FLD2011-09029; 507 CEDAR ST; CLAYTON RESIDENCE - Continued to December 20, 2011 �
CDB Meeting Date: November 15,2011
Case Number: ELD2011-09029
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner/Applicant: Robert F. Clayton
Agent Jay F_Mvers
Address: 507 Cedar Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a single-family detached
dwelling within the Commercial (C) District with a lot size of 3,500
square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (north) setback of 15 feet, a
rear (south) setback of six feet, side (east and west) setbacks of six feet,
a height of 13 feet, and two off-street parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant
Proposed: Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District
SURROUNDING Vacant
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District
Attached Dwellings
East: Commercial (C) District
Attached Dwellings
West: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales and Service (Vacant)
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.08 acre property is located on the south side of Cedar Street, approximately 125 feet east
of North Fort Harrison Avenue. While the property previously consisted of a single-family
detached dwelling, the structure was demolished in 1996 and has been a vacant parcel ever
sense. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with a mixture of attached
and detached dwellings; however there are also commercially developed properties to the west
along N. Fort Harrison Avenue.
Community Development Board—November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 1
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to permit the construction of a detached dwelling in the Commercial (C) District.
The proposed 1,475 square foot, single-story dwelling would have a front setback of 15 feet as
well as side and rear setbacks of six feet. The dwelling would also consist of an attached one-car
garage with adequate space in the driveway to park an additional vehicle.
Pursuant to Article 2, Division 7, Community Development Code (CDC), detached dwellings are
not a permitted use within the Commercial (C) District. However, Section 2-704.C., CDC, does
allow far uses that are otherwise permissible by the underlying future land use plan category to
be applied for through the submittal of an application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Proj ect.
The development proposal's compliance with the applicable development standards of the CDC
is discussed below.
Densitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-70L1, CDC, the ma�cimum
allowable density in the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category is 24 dwelling
units per acre. The proposed single-family detached dwelling will result in a density of 12.5
dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the above.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-701.1,
CDC, the maximum allowable ISR in the CG future land use plan category is 0.9. The overall
proposed ISR is 0.51, which is consistent with the above.
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 and lot width requirements for detached dwellings in the
various residential zoning districts are as follows:
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width
Zonin District Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to
LDR 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 100 feet 50 feet
LMDR 5,000 square feet 3,000 square feet 50 feet 25 feet
MDR 5,000 square feet 3,000 square feet 50 feet 30 feet
MHDR 15,000 square feet 5,000 square feet 150 feet 50 feet
HDR 15,000 s uare feet 5,000 s uare feet 150 feet 50 feet
The subject property has a width of 50 feet and an area of approximately 3,500 square feet (0.08
acres) both of which are well within what would be the allowable range for lot area and width of
detached dwellings in residential districts.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-704, CDC, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum setback requirements for detached dwellings in the various residential zoning districts
are as follows:
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 2
3
Minimum Front Setback Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback
Zonin District Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to
LDR 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet 5 feet 25 feet 5 feet
LMDR 25 feet IS feet 5 feet 2 feet 10 feet 5 feet
MDR 25 feet 25 feet 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet
MHDR 25 feet 25 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 5 feet
HDR 25 feet 25 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 5 feet
The subject property has a front setback of 15 feet and side and rear setbacks of six feet. While
the proposed side and rear setbacks are well within the allowable range for detached dwellings in
residential districts, the proposed front setback would only be allowable in one of the five
residential districts. However, it is noted that the 15-foot setback would be consistent with the
typical allowable setbacks for development in the C District.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable building
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height allowed as a minimum standard for detached dwellings in the
various residential zoning districts is 30 feet. In the C District, the typical maximum building
height allowed as a minimum standard is 25 feet regardless of use. The proposed building height
is 13 feet, which is well below any of the above maximums.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: 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 detached dwellings in the various residential zoning districts is two spaces per
dwelling unit. The development proposal would comply with these requirements as it includes a
one-car garage with adequate room for an additional space in the driveway.
Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by black barrel containers stored in the attached garage.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelo�ment Project Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2-704, CDC, the uses
allowed within the C District are subject to the standards and criteria set forth in this Section. As
the proposed use of the subject property (detached dwelling) is not specifically authorized in the
C District, the proposal has been made using the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
application, and is subject to those criteria in Section 2-704.C., CDC, as follows:
1. The development or Yedevelopment is othenvise impractical without deviations from the use
and/or development standards set forth in this zoning distYict.
Regardless of the use being proposed, any development of the subject property would require
deviation from the development standards established for the C District. Given the relatively
small size of the property, it would be impossible to develop as any use without some amount
of flexibility being given to lot size, lot width, setbacks, height and off-street parking. If the
proposal was for a commercial-type use, then the flexibility being requested would most
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 3
.
likely be even more substantial than is being requested for the detached dwelling— assuming
that it would even be possible to develop the property with a commercial-type use.
. .
2. The development or redevelopment will be consastent with the goals and policaes 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.
This criterion requires consistency with three distinctly different areas of concern, and each
bears need for its own response.
Consistencv with the Comprehensive Plan:
There are several goals, objectives and/or policies of the Comprehensive Plan that the
development proposal would be consistent with, and for the most part the applicant has done
a fine job in identifying these. In addition to those noted by the applicant, Policy A.2.2.3
states that "commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into
residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip
commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for
commercial development at major intersections". As previously noted, the subject property
is relatively small, and the property would not appear to be able to meet the standard
established in Policy A.2.2.3 as it lacks the depth (and width) necessary to accommodate
commercial development. Further, it is not located at an intersection; let alone the
intersection of arterial and collector streets. Based upon this information, it would appear
that development of the subject property as anything other than a residential use would be
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. However, before arriving at such a conclusion there are
two policies that should be taken into consideration: Policy A.6.2.2 and Policy A.6.2.3.
Policy A.6.2.2 encourages land use conversions on economically underutilized parcels and
corridors to promote redevelopment activities in these areas, while Policy A.6.2.3 states that
redevelopment activities should be targeted in areas where land assembly opportunities exist.
The neighborhood originally developed with attached and detached dwellings, and several
years ago the neighborhood was rezoned as Commercial (C) District with the hope of
revitalizing the area by providing for increased development potential; however this change
has yet to occur. The original attached and detached dwellings are now interspersed among
numerous vacant lots (such as the subject property) and are representative of an area that is
economically underutilized and underdeveloped, or as the applicant puts it, an area that
"without a doubt is stagnated."
The dwellings that remain in the area are constructed for the most part on substandard lots
that could only be redeveloped with flexibility from development standards, and would be
much better served being combined with other adjacent parcels to form property that
conforms to the established lot size and width standards for the district. These newer and
larger parcels could then be developed in a manner that is consistent with the district
standards. In fact, there are already properties within this very block that have been
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 4
assembled together for the purpose of future commercial development with the owner intent
upon acquiring additional properties in the future.
The purpose of Comprehensive Plan Policies A.6.2.2 and A.6.2.3 is to provide the direction
necessary to bring about the change that has been envisioned for neighborhoods and
properties such as this one. Based upon these policies the approval of a new single-family
detached dwelling on the subj ect property that is contrary in its use to the zoning designation
of the property, and would only serve to perpetuate the ongoing economic underutilization
and underdevelopment of the neighborhood, and would become an impediment to land
assembly opportunities cannot be supported and the application should be denied.
Consistencv with the General Purpose of the CDC:
As was noted previously, there are properties within the subject block that have been
assembled for the purpose of future commercial development, and the owner of these
properties is intent upon acquiring additional land to be a part of this development. Among
these pieces of land is the parcel immediately to the south of the subject property. The
approval of a residential use on the subject property would have a distinct and negative
impact upon the redevelopment potential of this adjacent property that would not be present
should the subject property redevelop in-line with adopted C District development standards.
Specifically, Section 3-1202.D.1., CDC, requires where non-residential development is
proposed adjacent to other non-residential development that a five-foot wide landscape
buffer be provided with one tree every 35 feet (on center) and a continuous shrubs (hedge)
for 100% of the length of this buffer. However, this same Section requires where non-
residential development is proposed adjacent to a detached dwelling that this perimeter
landscape buffer have a width of twelve feet and that the shrubs (hedge) attain a height of six
feet within three years of planting.
Non-Residential Adjacent to Non-Residential Non-Residential Adjacent to Detached Dwelling
5-foot wide landscape buffer 12-foot wide landscape buffer
One tree/35 feet One tree/35 feet
100%shrubs 100%shrubs(height of 6 feet within 3 years)
What this means is that the approval of a detached dwelling on the subject property would
constitute an impediment to the redevelopment of the surrounding properties, and not just the
property to the south either. What this means is further expense in developing these adjacent
properties, and additional hurdles that a prospective owner/developer would need to
overcome in order to obtain fair and equitable value for their property.
Section 1-103, CDC, sets forth the general purposes of the Code. Among those stated are the
following purposes that would be violated should the proposed application be approved:
Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative
impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever
practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will
enhance the value of surrounding properties.
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 5
Section 1-103.E.3. Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the
value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and minimize the
conflicts among the uses of land and buildings.
Consistencv with the Intent and Purpose of the Commercial (C) District:
The intent and purpose of the C District is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater
with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely
impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the
city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the
City of Clearwater.
The development of the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling would fail to
meet the aforementioned intent and purpose of the district as it will not provide the
surrounding neighborhood with access to good and services. Failing this, the application
cannot be supported and should be denied.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding properties.
As discussed previously, the subject property has a zoning designation of C; the purpose of
which is for the property (most likely in conjunction with other surrounding property) to be
developed with the purpose of providing access to goods and services to the citizens of the
City. This would be what is envisioned as being "normal and orderly development." As the
development proposal would not accomplish this and instead develop the property as a
detached dwelling, it cannot be found to comply with this criterion as it would perpetuate the
neighborhood as existing in a manner that is contrary to the established vision.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
As discussed previously, if the subject property is developed as a detached dwelling the
perimeter landscape buffer required to be provide on the adjacent properties increases
substantially. This would result in an impediment to the redevelopment of these surrounding
properties manifested in greater development expenditures and additional hurdles that a
prospective owner/developer would need to overcome in order to obtain fair and equitable
value for their property.
5. The proposed use shall otheYwise 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:
a. The pYOposed 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;
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 6
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or Yedevelopment of an existing
economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development oY 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.
The underlying future land use plan designation for the subject property is General
Commercial (GC), which pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules, includes residential uses as
being appropriate and consistent with the category. As noted previously, the surrounding
area includes a mix of attached and detached dwellings, so the proposal will be compatible
with adjacent land uses and will not alter the characteristics of the neighborhood. Further,
the proposal is consistent with objective "e", above, for those same reasons having just been
noted.
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:
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 inteYesting 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 mateYials, coloYS and textures;
❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns;
❑ Building step backs; and
❑ Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides foY appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design
and appropriate distances between buildings.
It is noted that in order for a positive finding to be made with regard to this criterion,
compliance must be demonstrated with all of the noted design objectives. While there
appears to be compliance with regard to objectives "b", "c", "d" and "e", the development
proposal cannot achieve compliance with objective "a" as the proposal would not develop the
property with the purpose of providing access to goods and services to the citizens of the City
of Clearwater, which is what is envisioned as being "normal and orderly development" for
properties with a zoning designation of C. As this obj ective has not been achieved, the
criterion has not been met.
Community Development Board—November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 7
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704, CDC:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 24 du/ac 12.5 du/ac X
I.S.R. 0.9 0.51 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 3,500 square feet(0.08 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 50 feet X
Maximum Height N/A 13 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 15 feet(to building) X
Side: N/A East: 6 feet(to building) X
West: 6 feet(to building) X
Rear: N/A South: 6 feet(to building) X
Minimum Detemuned by the Community 2 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking Development Coordinator based on
the specific use and/or ITE Manual
standards(2 parking spaces)
Community Development Board—November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 8
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per Section 2-704.C., CDC, (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
L 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 pernutted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar 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 arderly 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;
a 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
0 Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildin s.
Community Development Board—November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 9
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 Section 3-914.A., CDC:
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 olfacto and hours of o eration im acts on ad�acent ro erties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of October 5, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1. That the 0.08-acre (3,500 square foot) subject property is located on the south side of Cedar
Street, approximately 125 feet east of North Fort Harrison Avenue;
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 currently vacant;
4. That the subject property has a width of 50 feet as measured at the front (north)property line;
5. That the development proposal requests the approval of a use (detached dwelling) that is not
specifically authorized by the Community Development Code for the C District;
6. That the development proposal includes a front setback of 15 feet as well as side and rear
setbacks of six feet;
7. That the development proposal includes a building height of 13 feet, and the provisions of
two off-street parking spaces;
8. That Comprehensive Plan Policy A.6.2.2 encourages land use conversions on economically
underutilized parcels and corridors to promote redevelopment activities in these areas; and
Comprehensive Plan Policy A.6.2.3 states that redevelopment activities should be targeted in
areas where land assembly opportunities exist;
9. That the intent and purpose of the C District is to provide the citizens of the City of
Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city; and
10. That there are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 10
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, CDC;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in Sections
2-704.C.1 and 5, CDC;
3. That the development proposal is not consistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in
Sections 2-704.C.2, 3, 4 and 6, CDC;
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Sections 3-914.A.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, CDC; and
5. That the development proposal is not consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A.2, CDC.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the
Flexible Development application to permit a single-family detached dwelling within the
Commercial (C) District with a lot size of 3,500 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (north)
setback of 15 feet, a rear (south) setback of six feet, side (east and west) setbacks of six feet, a
height of 13 feet, and two off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-704.C.
__ _
:, ^,_�
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ° � = +�
� Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS:Location Map;Aerial Map;Zoning Map;Existing Surrounding Uses Map;and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
FLD2011-09029—Page 11