200-12046, for the northern portion (the subject property) were approved. FLD2009-12045 for the southern portion approved 243 attached dwelling units and remains as approved. FLD2009-12046 for the subject northern portion will be voided if this proposal is approved. The subject property has approximately 820 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 617 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road. Properties to the north are zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with retail sales uses and an automobile service station. Property to the east across S. Belcher Road are zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales uses (Publix shopping center). Property to the south is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is the southern portion of the larger former mobile home park that is now vacant. Property to the west of the subject property is zoned Commercial (C) District and Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with an automobile sales dealership. Development Proposal: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. proposes to plat both the northern and southern portion with a four lot subdivision per the companion preliminary plat. There is also an amended companion Development Agreement (DVA2011-04001). This flexible development application proposes a total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet (Retail Sales and Services use of 40,000 square feet, Automobile Service Station use of 5,559 square feet, Office use of 4,200 square feet and Restaurant uses of 9,400 square feet). The previous flexible development proposal, FLD2009-12046, was approved to be developed with a Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 2 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 70,212 square feet and Restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet), this proposal is 23,840 square feet less commercial floor area. The proposal meets and/or exceeds required front and side setbacks for buildings and parking. The only setback reduction requested is the side (south) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to sidewalk). There are six commercial buildings proposed. Buildings 10 is proposed for retail sales and service, buildings 11, 12 and 13 are proposed for restaurant uses, building 14 is proposed for automobile service station use and building 15 is proposed for office use (bank). (Note: Buildings 1 – 9 are located on the approved residential development to the south of this subject site). Building 10 contains 40,000 square feet and is proposed as a WalMart Neighborhood Market, building 11 is proposed as a full service restaurant and buildings 12 and 13 are proposed to be fast food restaurants. Building 14 is proposed to be an automobile service station and building 15 is proposed to be a bank. The only building with a known tenant (Walmart Neighborhood Market) proposes exterior finishes of stucco (colors: camel and meadowlark), cultured stone (color: chardonnay), cornices (color: dromedary camel), metal canopies (color: pantone) and columns (colors: dromedary camel and meadowlark). Exterior finishes of all other commercial buildings are a combination of split face block, stucco, clapboard siding, cultured stone, metal canopies, cornices and columns. Specific colors and other architectural features will be reviewed upon securing tenants. The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of a small park area to display public art. Details regarding such small park have not been outlined on the plans submitted. Prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the small park to display public art will need to be provided. A recent Code amendment added Section 3-1910.D, which states "When new subdivisions are being developed at locations where reclaimed water will be available within seven (7) years from the issuance of the development order, the developer shall provide internal reclaimed water systems that are constructed to City specifications." Reclaimed water is presently not available but a reclaimed water main extension from Hercules Avenue may be provided by the City. This application includes a condition requiring such reclaimed water system. The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval. Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement amendment (DVA2011- 04001) that must be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design considerations. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Residential/Office/Retail is 0.40. The proposal is for a total of 59,159 square feet of commercial floor area at a FAR of 0.117, which is consistent with the Code provisions. It is noted that the Development Agreement (DVA2011- Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 3 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 00005) provides for a maximum of 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area at a maximum FAR of 0.20. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.76, 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 for retail sales, restaurant and office uses can range from 3,500 – 10,000 square feet and for automobile service stations the minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. The proposed lot area is 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres). Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and office uses can range from 30 – 100 feet, restaurant uses can range from 35 – 100 feet and automobile service stations are 100 feet. The lot width along Gulf to Bay Boulevard is approximately 820 feet and the lot width along S. Belcher Road is approximately 617 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for retail sales and restaurant uses. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum front setbacks for retail sales, offices and restaurant uses can range between 15 – 25 feet and for automobile service stations the minimum front setback is 25 feet. The minimum side setbacks for retail sales, offices and restaurant uses can range between 0 – 10 feet and for automobile service stations the minimum side setback is 10 feet (corner lots have only front and side setback requirements). The proposal includes a front (north) setback (Gulf to Bay Blvd.) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback (S. Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk), a west setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement). The proposal does not request any setback reductions to buildings and parking. The only setback reduction requested is the side (south) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to sidewalk). This sidewalk is required for building entrances and is proposed to be five feet wide. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.A. sidewalks are permitted in the setback area provided they are no wider than 42 inches, since this sidewalk is five feet wide flexibility must be requested. Staff supports this request as it is adjacent to property owned by the applicant and due to the size of the site, a 42 inch wide sidewalk may not be of an adequate width. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for retail sales, offices and restaurant uses can range from 25 – 50 feet and for automobile service stations the maximum height is 25 feet. The proposal has been advertised with a maximum building height of 35 feet. There are six proposed buildings. Buildings 10 and 15 have proposed building heights of 28 (to top of parapet), building 11 has a proposed height of 30 (top of flat roof), buildings 12 and 13 have proposed heights of 25 feet (to top of flat roof) and building 14 has a proposed building height of 33 feet (to top of pitched roof). As five of the six tenants are unknown at this time the advertised height of 35 feet provides some flexibility. The heights for the six buildings proposed are comparable to, and compatible with, the existing Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 4 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 commercial buildings within the surrounding area and compatible with the approved residential buildings to the south. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for retail sales uses can range between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, restaurants can range between 7 – 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, offices can range between 3 – 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and automobile service stations require 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. When there are two or more uses proposed on the same property or in the same building, CDC Section 3-1405 requires parking to be determined using a shared use calculation. WEEKDAY WEEKEND Use: Midnight 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 6 A.M. 4 P.M. Midnight 4 P.M. Midnight Office (17) 5% = 0.85 100% = 17 10% = 1.7 10% = 1.7 5% = 0.85 Retail (200) 5% = 10 70% = 140 90% = 180 100% = 200 70% = 140 Restaurant (141) 10% = 14.1 50% = 70.5 100% = 141 50% = 70.5 100% = 141 1 Retail (28)5% = 1.4 70% = 19.6 90% = 25.2 100% = 28 70% = 19.6 Totals: 26.35 247.1 347.9 300.2 301.45 The shared parking table does not specifically identify a category for the automobile service station use. As such, the retail sales/service 1 category is used for automobile service stations due to their similar hours of operation impacts on off-street parking. The shared parking use calculation indicates that 348 parking spaces are required. The proposal provides 409 parking spaces. The site is also served by bus transit, with bus stops located adjacent to this commercial site on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. The reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, rather than as “retail sales and services” and “restaurants” uses is for two reasons. The first is due to the inability for the proposal to comply with Flexibility criteria for these uses, which states: “The use of the parcel proposed for development fronts on but will not involve direct access to a major arterial street.” This property fronts on both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, both major arterial streets, and does not have any frontage on a collector or local roadway. To mitigate this criteria concern, access for this commercial development has been minimized by providing only one driveway on each roadway. The driveway located on Gulf to Bay Boulevard has been aligned with the intersection of S. Main Avenue. There are Developer transportation obligations outlined in the original Development Agreement to effect this driveway connection. The driveway located on S. Belcher Road has been aligned with the existing traffic light that accesses the Publix shopping center on the east side of S. Belcher Road. The original Development Agreement also outlines the Developer transportation obligations for this roadway, including a southbound right turn lane. At this driveway intersection, new mast arms and traffic signal equipment will be installed when this proposed driveway is constructed. This driveway on S. Belcher Road will also provide access to the approved residential development south of the subject site. Existing driveways no longer being used will need to be removed and upright curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place. The second reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is the inability for the proposal to comply with the Flexibility criteria for automobile service stations which states: “The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas.” This 11.637 acre property is contiguous to residentially zoned land on both the west and south. The residentially zoned property to the south is owned by the Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 5 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 same owner as this application and is over 4,000 feet south of the proposed automobile service station. Likewise, the residentially zoned property to the west is over 4,000 feet west of the proposed automobile service station and that land is currently used for an automobile sales dealership. Staff supports the deviation as no impacts will occur at residentially zoned property located over 4,000 feet from the automobile service station. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The proposal locates exterior mechanical equipment on the roof of the commercial buildings. Screening of this rooftop mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission to determine if parapets surrounding the roof are sufficient to screen the mechanical equipment. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, as well as at the intersection of these roadways, 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. Electric and communication lines for this development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead utilities on the west side of the adjacent right-of-way of S. Belcher Road. Due to the length of the site frontages on this roadway, the existing overhead utilities should also be placed underground as part of this development. Additionally, there exist two power distribution easements on the subject property (14 feet wide and six feet wide) within blanket easements that will need to be vacated. Evidence of such easement vacations will need to be provided prior to the issuance of the site development building permit. Exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) located on the outside of the buildings should be painted the same color as the buildings they are affixed to reduce their visibility. The location and visibility of such exterior electric equipment will be reviewed at time of building permits. It is noted that the drainage retention pond located south of the subject property contains the drainage facility for both this commercial site and the approved residential site to the south. Additionally, potable water and sanitary sewer systems are interconnected between the commercial and residential sites. Easements for drainage, water and sewer lines and vehicular access are necessary. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring such easements to be recorded in the public records, with copies to the City, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are 15-foot wide perimeter buffers required along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer required along the south side adjacent to the residential development and a five-foot wide perimeter buffer along the west side. The proposal complies with these required perimeter Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 6 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 buffers except for the south buffer which has been requested to be reduced from 10 feet wide to two feet wide in some areas. This reduction to two feet is due to a required sidewalk and it is adjacent to the southern portion which is owned by the applicant. The proposal provides for increased perimeter buffers along the street frontages of 25 feet to coincide with the required structure setbacks. The proposal also exceeds the requirement for interior landscape area within the parking lot. A minimum of 10 percent of the vehicular use area is required as interior landscaping and the proposal provides 20.6 percent. Required foundation landscape area five feet in depth is provided for all commercial buildings. This application proposes over 340 trees, 3,400 shrubs and 6,350 ground cover plants. To mitigate for the reduced south perimeter landscape buffer, the applicant has proposed to increase the buffer width along both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road from 15 feet to 25 feet and increased the interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 20.6 percent. Although the application provides increased buffers along the street frontages of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road, some of the buffers only include the minimum shrub and tree requirements. Pursuant to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road are identified as Scenic Corridors and as such a condition is attached that the buffers along those corridors be augmented with additional landscape material to provide a tiered effect. 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. Solid Waste: The proposal provides dumpster enclosures at each of the proposed six buildings. Prior to the issuance of any permits for this project, details for these dumpster enclosures will need to be provided on the plans showing compliance with City standards, including the Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 requirement to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of the buildings. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: The proposal does not include any freestanding sign. Any proposed signage will be required to meet Code provisions. Landscape design and plantings need to coordinate with any such signage, so as to not shield the signage from view. The original Development Agreement requires proposed signage to be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2-803.I.3. 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 as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.4 (maximum of 202,756 sf) 0.117 (59,159 sf proposed) X Impervious Surface 0.85 0.76 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area N/A 506,892 sq. ft. (11.637 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A Gulf to Bay Blvd: 817 feet X S. Belcher Road: 617 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 61.8 feet (to building) X 25 feet (to pavement) East: 79.3 feet (to building) 25.5 feet (to pavement) Side: N/A West: 20 feet (to building) X 1 19.4 feet (to pavement) South: 90.8 feet (to building) 2 feet (to sidewalk) Maximum Height N/A 35 feet (to top of decorative X 1 building features) Minimum Determined by the Community 409 parking spaces X 2 Off-Street Parking Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards 2 (Required parking: 348 spaces) 1 See analysis in Staff Report 2 Based on a shared use calculation; See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 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 – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A.: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 2, 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 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road; 2.The subject property has approximately 820 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 617 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road; 3.An amended Development Agreement (DVA2011-04001) must be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design considerations; 4.This property is proposed to be developed with a total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 40,000 square feet, Automobile Service Station use of 5,559 square feet, Office use of 4,200 square feet and Restaurant uses of 9,400 square feet); 5.The proposal meets and/or exceeds required setbacks for buildings and parking; 6.The proposal includes a side (south) setback reduction from 10 feet to two feet (to sidewalk); 7.The proposal includes a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer 10 feet to two feet; 8.The proposal includes 409 parking spaces; 9.There are six commercial buildings proposed with a maximum height of 35 feet; 10.The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of a small park area to display public art; 11.Access for this commercial development has been minimized to only providing one driveway on each roadway; and Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 10 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 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 Tables 2-701.1 and 2- 704 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 3-913 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 to permit 40,000 square feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and 617 feet along S. Belcher Road, a front (north) setback (Gulf to Bay Blvd.) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback (S. Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk), a west setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement), a maximum building height of 35 feet, and 409 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order as well as a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to two feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.; and (2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-lot subdivision for retail sales and service, office, restaurants, automobile service station and attached dwellings, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of an amended Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2011-04001); 2.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 3.That retail sales and service uses not exceed square footage 40,000 square feet, restaurant uses not exceed 9,400 square feet, office use not exceed 4,200 square feet and automobile service station use not exceed 5,559 square feet (total maximum commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.117). Square footage flexibility may be granted as a Minor Revision prior to issuance of the site development building permit so long as the square footage increase and its resultant increase to required parking do not exceed the 409 parking spaces provided and approved under this application; 4.That, prior to issuance of permits, a revised landscape plan be submitted showing a tiered effect on both Gulf to Bay Blvd. and Belcher Road; Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-0418/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 5.That, prior to the issuance of permits, the site plan data table be corrected to reflect the revised shared parking calculation and the correct side (west) setback; 6.That, prior to the issuance of building permits for each building, building heights conform to the elevations approved by the CDB, with the maximum height of 35 feet; 7.That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, easements for access, drainage, sanitary sewer and potable water between Parcels 1 and 2 be recorded in the public records, with copies provided to the City; 8.That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines along S. Belcher Road be undergrounded; 9.That proposed signage be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 10.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site development plans indicate where existing driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard are no longer being used, such driveways be removed and upright curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place; 11.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, dumpster enclosure details be provided on the plans showing compliance with City standards, including consistency with the exterior materials and color of the buildings; 12.That, prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the small park to display public art at the northeast corner of this Parcel 1 be provided; 13.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, screening of rooftop outside mechanical equipment comply with Code provisions; 14.That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building, exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be painted the same color as the building; 15.That the subject property comply with the provisions of Section 3-1910.D. regarding the installation of an internal reclaimed water systems constructed to City specifications; 16.That open space/recreational impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit; 17.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 18.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map  Aerial Map  Zoning Map  Existing Surrounding Uses Map  Photographs of Site and Vicinity  Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04018 – Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT: STAFF MEMO FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 2011-07-19 To: Community Development Board Members From: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III Date: July 19, 2011 RE: Amended and Deleted Condition of Approval for Case FLD2011- 04018/PLT2011-04002 (2165 Gulf to Bay Blvd.) An amended and deleted condition of approval has been proposed for the above referenced case and the applicant, owner and staff are accepting of the amended and deleted condition of approval as follows: thefor Condition # 7 shall read – That, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy any buildingshould be required , easements for access, drainage, sanitary sewer and potable , to serve that building, they will water between Parcels 1 and 2be recorded in the Public records with and copies provided to the City; Condition # 4 which reads – That, prior to issuance of permits, a revised landscape plan be submitted showing a tiered effect on both Gulf to Bay Blvd. and Belcher Road; shall be eliminated as the tiered effect not shown on the current plan, at the corner of Gulf to Bay Blvd. and Belcher Road, will be proposed when the public art display is installed; EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-04017 Agenda Item: D. 3. Owners/Applicant: DDR Southeast Clearwater Development, LLC Representative: Nick Sanfilippo, Sr. Tenant Coordinator Address: 21810-20 US Highway 19 North CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a 12,000 square foot Charter School in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,362 square foot shopping center with no changes to the lot size, area, setbacks, height, or parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project, under provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2- 704.C. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales and Services (vacant) Proposed: School (Grades 9-12) EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District and Open Space Recreation SURROUNDING (OS/R) District ZONINGAND USES : Bright House Field Complex South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services shopping center East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services shopping center West: Preservation (P) District Retention pond ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The subject property is a part of the overall shopping center located at 21750 US Highway 19 N which is located on the west side of US Highway 19 North. It occupies the majority of the northwest corner of the Drew Street and US Highway 19 North intersection with the exception of the Kane’s Furniture property. This shopping center is made up of three lots totaling 14.23 acres of land and consisting of approximately 786 parking spaces. It is currently occupied by two major retail businesses (L.A. Fitness and Floor and Décor), one restaurant (Buffalo Wild Wings), and a vacant 16,362 square-foot multi-tenant commercial building. The proposed school would occupy two vacant tenant spaces within the vacant multi-tenant commercial building which is on Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 2.57 acres of land known as Lot 2. Lot 2 is an odd configured lot with a shared driveway that allows ingress/egress to US Highway 19 N; it is mostly paved with asphalt like the adjoining properties. There are eighty-three on-site parking spaces dedicated to the commercial building. Located to the southeast of the overall shopping center is another commercial property which consists of Kane’s Furniture store. Located directly to the north of the subject property is the Bright House Field Sports Complex. A portion of the sports complex clubhouse seat parking abuts the subject property to the east. The subject property and the sports complex share a common sidewalk in between the buildings. Development Proposal: The applicant wishes to establish a 12,000 square foot School (Grades 9-12) in the Commercial (C) District within the existing 16,362 square foot shopping center with no changes to the lot size, lot area, setbacks, height, or parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The applicant will modify the interior of two of the three vacant units in the subject building to create 10 classrooms (approximately 25 students per classroom), a student café/lounge, and four administrative offices. The school will not exceed 250 students. The applicant intends to provide an ADA compliant pick-up and drop-off zone in front of the building. They propose to paint the exterior of the building as well as place sidewalk planters and a new landscaped area in the front of the building. In regards to the development proposal, while the proposed use is an allowable in the underlying future land use plan category, Schools are not a permitted use in the C District as either a minimum standard, flexible standard development, or flexible development use. As such, the C District development standards cannot be applied to this proposal as the use is not specifically authorized within the district. For this reason, the applicants have submitted the application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55. The existing FAR for the subject property is 0.15, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The existing ISR for the subject property is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, Schools are not specifically authorized in the C District and as such there is no specific minimum lot area and width denoted in Table 2-704. Pursuant to the same Table, 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 2-1202, within the Institutional (I) District, where schools are allowed, the minimum lot area is 40,000 square feet. The subject property is 2.57 acres or 112,206.26 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for School is 200 feet. The lot width of this site is 250 feet along US Highway 19 N. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 2 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, Schools are not specifically authorized in the C District and as such there is no specific minimum setbacks denoted in Table 2-704. Pursuant to the same Table, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Section 2-1202, within the Institutional (I) District, where schools are allowed, the minimum setbacks are 25 feet (front), 10 feet (side), and 20 feet (rear). Due to the shape of the lot and existing conditions, the building setbacks are hard to determine from a typical property line evaluation. The building is setback approximately 742 feet from US Highway 19 North and 365 feet from Old Coachman located at the rear of the site. The front portion of the property that primarily consists of the access concrete bridge from US Highway 19 N and the access drive towards the building are front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to concrete bridge), a rear (west) setback zero feet (to pavement), side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to retention pond) and 120 feet (to concrete bridge), a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to retention pond), and a side (south) setback of zero feet (to pavement). Using the property lines immediately surrounding the building, it has a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 170 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 11 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building), and side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 67 feet (to building). Since the development is a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, the existing conditions comply with standards; however, when compared to the setbacks for a School use in the Institutional District, the setbacks do not meet code. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, Schools are not specifically authorized in the C District and as such there is no specific minimum height denoted in Table 2- 704. Pursuant to the same Table, 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 2-1202, within the Institutional (I) District, where schools are allowed, the maximum allowable height is 50 feet. The highest point of the existing building is 25 feet, which is below the maximum height of 50 feet. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, Schools are not specifically authorized in the C District and as such there is no specific minimum off-street parking spaces denoted in Table 2-704. Pursuant to the same Table, there is no specified number of parking spaces for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, CDC Table 2-1204, within the Institutional (I) District, where schools are allowed, schools are required to provide 1 parking space per 3 students. The applicant does not plan to exceed 250 students. As previously mentioned, the subject property has eighty-three parking spaces on site which would allow for 249 students and meet the parking requirements under the Institutional District. However, the applicant only proposes to occupy two of three vacant tenant spaces in the subject commercial building. This third vacant space is approximately 4,362 square feet. Based on minimum off-street parking spaces in the C District for a retail sales and service use for that tenant space, approximately 21 parking spaces would be required for any new use. This would leave sixty-two available parking spaces for the school, which in turn only allow 186 students. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 3 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 Further, Staff has concerns for available parking spaces for the school during the baseball spring training and subsequent minor league baseball season during the school period due to its proximity to the sports complex. The applicant’s response is to implement a Safety Improvement Program. They will create an ADA compliant drop-off pick-up zone in front of the building and inform the parents of the students being dropped-off or picked-up that they are to wait in front of the building and not cross into traffic of Bright House Field. They also plan to provide portable signs in the parking area identifying school only parking area. A security guard will provide protection for the students and ensure anyone attending the baseball games will not park in the schools parking area. Staff believes such measures are necessary to ensure the safety of possibly 250 children attending a school within an intense commercial shopping center adjacent to the Bright House Field Sports Complex. Landscaping: The applicant proposes to provide one new landscaped interior island near the south end of the building, rebuild and replant one existing landscaped island, and prune the remaining landscape islands to meet Fire Department code requirements. The applicant also proposes to install a number of sidewalk planters in the gaps between columns in front of the building. Solid Waste: The applicant proposes to provide adequate solid waste enclosures and trash receptacles located to the rear of the subject building. 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. 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 0.15 X ISR 0.90 0.70 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 112,206 square feet (2.57 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 250 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to pavement) X 170 feet (to building) Side: N/A South: Zero feet (to building) X North: Zero feet (to pavement) X 10 feet (to building) Rear: N/A West: Zero feet (to building) X Maximum Height N/A 25 feet (to highest point) X Minimum Off-Street Determined by the 62 parking spaces X Parking Community Development (1 per 3 students required, allow for Coordinator based on the only 186 students) specific use and/or ITE Manual standards Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: Pursuant to Section 2-704, CDC, proposals allowed within the Commercial (C) District must meet all six of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The following criteria has not been met: 1.The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district; The applicant’s response states that “the redevelopment is otherwise impractical as retail tenants are not expanding and the area is mature, thereby reducing the available pool of potential tenants. A charter school use is consistent with the types of tenants in this district. A charter school is more like a business than a public school.” The redevelopment is inconsistent with the development standards of the C District. A School is not a retail or commercial use as defined by code nor is a school a permitted use in the C District as a minimum standard, flexible standard development or flexible development use. The C District development standards cannot be applied to this proposal as the use is not specifically authorized within the district. Only by completely disregarding allowable uses and standards within the C District may a school be permitted where proposed by the application. 2.The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of 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; The applicant’s response states that “the proposed use is consistent with the Plan, purpose, and intent and basic planning objectives of this Code and district. The use as a charter school is consistent with the other uses in the area. The use is akin to a business occupancy. The occupants will be inside the building during the day and will not negatively interact with the surrounding properties and uses. After hours the occupants will be like any other resident of the area and free to shop, dine, and play etc. which is consistent with the adjacent uses.” The Comprehensive Plan Policy J.1.2.7 states that “the City and the School District shall recognize charter schools as a public school facility. Such facilities shall serve to expand the school capacity of the school district and are a potential option for mitigating the impact that any new residential approvals may have on public school facilities.” Further, Policy J.2.1.3 states that public educational facilities of the school district are an allowable use within the following land use categories:  Residential Estate  Residential Suburban  Residential Low  Residential Urban  Residential Low Medium  Residential Medium  Residential/Office Limited  Residential/Office General  Institutional Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 5 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) land use category which does not allow a school use; whereby establishing that a Charter School at the subject location is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the CDC classifies the proposed use as a school which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Schools as defined are permitted by the CDC in appropriate and compatible districts such as most residential districts, the Office and Institutional Districts. Schools are not permitted in the District and as such, a school is not compliant with the intent and purpose of the zoning district the subject property is located in. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use 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: The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. The applicant’s response states that “the proposed use is compatible as this type of use is allowed in similar districts. This use will contribute positively to the overall character and status of the area. This use will create higher paying jobs than retail use for which this part of the development is approved. This use will be an economic contributor to the community and serves as a necessary need in the community.” They further state in their response to DRC comments that “the existing building proposed to be occupied by the school has been vacant since 2004. The interior was partially demolished in preparation for another anchor tenant who determined that they would be better suited at a more densely populated commercial district. The Owner’s leasing department has not received much interest in the intervening years from interested retail businesses since the center does not fit the current model of desirable retail center. Retail commercial districts perform much better when there is a mass of such centers in one area. This center is separated from other retail orientated centers and is not massive enough to support diversity and scale of the retail stores that are required for a shopping center to thrive. This is well evidenced by the current businesses occupying vast majority of the center, a Fitness Center and a discount tile store. Corresponding rents are not commensurate with the prime retail centers in the area, thus opportunities are limited. The size and location of this center precludes prime Class A tenant occupancy which are insurmountable barriers. A charter high school is a good use and fit within the center and this particular community.” Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 While the proposed use is permitted in the underlying future land use category, a School is not permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use. Although the use may create a few higher paying jobs; a school will not significantly contribute to the City’s economic base. The proposed use would not be compatible with the adjacent commercial land uses. Further, the proposal does not meet any of the six objectives listed above as follows: A school is not permitted in the Commercial District as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed use is not a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base; The proposal does not accommodate the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; The use has no provision for affordable housing; The proposed School use is not in an area with other similar development. Schools are permitted in most residential districts, Office and Institutional Districts; and The proposed use does not provide for a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city; The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; 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; o Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, o porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures; o Distinctive fenestration patterns; o Building step backs; and o Distinctive roofs forms. o The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The applicant’s response states that “the development will not impede the normal, orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this district. The existing development complied with the design guidelines when it was constructed and appears to comply today. The design, scale, and intensity of the existing building supports the established criteria of the area. The building is existing and no Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 architectural character changes are contemplated for the exterior of the building. The existing building has a pleasing exterior and is part of the community fabric that makes up the character of the area.” As previously noted, the proposal does not contain any changes to either the existing shopping center building or the off-street parking area, and while the proposal will meet some of the above criteria, it cannot meet others such as providing for appropriate buffers, an enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distances between buildings and the development does not support the established character of the area. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 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 – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2 The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION : The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 2, 2011 and deemed it 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 2.57 acres is located on the west side of US Highway 19 North, approximately 786 feet north of the Drew Street and US Highway 19 North intersection; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is a part of the overall shopping center located at 21750 US Highway 19 N which is adjacent to the Bright House Field Sports Complex; 4. The shopping center is made up of three lots which total 14.23 acres of land and consists of approximately 786 parking spaces. It is currently occupied by two major retail businesses, one restaurant, and a vacant 16,362 square-foot multi-tenant commercial building; 5. The applicant proposes to establish a 12,000 square foot Charter School (Grades 9-12) within two of three vacant tenant spaces in a 16,362 square foot commercial building; 6. The applicant proposes to modify the interior of two tenant spaces into 10 classrooms (approximately 25 students per classroom), a student café/lounge, and four administrative offices; 7. Schools are an allowable use within the following land use categories: Residential Estate, Residential Suburban, Residential Low, Residential Urban, Residential Low Medium, Residential Medium, Residential/Office Limited, Residential/Office General and Institutional; 8. Schools are not a permitted use in the Commercial (C) District as a minimum standard, flexible standard development or flexible development use; Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 10 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-04017 2011-07-19 9. That the proposal does not include any changes to the lot size, area, setbacks, height, or parking; 10. The proposal will occupy two of three vacant tenant spaces in the subject building of which only 62 of the 83 off-street parking spaces are available to the proposed use which would allow for a total of 186 students; and 11. The existing structure is 25 feet to its highest point. 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 is consistent with the Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Surface Ratio Standards as per Table 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code. 2. That the proposed use is not consistent with Policies J.1.2.7 and J.2.1.3 set forth in the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; 3. That the proposed use is not consistent with permitted uses in the Commercial (C) District as a minimum standard, flexible standard development or flexible development use per Community Development Code Sections 2-702, 2-703, and 2-704; 4. That the development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-704.C., Community Development Code; and 5. That the development proposal is not consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A. of the Community Development Code. DENIAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a 12,000 square foot Charter School in the Commercial (C) District within an existing 16,362 square foot shopping center with no changes to the lot size, area, setbacks, height, or parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project, under provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 FLD2011-04017 - Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-04001 2011-07-19 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: DVA2011-04001 (Related to FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002) Agenda Item: E. 1. (Related to D. 1.) Owners/Applicants: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP Address: 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amendment to the Development Agreement between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant (former mobile home parks) Proposed: Retail Sales and Services, Office, Automobile Service Station and Restaurant uses of up to 90,000 square feet of floor area (0.20 Floor Area Ratio) EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Retail Sales uses and Automobile Service Station ZONING AND USES: South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings East: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts Retail Sales uses and Office uses West: Commercial (C), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts Automobile Sales and Detached Dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 30.07 acres is located on the west side of S. Belcher Road between Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Druid Road. The subject property was previously developed with mobile home parks (all mobile homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The subject property has approximately 820 feet of frontage along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 1,225 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road and approximately 1,301 feet of frontage along Druid Road. Properties to the north of the subject property across Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard are zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with retail sales uses (Albertson’s, vacant bank and a vacant K-Mart) and an automobile service station at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 DVA2011-04001 – Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-04001 2011-07-19 Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. Properties to the east across S. Belcher Road are zoned Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District and are developed with the Publix shopping center, bank, funeral home and offices. Properties to the south across Druid Road are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned Commercial (C) District, Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. The property adjacent to the west of the northern portion of the subject property is developed with an automobile sales dealership. Detached dwellings are adjacent to the west of the southern portion of the subject property. At its meeting of February 16, 2010, the Community Development Board (CDB) recommended that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater. This Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005), which was approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 18, 2010, allowed for the development of the northern portion of the subject property to be developed with a total of 82,999 square feet of commercial floor area (70,212 square feet of retail sales uses and 12,787 square feet of restaurant uses) and the southern portion of the subject property to be developed with 243 attached dwellings. Development Proposal: Prior to the approval of DVA2009-00005 by the City Council, cases FLD2009-12045 (southern parcel – residential) and FLD2009-12046 (northern parcel – commercial) were approved. A new proposal has been submitted for the northern parcel (commercial), this is the companion Flexible Development application (FLD20011-04018). This application proposes to develop the northern portion of the subject property with 40,000 square feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet). The southern portion of the subject property has been approved to be developed with 243 attached dwellings (FLD2009-12045) and no changes are proposed to that site. This amended Development Agreement contains provisions for both the northern and southern portion. The Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) land use plan category for the northern portion of the subject property permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40. Based on the lot area (506,892 square feet; 11.637 acres) and the maximum FAR, the northern portion could be developed with a maximum of 202,756 square feet of nonresidential floor area. The Development Agreement proposes a maximum of 90,000 square feet of retail sales, office, automobile service station and restaurant development floor area at a FAR of 0.117. It is noted that the Development Agreement permits a larger amount of nonresidential floor area (90,000 square feet) than that actually proposed under the companion Flexible Development application (FLD2011-04018; 59,159 square feet), which gives some flexibility for future amendments to the Flexible Development application without needing to amend the Development Agreement. Development Agreement: The purpose of this amendment is to establish new developable square footage for retail sales and services use, office use, automobile service station use and restaurant use. This proposed Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 DVA2011-04001 – Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-04001 2011-07-19 amendment to the existing Development Agreement (recorded in O.R. Book 16874, Page 2344), does not change the duration limit of ten (10) years and includes the following main provisions: Amends Section 6.1.3.3 of the agreement to provide that Transportation Obligations related  to the northern portion shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificated of occupancy for that portion and the Transportation Obligations related to the southern portion be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that portion; Amends Section 4.2 of the agreement to change the number of parking spaces included on  the northern portion to five (5) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail sales and services, fifteen (15) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant uses, four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use and five (5) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of automobile service station use (based on a shared parking calculation) and allows cross parking among parcels; and Amends Section 3 of the agreement to reflect the new site plan for the northern portion  (Parcel 1). The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent Development Agreement. 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. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 2, 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 30.07 acres is located on the west side of S. Belcher Road between Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Druid Road; 2.That the land use plan category for the northern portion of the subject property is Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) category, and the zoning is Commercial (C) District; and the land use plan category the southern portion of the subject property is Residential Medium (RM) category, and the zoning is Medium Density Residential (MDR) District; 3.That the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) land use plan category for the northern portion of the subject property permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40; and 4.That the purpose of this amended Development Agreement is to restrict the development potential to less than the maximums allowable. Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 DVA2011-04001 – Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-04001 2011-07-19 Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the maximum requirements for the construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal (FLD2011-04018); 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 consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the APPROVAL , and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, L.L.C. (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-606, for the property at 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Development Agreement with Exhibits  Location Map  Aerial Map  Land Use Plan Map  Zoning Map  Community Development Board – July 19, 2011 DVA2011-04001 – Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00005 2011-07-11 CDB Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Number: APP2011-00005 Agenda Item: F. 1. Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC Agent: Todd Pressman CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST:An appeal of a determination made by an administrative official in the administration of Section 4-202.G.1., Community Development Code, with regard to an application not being accepted during the twelve month time period after the denial of a substantially similar Level Three application affecting the same property or any portion thereof. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: In June 2010, a request was submitted by Belleair Development Group to amend the future land use map and zoning atlas designations of the property located at 1475 Sunset Point Road from Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU) to Commercial General (CG); and from Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District, respectively. On July 20, 2010, the Community Development Board (CDB) recom- mended denial of these requests and on August 5, 2010, the City Council denied the requests. Subsequently, a second request was made with regard to the same property, and at its meeting of May 19, 2011, the City Council denied a future land use map amendment from the R/OG, RU and CG classifications to the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) classification as well as an associated zoning atlas amendment from the O and LMDR Districts to the C District. City staff had recommended denial of the request based upon the following: That the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan Rules and the Community Development Code; That the proposed amendment conflicted with the character of the neighborhood; and That the available uses in the proposed C District would be incompatible with the surrounding area. Staff noted at the meeting that the future land use map dated 2018 depicts the current future land use classifications and that there is no anticipated change for the subject property, as well as that the citywide design structure map identifies activity centers, preservation areas, and neighborhood shopping center areas, and that this map recognizes the east side of Highland Avenue (east of the subject property) as being anchored by a neighborhood shopping center with limited commercial use to its west (the subject property). It was further mentioned by staff that additional commercial retail space is not in the long-term interest of the neighborhood; that there is substantial inventory of commercial property that is economically underutilized today; and that the subject section of Sunset Point Road is a residential corridor. EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00005 2011-07-11 The City Council agreed with the recommendation and findings of staff and voted 4-1 to deny the proposed future land use map amendment, and 5-0 to deny the proposed rezoning. Subsequent to the City Council denying the future land use map amendment and rezoning, the applicant submitted a concept plan (copy attached and labeled Concept Plan “B”) to staff on May 31, 2011, that would require virtually the same future land use map amendments and rezoning as denied by City Council just twelve days prior, but on a smaller scale. This proposed future land use map amendment and rezoning would involve the eastern 90 feet of property that is presently designated R/OG (land use) and O (zoning) as well as the majority of that portion of the property presently designated RU (land use) and LMDR (zoning). Upon review of this proposal with staff, on June 1, 2011, the Community Development Coordinator issued the following determination via email: I recognize it to be a scaled back request. However, I believe it substantively and materially similar to the two prior requests. That is to say it is the same use, in the same general location, needing utilization of similar necessary components for approval. “Similar” is defined as “having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way” (Dictionary.com). I do not concur that mere placement of the parking on the former bank site with the repositioning of the building to another portion of the site constitutes a substantially dissimilar request. The Community Development Code states that with regard to a “resubmission of application affecting same property” that “no application shall be accepted during the following time periods after the denial of a substantially similar application affecting the same property or any portion thereof.” The CDC establishes twelve months for a Level Three approval. The Section of the Community Development Code (CDC) referenced above that is applicable to this appeal is Section 4-202.G.1, CDC, which reads as follows: G. Resubmission of application affecting same property. 1. No application shall be accepted during the following time periods after the denial of a substantially similar application affecting the same property or any portion thereof: a. Nine months for Level Two approvals. b. Twelve months for Level Three approvals. The point of disagreement between the appellant and Staff is whether or not what is now being proposed (albeit in conceptual form and not a complete and formal application) is substantially similar to the application affecting the same property that was denied by City Council on May 19, 2011. It is clear that the appellant believes that the applications are not similar, while the Community Development Coordinator has determined that the applications are, in fact, substantially similar; thus the appeal. The Community Development Coordinator’s position that the current proposal is substantially similar to the applications that were denied by City Council, is based upon the very same reasons that the City Council had in denying the prior applications. The denial of the proposal was in EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00005 2011-07-11 substantial part due to the proposal being a westward expansion of the C District into a residential corridor; an expansion that is neither desired, nor supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. What the appellant desires to propose at this time is a future land use map amendment and rezoning of a portion of the very same lands to the very same C District in the very same adverse westward direction that City Council has already determined to be undesirable and has already denied on two separate occasions. APPEAL PROCESS: The appeal from the aforementioned determination was filed on by Mr. Todd Pressman on behalf of the appellant, Cay 1475, LLC, on June 3, 2011, consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in Section 4-502.B., CDC. Pursuant to Section 4-501.A.1., CDC, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the administration of the development code. Pursuant to Section 4-504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5., CDC, granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal. It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following criteria are met: 1.The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development code; and 2.The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3.The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager ._ 4} Clearwater _ .........e. I 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD20 1 1-040 1 8/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DVA2011-04001) Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes t/ No 3. Case: FLD201 1-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011- 5020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No 7:1Planning DeparttnentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA201 1-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT20 1-04002) Yes No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL(Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1 105 Druid Road. I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: PRINT NAME S:APlanning DeparnnentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc lor Clearwater OP" 1111110110 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DVA2011-04001) Yes X No la. 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes X No 3. Case: FLD201 1-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No CY& 4. Case: FLD201 1-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No S:\Planning DeparimentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA2011-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT2011-04002) Yes No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL(Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1 105 Druid Road. I have conducted a , al investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: ^v0 1' 6`'` ' 1 PRINT NAME it Ta-`'J S:,Planning DeparnnentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI20I1107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc } Cl 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 -- 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DVA2011-04001) Yes No f/ 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes No 3. Case: FLD201 1-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No / 4. Case: FLD2011-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No s:\Planning Department IC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LL 0, Clearwater I- 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21, 2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DV A2011-04001) Yes X No 2. Case: FLD200111-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes ,X No 5:IPlmmrng Department\C D B\Agendas DRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA201 1-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT20 1 1-04002) Yes )( No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1 105 Druid Road. I have conducted personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: I/11 F4 PRINT NAME Sr(Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc mow„ arwater 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, D VA20 1 1-0400 1) Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810:4,S Highway 19 N Yes No N 3. Case: FLD201 1-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard ,\J Yes No 4. Case:`I*LD2011-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes V No S:I Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc w LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA201 1-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 040.18/PLT2011-04002) Yes '�V.,) No _ CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay_1475, LLC a ci -7 ,o i. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1105 Druid Road. I have conduc a rso vestiji ion on the personal site visit to the following p roperties. Signature; ` , L.. (( Date: 7 1 ( v C4Co 6 t. PRINT NAME S. Planning■ DeparunentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc i : aater 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DVA2011-04001) Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No 4. Case: FLD201 1-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No S'(Planning Department)C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBI CDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA201 1-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT2011-04002) Yes , No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1 105 Druid Road. I have conducted a e �� 'stization on the personal site visit to the following pros erties. Signature: �� r � Date: PRINT NAME S:(Planning DepartmentICD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LL >_to Uearwater 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21, 2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, D VA20 1 1-0400 1) Yes X No 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No 4. Case: FLD201 1-05020—2460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No S.(Planning DepartmentC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA2011-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT2011-04002) Yes X No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP20 1 1-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1105 Druid Road. I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: jam Date: 7/141/ Arke r PRINT NAME S':IPlmining Departtnent\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB1201/107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc Uearwater 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 July 19,2011 DATE: July 13,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 21,2011 Level Two Applications (Item 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2011-04018/PLT2011-04002 — 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Related to, DVA2011-04001) Yes V No 2. Case: FLD2011-04017—21810 US Highway 19 N Yes ✓ No 3. Case: FLD201 1-05019—355 Park Place Boulevard Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-05020— 460 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No S:I Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBI CDBI2011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: DVA2011-04001 —2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard(Related to FLD2011- 04018/PLT2011-04002) Yes No CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL(Item 1): 1. Case: APP2011-00005 Appellant: Cay 1475, LLC DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Item 1): 1. Time Extension—FLD2009-03014— 1 105 Druid Road. I have •onducted a person., •n on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature. �� Date: ` \ PRIN •.•E S:IPlanningDepartnentICDBIAgendasDRC&CDBICDB12011107 July 201111 Cover MEMO2010.doc