Loading...
11/15/2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER November 15, 2011 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Thomas Coates Vice-Chair Richard Adelson Board Member Frank L. Dame Board Member Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member Absent: Doreen DiPolito Board Member Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member Brian A. Barker Board Member Also Present: Morris Massey Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael Delk Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton Assistant 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: October 18, 2011 Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of October 18, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 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 – 5) 1. Case: FLD2011-10035 - 2118 Drew Street Level Two Application Owner: Leichgeld, LLC Applicants: Josepha Myron, Mark Myron Agent: Eric Glinsboeckel, G2 Design, LLC (1030 35th Ave. N, St. Petersburg, FL 33704; phone: 727-527-0130; email: eric@g2darchitecture.com) Location: 0.63 acre on the north side of Drew Street and immediately west of Starcrest Drive Atlas Page: 280B Zoning: Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 5,220 square-foot Veterinary Office in an existing building within the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 27,407 square-feet, a lot width of 123.7 feet, front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to pavement), and 30.9 feet (to existing building), side (east) setback of 2.16 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of 2 feet (to existing Community Development 2011-11-15 1 pavement) and 46.8 feet (to existing building), rear (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to proposed pavement) and 103 feet (to existing building), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 25 off- street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the Provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the required interior landscaping from 10% of the vehicular use area to 8.4%, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Veterinary Office Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Agenda for Staff Report. See page 3 for motion of approval. 2. Case: FLD2011-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Boulevard Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: WRI Countryside Centre, LLC Agent: Dale Menninger (2600 Citadel Plaza Drive, Houston, TX 77008; phone: 407-516- 7517; email: dmenninger@weingarten.com) Location: 16.6-acres on the south side of Countryside Boulevard between U.S. Highway 19 N and Village Drive Atlas Page: 221B Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 4,596 square-foot addition to an existing 240,969 square-foot Retail Sales and Service use in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 722,886 square-feet, a lot width of 945 feet (along Village Drive), a building height of 33 feet, a front setback (along Village Drive) of 5.2 feet (to proposed pavement), and 3.66 parking spaces per 1,000 feet of floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Village Drive from 15 feet to 5.2 feet, a reduction to the foundation landscape from five feet to zero feet for existing buildings, to allow more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an interior landscape island, to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square-feet and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Service Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Cypress Bend Neighborhood Association Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Agenda for Staff Report. See page 3 for motion of approval. 3. Case: FLD2011-09030 – 2800 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Limited Properties Inc./Hooters Management Corporation Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-235-8475) Location: 1.93 acres at the northeast corner of Hampton Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Community Development 2011-11-15 2 Atlas Page: 291B Zoning: Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 2,138 square-foot addition to an existing 4,996 square-foot restaurant in the Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District with a lot area of 84,066 square-feet (1.93 acres), a lot width of 185.01 feet (along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) and 255 feet (along Hampton Road), front (south) setbacks of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.2 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of 3.9 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.1 foot (to building), side (east) setbacks of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 114.3 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setbacks of 5.1 feet (to pavement) and 157.8 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement), and a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 15.8 feet (to top of parapet wall) and 21.3 feet (to mid-point of pitched roof), and 107 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B., as well as reduction to the front (south) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet (along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 1.1 feet (along Hampton Road), a reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, a reduction to the side (north) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of side (west) setback of 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the parking lot interior island standard for existing interior islands from 8 feet green space (from back of curb to back of curb) and 150 square-feet to 7.8 feet green space (from back of curb to back of curb) and 143 square-feet and 7.9 feet green space (from back of curb to back of curb) and 147 square-feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhood Association Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2011-10035, FLD2011-09033, and FLD2011-09030 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application Case: TA2011-10002 – Amendments to the Community Development Code Applicant: City of Clearwater Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code providing for public food service establishments with a permit to allow patrons’ dogs on the premises in designated outdoor seating areas. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Planner III. See Agenda for Staff Report. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reviewed the staff report. Community Development 2011-11-15 3 It was recommended that restaurants also be required to provide sanitizing lotion at entrances with signs requiring wait staff to clean their hands each time they enter. Concern was expressed that proposed rules amount to overkill, as service dogs are permitted in restaurants without problem or sanitizing regulations. It was stated that Clearwater wants to encourage outdoor cafés. Ms. Dougall-Sides said drafted language reflects State requirements and is similar to Dunedin’s ordinance. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case TA2011-10002 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, Adelson, and Dame voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch and Acting Member Carlough voted “Nay.” Case TA2011-10002 was continued automatically to December 20, 2011. 5. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2011-08028 – 740 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Michael Thomas Modano Agent: Kalah Woerner / Walt Chancey, Chancey Design Partnership (1228 East 7th Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33635; phone: 813-248-9258; fax: 727-374-0209; email: kwoerner@chanceydesign.com) Location: The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125 feet south of Bohenia Circle South. Atlas Page: 249A Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Request: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,534 square-feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Agenda for Staff Report. Sandra Britton requested Party Status and indicated Anne Garris would speak for her. Member Coates moved to grant Sandra Britton Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Coates moved to accept Kevin Nurnberger as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and code enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner III Kevin Nurnberger reviewed the staff report. Community Development 2011-11-15 4 Concern was expressed that the fence line crosses the CCCL. Development Review Manager Robert Tefft said State approval would be required to install the proposed 8-inch glass balustrade on seawall seaward of the CCCL. Representative Walt Chancey said the design intends to add a fence to the top of the seawall for the swimming pool; the seawall encroaches on the CCCL at the northern property boundary. He said the house was designed to meet the pattern of nearby development with side and front setbacks consistent with the neighborhood. On behalf of Party Status Holder Sandra Britton, Anne Garris spoke in opposition to the request as it does not meet two infill criteria and proposed setbacks will reduce green space too much. Mr. Nurnberger said the request reflects the emerging pattern of development on the street; front setbacks range from 1 to 15 feet. It was noted the current pattern of redevelopment on the beach replaces smaller homes with larger ones. On behalf of Party Status Holder Britton, Ms. Garris said residents had been told that setback reductions for previous development would not establish precedent. She said zoning should improve an area, not allow it to be covered with cement. She said people who want to construct larger homes need to purchase larger properties. Mr. Chancey said they had taken great care to design the 2,900 square-foot home to fit in the neighborhood. Except for the driveway, he said the front yard is landscaped; the house will be setback two feet farther from the sidewalk than the current house. He said much of the existing concrete will be removed from the side and rear of the property. He agreed to relocate the fence landward of the CCCL. Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2011-08028 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 and one condition to allow no new construction seaward of the CCCL. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 – 3) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004 – 150 - 190 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Brightwater Blue Resort, LLC Agent: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates (P.O. Box 6015, Palm Harbor, FL 34684 phone: 727-804-1760; email: todd@pressmaninc.com) Location: 2.07 acres located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800 feet east of Hamden Drive Atlas Page: 276A Zoning: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development application (1) to permit a Resort Attached Dwelling use of 54 units and 12 overnight accommodation units in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 90,596 square- feet (2.07 acres), a lot width of 730 feet, a front (south) setback of 11 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 10 feet (to building and pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building and pavement), a rear (north) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to Community Development 2011-11-15 5 sidewalk), a building height of 48.2 feet (to top of flat roof) with an additional 15.6 feet for architectural parapets and 113 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; and a phased development order to allow five years to submit building permits for all phases, (2) to permit a 57- slip, 6,773 square-foot Commercial Dock with an increase to the permitted width of docks from 75 percent of the waterfront lot width to 86 percent under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Resort Attached Dwelling and Overnight Accommodations Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III Due to board member absences, representative Todd Pressman requested this item be continued to December 20, 2011. Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2010-06004 to December 20, 2011. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Case: FLD2011-09029 – 507 Cedar Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Robert F. Clayton Agent: Jay F. Myers (9170 Oakhurst Road, Suite 313, Seminole, FL 33776; phone: 727- 595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; email: myersarch@ix.netcom.com) Location: 0.08 acre located on the south side of Cedar Street, approximately 125 feet east of North Fort Harrison Avenue. Atlas Page: 268B Zoning: Commercial (C) District 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. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager See Agenda for Staff Report. Member Coates moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Tefft reviewed the staff report, which recommends denial of the request. In response to a question, he said the property owner could construct a building with offices upstairs and parking below or assemble properties for a larger development. The property’s zoning last changed in 1999, when the Community Development Code was adopted. Applicant Robert Clayton reviewed his plans to build a green house for his use. He said the City had razed the residence on site in 1999 one week before he obtained the property via a tax Community Development 2011-11-15 6 deed sale. He said the neighborhood is not an active redevelopment area but has significant dumping, homeless, and drunks. He said no development has occurred nearby since the 1950s. He said no one has offered to assemble nearby properties in the past 12 years. He said office construction would be too expensive as it would be very small and have to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements, including an elevator. He said he did not need a tree buffer. Assistant Planning and Development Director Gina Clayton said the 1999 update to the Code collapsed six commercial districts into one. She said this property would have been zoned as a commercial type property prior to the update. One person spoke in support of the application. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said mixed-use construction would be allowed. Mr. Clayton said parking requirements for a mixed-use could not be achieved due to the lot’s small size. He said commercial development could not fit on the small lot. It was noted tax sales sometimes have risk. Information was requested regarding the property’s zoning at the time of purchase. Attorney for the Board Morris Massey said the board needs to consider the property’s current zoning and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the property had to comply with current zoning following demolition of the unsafe building. Acting Member Carlough moved to recommend denial of Case FLD2011-09029 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. Member Adelson, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Members Coates and Dame voted “Nay.” Case FLD2011-09029 was continued automatically to December 20, 2011. 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Level Two Application Owner: Robert N. Lynch, as Bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, A Corporation Sole Applicant: Catholic Charities Community Development Corporation Agent: Frank Murphy (P.O. Box 40200, St. Petersburg, FL, 33743; phone: 727-344- 1611; fax: 727-374-0209; email: fmurphy@ccdosp.org) Location: 1.02 acres on the north side of Franklin Street, approximately 145 feet east of Betty Lane Atlas Page: 287B Zoning: Institutional (I) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Residential Shelter in the Institutional (I) District with a lot area of 44,431 square-feet, a lot width of 232 feet, a front (north) setback of 28 feet (to existing building), a side (east) setback of zero feet (to existing driveway), a side (west) setback of 5.2 feet (to existing pavement and covered parking structure), a rear (south) setback of 210 feet (to existing covered parking structure), a building height of 23 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and five parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1204.A and reduction to the south and east perimeter landscape buffers from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to a portion of the west perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5.2 feet and the remainder of the buffer from five feet to zero feet and a reduction in amount of required interior landscaping from 437 square-feet to 177 square-feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Community Development 2011-11-15 7 Proposed Use: Residential Shelter Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, East Gateway Business and Neighbors Association Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II Due to board member absences, representative Frank Murphy requested this item be continued to December 20, 2011. Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2011-09032 to December 20, 2011. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F -ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m. ' / 14! Pr. Chair Community Development Board Attest. i Board Reporter Community Development 2011-11-15 8 V } CJearwater 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 November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150 - 190 Brightwater Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD201 1-09029—507 Cedar Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 5. Case: FLD2011-10035 -2118 Drew Street Yes No S:(Planning Department\CD BlAgendas DRC&CDB(CDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc 6. Case: FLD2011-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes X No 7. Case: FLD22011-09030—2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes /` No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA2011-10002—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a personal investijation on the personal site visit to the followinii properties. Signature: s �_ Date: /2/Zok PRINT NAME S.•\Planning Department)C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBI CDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc U • PPIF , , 1110 s 0 C} Clearwater _ - U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides,Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana,Assistant City Clerk;/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150 - 190 Brightwater Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue �.J Yes No 5. Case: FLD20 1-1 35 -2118 Drew Street Yes No S:(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc 6. Case: FLD261 ,-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes No t 7. Case:FLDf 201,1-09030—2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA20 1 1-1 0002—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducte r a person, inves igation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: (2-21 I I( ( 0 ecMb PRINT NAME S.•IPlanning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc LL >._ _ ..,„.........„„,..„ U w„,..., 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 November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150 - 190 Brightwater Drive Yes No X 2. Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street Yes X No 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes X No 4. Case: FLD201 1-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue Yes No X 5. Case: FLD2011-10035 -2118 Drew Street Yes A- No S:(Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDB(CDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc y 6. Case: FLD20111-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes x No 7. Case: FLD201 1-09030—2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA2011-10002—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes X No I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: 1Z-4-100/9,6„,r. Date: L/' l J/1/ P— e-/.M,--' f l!- ?k/ PRINT NAME S:(Planning Department1CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBI CDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc V } Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides,Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase,City Clerk Specialist; Sue Diana,Assistant City Clerk;/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150- 190 Brightwater Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street Yes tJ No 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 5. Case: FLD2011-10035 -2118 Drew Street Yes y\ No S:(Planning Department\C D BUAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc 6. Case: FLD2011-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes No 7. Case: FLD2011-09030-2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes VN No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA2011-10002-Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a tigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: // 5//// R-A-1 _7- PRINT NAME S:(Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc O 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 November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150 - 190 Brightwater Drive Yes / No 2. Case: FLD2011-09029—507 Cedar Street Yes No t/ 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes No i 4. Case: FLD201 1-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue Yes ✓ No 5. Case: FLD2011-10035 -2118 Drew Street Yes No S:(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc "a 6. Case: FLD2011-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes No 7. Case: FLD201 1-09030—2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes / No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA2011-10002—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No NIA( I have conducted pers nal investifa i on th�personal site visit to the followinu properties. Signature: /A., Date: i( — / I( 4 PRINT NAME S:(Planning DepartmentIC D B1Agendas DRC&CDBICDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc 4 LL aater 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 November 15,2012 DATE: November 09,2011 CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items: Agenda Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting Level Two Applications (Item 1-7) 1. Case: FLD2010-06004— 150 - '190 Brightwater Drive Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-09029— 507 edar Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-09032 -1305 Franklin Street Yes No 4. Case: FLD2011-08028 —740 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 5. Case: FLD2011-10035 -211 rew Street Yes No S:(Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc 'V. 6. Case: FLD2011-09033 -2539-2569 Countryside Yes No ~� 7. Case: FLD201 1-09030—280 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Yes No LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: TA2011-10002—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducte(/1 a peso i l irfvesti'' ion ,,r7 the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: ! Date: ` 7 1 v7 1 PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department)C D BU4gendas DRC&CDBICDB12011111 November 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-10035 Agenda Item: D.5. Owner: Leichgeld, LLC Applicant: Josepha Myron, Mark Myron Address: 2118 Drew Street CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 5,220 square foot Veterinary Office in an existing building within the Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts with a lot area of 27,407 square feet, a lot width of 123.7 feet, front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to pavement), and 30.9 feet (to existing building), side (east) setback of 2.16 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of 2 feet (to existing pavement) and 46.8 feet (to existing building), rear (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to proposed pavement) and 103 feet (to existing building), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 25 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the Provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the required interior landscaping from 10% of the vehicular use area to 8.4%, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant (previously Office) Proposed Use: Veterinary Office EXISTING North: Office (O) District SURROUNDING Office ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Office East: Commercial (C) District Office West: Commercial (C) District Office Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.63 acre site is located on the north side of Drew Street and immediately west of Starcrest Drive. The site consists of an existing 5,220 square foot building with twenty-five off-street parking spaces. Parking areas are located to the north and west sides of the building. The lot is narrow with a 123 foot width; however, it is a deep lot (approximately 239 feet) which accounts for the existing site layout. The majority of the property is in the Commercial (C) District; however the northern 25 feet of the property are in the Office (O) District; however the entire property has a Future Land Use Designation of Commercial General (CG). The O District portion of the property will be used as landscaping and parking. The building is set back 30.9 feet from the front property line along Drew Street. It is approximately 39.9 feet wide and is situated adjacent to the east property line. Surrounding properties are in the C and O Districts however all have an office use. Development Proposal: The application proposes to establish a Veterinary Clinic in the existing 5,220 square foot office building. This site will serve as a Veterinary Clinic only and will not provide animal boarding or kenneling. Previously this location was occupied by a Land Surveying Office which moved in 2009 and a Real Estate Office which closed in 2011. The change in use from Office to Veterinary Clinic and the existing non-conforming setbacks required the applicant to file an application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The site conforms to current standards for minimum lot area, lot width, impervious surface ratio (I.S.R.) and floor area ratio (F.A.R.), however additional landscaping is proposed. The existing building and pavement setbacks are nonconforming to current Code requirements. Asphalt is proposed to be removed at the rear property line; this will increase the site conformity with an increased setback, landscape buffer, and interior landscaping and will not detract from the function or parking requirements of the site. The applicant proposes to make some minor modifications to the facade by painting the building. Other site improvements will include restriping the parking lot, ensuring handicap access routes comply with ADA requirements, and adding landscaping within allowable areas. The proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55 for properties with a Future Land Use Map designation of CG. The overall proposed FAR is 0.19, which is consistent with the above. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90 for properties with a Future Land Use Map designation of CG. The proposed ISR is 0.75, 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 requirement for offices is 10,000 square feet. The subject Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 property has a lot area of 27,407 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement for an office is 100 feet. The width of the subject property is 123.4 feet along Drew Street. 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 setback requirements for an office are 25 feet (front), 10 feet (rear), and 20 feet (rear). With regard to setbacks to the existing building, no changes are proposed to the site that would affect the existing building setbacks. However a swath of asphalt, 9 feet by 99 feet to the north will be removed and replaced with landscaping. The parking spaces in this area will be shifted to the south and with not have negative results to the dimensions or drive aisle. In addition asphalt will be removed for a 17 foot by 21 foot landscape island in the northeast corner of the property. This additional landscaping will result in a 12 foot rear setback and landscape area. Flexibility has been requested with regard to the setbacks to the vehicular use areas and building. The request includes a side (east) setback of 2.16 feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 2 feet (to existing pavement), and a rear (north) setback of 12 feet (to proposed pavement).The setbacks to existing pavement and building 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 an office can range between 25 feet 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 a veterinary clinic use is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for a 5,220 square foot building would result in a requirement of 21 spaces. The site has 25 parking spaces. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a fifteen-foot wide landscape buffer along Drew Street, and five-foot wide landscape buffers on the sides and rear. The request for flexibility is for a reduction to the side (east and west) landscape buffers from 5 feet to 2 feet. To mitigate for the deviations to the landscape buffer requirements, asphalt will be removed for a 9 feet by 99 feet area along the north property line and asphalt will be removed for a 17 foot by 21 foot landscape island at the northeast corner of the property. This additional landscaping will provide a landscape buffer along the north property line that is in excess of minimum code requirements as well as and increase in the amount of interior landscaping from 1.5 to 8.4 percent of the vehicular use area. The site and surrounding sites have mature live oaks, as such only one shade tree is proposed in the new landscape island. Shrubs and ground cover are proposed for the north, south, east and west boundaries while two accent trees are proposed on the western buffer and one in the landscape island adjacent to the west building façade. The additional landscaping area and materials make up for the deficiency in the width of the buffers to visually enhance the property. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-1202., 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. Additional landscaping is proposed that will increase the amount of interior landscaping from 1.5 to 8.4 percent of the vehicular use area. Foundation landscaping of ground cover and shrubs is proposed for 100 percent of the building façade area. Staff supports the proposed landscaping. 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 site currently does not have any curbing, wheel stops, or other protective devised along the perimeter of any of the landscaping. Is will be a condition of approval that the site will provide protection as required in CDC Section 3-1204.D. 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 site has an existing dumpster. This location will be moved to the south as a swath of asphalt will be removed for additional landscaping. The dumpster will be screened with six foot PVC fencing. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 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 structure or landscaping is proposed within the sight 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. 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, the Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts as per CDC Sections 2-701.1, Table 2-704, 2-1001.1 and Table 2-1004: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.19 X ISR 0.90 0.75 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 27,407 sq. ft. (0.63 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A Drew: 299 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 25 feet (to pavement) X 30.9 feet (to building) Side: N/A East: 2.16 feet (to building) X West: 2 feet (to pavement) X 46.8 feet (to building) Rear: N/A North: 12 feet (to pavement) X 103 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 16 feet (to pitched roof) X Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 25 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (21 spaces) COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 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. 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. 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: Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 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 November 3, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1.The 0.63 acres on the north side of Drew Street and immediately west of Starcrest Drive; 2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.The site is currently improved with a 5,220 square foot office building; 4.The application proposes to convert the existing 5,220 square-foot office building into a veterinary clinic; 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 remove existing asphalt to provide additional buffer width and 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 negative impact upon the following development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height; 9.The proposed use will not exacerbate the existing nonconforming setbacks for the off-street parking area; 10.Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed use is compatible and consistent with this character of the immediate area; and 11.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: Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10035 2011-11-15 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Sections 2-701.1 and 2-1001.1 and Tables 2-703 and 2-1003, of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2- 704.C and 2-1004.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.That the development 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 5,220 square foot Veterinary Office in an existing building within the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 27,407 square feet, a lot width of 123.7 feet, front (south) setbacks of 25 feet (to pavement), and 30.9 feet (to existing building), side (east) setback of 2.16 feet (to existing building), side (west) setbacks of 2 feet (to existing pavement) and 46.8 feet (to existing building), rear (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to proposed pavement) and 103 feet (to existing building), a building height of 16 feet (to flat roof), and 25 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the Provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-703.C., as well as reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 2 feet, a reduction in the required interior landscaping from 10% of the vehicular use area to 8.4%, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the 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 certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first adequate landscaping as per CDC requirements in Section CDC Section 3- 1202.B. be provided in the rear landscape area and a new landscape plan is provided; 3.That, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, pin curbing be provided around all landscape areas adjacent to vehicular use as per CDC Section 3-1204.D.; 4.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; Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Ellen Crandall, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 10035 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-09033 Agenda Item: D.6. Owner: W R I Countryside Centre, LLC Applicant: W R I Countryside Centre, LLC Representative: Dale Menninger Address: 2539-2569 Countryside Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an additional 4,596 square feet to an existing 240,969 square feet Retail Sales and Service use in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 722,886 square feet, a lot width of 945 feet (along Village Drive), a building height of 33 feet, a front setback (along Village Drive) of 5.2 feet (to proposed pavement), and 3.66 parking spaces per 1,000 feet of floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Village Drive from 15 feet to 5.2 feet, a reduction to the foundation landscape from five feet to zero feet for existing buildings, to allow more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an interior landscape island, to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING:Commercial (C) District LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales and Restaurant Proposed: Retail Sales and Restaurant EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Retail Sales and Restaurant ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Restaurant East: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District Attached Dwellings West: Commercial (C) District, Office (O) District Retail Sales and Restaurant Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 16.6-acre subject property, located south of Countryside Boulevard between U.S. Highway 19 and Village Drive, consists of one parcel and has the zoning designation of Commercial (C) District with an underlying future land use plan category of Commercial General (CG). The property is bordered on its east side by attached dwellings (Inverness Condominiums); and on the north, south and west by retail sales and restaurants. The subject property is developed as an open plaza (Countryside Plaza) composed of multiple parcels and out parcels, however this development is only affecting one parcel and only this specific parcel is being reviewed. The proposed Ross expansion will encompass multiple existing tenants and expand new floor area to the east. Overall the expansion will be located at the southeast portion of the parcel. The Countryside Plaza site is now constrained by U.S Highway 19 to the west, Village Drive to the east, Countryside Boulevard to the north and a office development to the south. Without the ability to expand beyond its current borders, redevelopment of the existing site is the only option to improve the Countryside Plaza. Development Proposal: On September 1, 2011, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to expand the existing open plaza as follows: Construct a one-story addition encompassing existing tenant spaces and expanding to the south-east side with an increase of 4,596 square feet; Reconfigure, remove, and realign parking spaces reducing the parking ratio from 3.88 to 3.66 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; Remove several existing landscape islands and reduce buffers while providing new landscaping areas and increasing the interior landscaping island from 10.3 percent to 11.2 percent and providing new enhanced landscaping on the frontage of Village Drive along the pond banks. The only building improvements that will take place are located on the southeast portion of the Plaza. The proposed addition will be attached to the existing plaza and will add an additional 4,596 square feet of gross floor area. The building addition will have a setback of 78 feet from Village Drive. Two additional dumpsters are proposed and will be within landscaped masonry enclosures which match the building façade. The wall will be landscaped to screen the loading area in a similar fashion to the existing Home Goods loading area. Regarding the architecture of the proposed addition, the western façade is the main entrance and will have columns with cast stone cap and a tiered parapet. The eastern façade is the service and loading area and will be screened by an 11.16 foot tall wall which will be an extension of the façade architecture. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 2 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Commercial General (CG) land use category and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55. The existing development along with the proposed addition will result in an FAR of 0.34. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-1201.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the CG land use plan categories is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.78 which is less than what may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1204, 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 in the Commercial (C) District is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area for the subject property is 722,886 square feet (16.6 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for retail sales in the C District is 100 feet. The lot width along Village Drive is 945 feet, along Countryside Boulevard it is 484 feet and along US Highway 19 it is 33 feet. The development proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for restaurants and retail sales. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1204, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setback requirements for retail sales in the C Districts are front setbacks of 15 – 25 feet and side setbacks of 0 – 10 feet. Regarding structural setbacks, all buildings greatly exceed the setback requirements. The closest building to the front (east) is setback 78 feet from Village Drive. Regarding existing pavement setbacks, the pavement on the front (east) is setback 5.2 at the closest point. This reduction in front setback is to accommodate existing and proposed parking stalls. The existing 5.2 foot front setback is proposed to expand to accommodate additional parking stalls. As the plaza is already reducing their parking to 3.6 per 1,000 feet of floor area and the site is constrained by three road frontages, staff has no objections to the proposed setbacks. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1204, there is no maximum allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the allowable building height for retail sales in the C District ranges from 25-50 feet. The proposed structure will have a maximum building height of 33 feet to top of parapet. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1204, 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. However, for a point of comparison the off-street parking requirement for retail sales and indoor recreation and entertainment in the C District is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above and the proposed 245,565 square feet of gross floor area the site would require 1,228 parking spaces. The provided parking demand study supports a parking reduction to 3.66 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposal includes a total of 899 parking spaces. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 3 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 The applicant has submitted a Parking Study to justify the proposed number of off-street parking spaces. The applicant’s consultant studied the existing 240,969 square foot shopping plaza with 934 parking spaces (3.88 spaces/tgsf). The hours of operation for the studied location were between 11 am – 7 pm daily. This study found the weekday peak hour to be between 12 pm and 1 pm and the weekend peak hour to be Saturday from 1 pm and 2 pm. During the peak weekday hour 456 spaces were occupied which is 2.98 spaces per thousand feet of floor area. During the peak weekend hours 525 spaces were occupied which calculates to 3.43 spaces per thousand feet of floor area. It determined that a parking ratio of 3.66 per 1,000 square feet of floor area was adequate to serve the proposed 245,565 building. The site will have a total of 899 parking spaces. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Landscaping: Further complicating the redevelopment efforts is the fact that the current landscape standards are more stringent now than when the site developed; therefore, the existing site does not fully comply with the current landscape code requirements. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, perimeter landscape buffers of 15 feet are required for all street frontages. Parking is critical to have a successful plaza; therefore, to provide for the parking ratio of 3.66 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area no parking spaces can be removed. A substantial number of parking spaces would have to be removed to meet the landscape buffer requirements. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area must be provided as landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size and shall be designed so that no more than 15 parking spaces are in a row. The site is proposing to increase the total interior landscape island from 10.3 percent to 11.2 percent of the vehicular use area devoted to interior landscape islands. Some of the existing islands are not eight feet wide, nor are they a minimum 150 square feet and more than 15 parking spaces are in a row. Again, to maintain the current parking ratio, no parking spaces are proposed to be removed. 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, excluding space necessary for building ingress/egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees (or palm equivalents) for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. The existing buildings do not have the required foundation landscaping however the proposed addition has one facade along a street right-of-way which will be landscaped. The majority of the east façade will be used as a loading area and an 11.16 foot high masonry wall is proposed in addition to a 5 foot wide landscape buffer along the wall. North of the wall the landscape buffer expands up to 17 feet in width. To mitigate for reduced buffer widths, removed landscape islands, the size and number of interior landscape islands, and lack of foundation plantings, the applicant has proposed a Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 Comprehensive Landscape Program which includes landscaping along Village Drive between the pond and the rights of way. These include the addition of 2 shade trees, 9 accent trees, over 300 shrubs and over 500 groundcover plants. It is important to note that the proposed landscape material is in addition to the existing landscaping. The proposed landscape material will enhance the existing buffer along Village Drive. By enhancing all the entrances with attractive landscaping, the landscaped entryways will be more attractive than otherwise would be under minimum code. Staff concurs that the proposed landscaping will enhance the community character and will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent Architectural theme 1. : a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is 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 X comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 5 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the CG land use categories and the C District as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.34 X ISR 0.90 0.78 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 723,096 sq. ft. (16.6 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 945 ft. (Village Drive) X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: 5.2 feet (to pavement) X 1 51 feet (to wall) 78 (to building) Maximum Height N/A 33 feet (to top of parapet) X 1 Minimum Off-Street Parking 5 spaces/ 1,000 SF GFA 899 parking spaces X 1 (3.66 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA) 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C and 2-1204.A (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes;  Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,  pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures;  Distinctive fenestration patterns;  Building stepbacks; and  Distinctive roofs forms.  e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 6, 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 16.6-acre subject property is located west of Village Drive and south of Countryside Boulevard; 2.The property is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying future land use plan category of Commercial General (CG); 3.The subject property is currently developed with 240,969 square feet of gross floor area; 4.The proposed structure will have a height of 33 feet; 5.The proposal includes an addition of 4,596 square feet of gross floor area; 6.The proposal includes 899 parking spaces (3.66 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA); 7.The proposal includes reductions to all perimeter landscape buffers; 8.The proposal includes reductions to the foundation landscape requirements on the east façade of the proposed expansion; 9.The proposal includes a request to allow more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an interior landscape island; 10.The proposal includes a request to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb; 11.This proposal does not include any proposed signage; and 12.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09033 2011-11-15 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1, 2-704; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A; and 4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development Application to permit an additional 4,596 square feet to an existing 240,969 Square Feet of Retail Sales and Service in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 906,440 square feet, a lot width of 945 feet along Village Drive, a building height of 33 feet, a front setback (along Village Drive) of 5.2 feet (to proposed pavement), and 3.66 parking spaces per 1000 feet of floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C and 2-1204A, with a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Village Drive from 15 feet to 5.2 feet, a reduction to the foundation landscape from five feet to zero feet on the east facade, to allow more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an interior landscape island, to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That all proposed landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 2.That, prior to issuance of a building permit, the final location of the Fire Department Connection be within 25-50 feet of a fire hydrant; 3.That, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Fire Department Connection shall be 15' off the building; 4.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the buildings be painted the same color as the building; 5.That the dumpster enclosure shall be made of a masonry wall of similar material, architectural details and colors as the proposed addition; 6.That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; and 7.That a Comprehensive Sign Program Amendment be submitted and approved for the attached signage. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Ellen Crandall, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09033– Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-09030 Agenda Item: D. 7. Owner: Limited Properties, Inc. Applicant: Hooters Management Corporation Agent: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Address: 2800 Gulf to Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 2,138 square foot addition to an existing 4,996 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District with a lot area of 84,141 square feet (1.93 acres), a lot width of 185.01 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 255 feet (along Hampton Road), front (south) setbacks of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.2 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of 3.9 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.1 foot (to building), side (east) setbacks of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 114.3 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setbacks of 5.1 feet (to pavement) and 157.8 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement), and a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 15.8 feet (to top of parapet wall) and 21.3 feet (to mid-point of pitched roof), and 107 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B., as well as reduction to the front (south) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 1.1 feet (along Hampton Road), a reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, a reduction to the side (north) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of side (west) perimeter buffer of 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the parking lot interior island standard for existing interior islands from 8 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 150 square feet to 7.8 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 143 square feet and 7.9 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 147 square feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C), and Office (O) Districts FUTURE LAND USE Commercial General (CG), and PLAN CATEGORY:Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) PROPERTY USE: Current: Restaurant Proposed: Restaurant Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 EXISTING North: Office (O) District SURROUNDING Offices ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District Restaurant East: C and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts Restaurant and Detached Dwellings West: C and LMDR Districts Retail Sales and Service and Retention Pond ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.93 acre property is located on the northeast corner of Hampton Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. It’s the location of the original Hooters restaurant. This property has two zoning classifications. The southern portion of the property (1.24 acres) is zoned Commercial (C) District and consists of the existing 4,996 square foot restaurant and 66 parking spaces. The northern portion of the property (0.69 acres) is zoned Office (O) District and consists of a reserve parking area with 45 parking spaces. The property has 185 feet of frontage on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 255 feet along Hampton Road. The property can be directly accessed from both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Hampton Road; however, it may also be accessed from the adjoining property to the north as well as by the property to the east off David Avenue. To the south, located directly across Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a shopping center that consists of various retails sales and services and restaurants. The adjacent property to the east consists of a Pete and Shorty’s restaurant. To the north, is the Hooters Corporate office building. Located to the west, across Hampton Road, is another shopping center that consists of various restaurants, and retail sales and service uses. Development Proposal: This development proposal is a request to allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant. The primary purpose of the request is to add 2,138 square feet of indoor floor area for a new dining/bar room area that will allow for the enlargement of the restaurants back of house facilities such as the kitchen, restrooms, preparation and wait staff area. The expansion of the building will allow for some emphasized enhancements to the building’s east and south facing façade such as a covered portico, a parapet wall, 687 square feet of covered outdoor seating area, and an additional hip roof tower situated on top of the new addition which is in keeping with the existing character of the building. Other features include large dining room windows and bahamas shutters on some existing second story windows, all facing Gulf to Bay Boulevard. As mentioned, the character of building façade will look mostly as it does today. Minor changes to the current color scheme include adding a light gray colored new standing seam metal roof with the building itself remaining a grey (Behr paints Sparrow) with dark grey (Behr paints Anonymous) trim. Regarding the buildings setbacks, the new addition will be setback 3.6 feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 9.5 feet along Hampton Road which is more than existing conditions. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 Regarding the site, portions of the parking area shall be modified to allow for the building addition by eliminating parking stalls and drive aisles to create space for a new dumpster enclosure, loading space, outdoor seating and waiting areas. Other alterations to the site include, reducing the size of the existing retention pond to allow for new parking spaces and adding a new right in/right out driveway on Gulf to Bay Boulevard which will improve ingress and egress as well as improve traffic movement on the property. A front setback to pavement along Gulf to Bay Boulevard will be improved from 12.3 feet to 15 feet. The proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules, the maximum allowable FAR for the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan Category is 0.55 as set forth in CDC Section 2-701.1. The existing development along with the proposed addition will result in a FAR of 0.13. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR for the CG Future Land Use Plan Category is 0.90. The proposed ISR for this property is 0.70. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR for the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Future Land Use Plan Category is 0.75. The proposed ISR for this property is 0.50. The ISR for each property is less than what may be permitted based upon the above code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, CDC Table 2-702 requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a lot width of 100 feet for restaurants. The subject property has a lot area of 84,141 square feet (1.93 acres). The width of the subject property is 185.01 square feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 255 square feet along Hampton Road. The proposal is consistent with these criteria. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum front setback requirement for restaurants can range between 15 and 25 feet, while side yards shall be at 10 feet. The existing front setbacks are 1.1 feet and 1.2 feet to building. Front setbacks to the new addition will be 10.1 feet and 3.6 feet. None of the structural setbacks exacerbate existing conditions. Each setback primarily continues in line with or is slightly greater than the existing building footprint. The requested setbacks to structures are acceptable to Staff. In regards to setbacks to pavement, the front setback will be 15 feet to allow for a front landscape perimeter buffer. The remaining setbacks to pavement are existing conditions and if modified would result in the reduction to drive aisles widths and required number of parking spaces. The requested setbacks to pavement are acceptable to Staff. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 In addition to the above, the site plan shows that a wood deck is located within the side (east) setback below the billboard sign. An on-site inspection found that this accessory structure does not serve the Hooters restaurant; rather it is used by the restaurant on the adjacent property as a band stand. Although the applicants own the adjacent property as well, the accessory structure does not meet most standards set forth in CDC Section 3-201.B. Specifically, that the accessory structure is not located on the same property as the principal use, nor does it contribute to the comfort, convenience or use of the principal use on the property it is located on; therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the deck must be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there is no maximum allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum building height for restaurants in the C District can range between 25 and 50 feet. The proposed height of the building addition is 15.4 feet (to top of parapet wall). The existing height of the restaurant is 21.3 feet (to mid-point of pitched roof). The building height is less than the Code provisions would allow for. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, 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 standard off-street parking requirement for a restaurant use is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed addition would increase the parking requirement to 106 off-street parking spaces. The site plan shows that 107 parking spaces will be provided on site which meets the standard set forth in CDC Section 3-1402. Furthermore, in regards to the outdoor seating areas, restaurants may establish on-site outdoor cafés as an accessory use and such uses shall be exempt from parking requirements as set forth in CDC Section 3-201.C. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a fifteen-foot wide landscape buffer along both Hampton Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Ten-foot wide landscape buffers are required within each side yard. The application includes a request for a reduction to the front (south) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 1.1 feet (along Hampton Road), a reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, a reduction to the side (north) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to zero, and a reduction of side (west) setback of 5 feet to zero feet. Where the applicant will be completing work directly related to this redevelopment is mostly along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The reduction in the front landscape perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet is the only perimeter buffer area affected by the modifications to the site. All other buffers are existing and cannot be increased without loss of parking spaces or a reduction to drive aisles. In regards to the reduction request for the front landscape perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet front, the applicant will provide a 15 foot wide landscape buffer for 37 percent (63 feet) of the properties width along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. This reduced buffer area will be planted with 5 accent trees (glossy privet) and shrubs (compact simpson’s stopper) with a mix of two Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 groundcovers (super green giant lily turf and parsoni juniper). As to the remaining perimeter buffers, the landscape plan shows that most existing trees will remain, while shrubs and groundcover will added where possible to fill in the buffers. The result will be a continuous hedge with two types of shrubs (schefflera and compact simpson’s stopper) along the side property lines and planting various types of groundcovers within the buffers. Also, creeping figs will be planted around the fence within the buffer along the west side of the building which should eventually cover and soften the fence with plant material. Such actions will improve the perimeter landscaping. The landscape materials planted within the buffers especially those in both front perimeter buffers and along the foundation of the building should provide a softened edge between the building and the sidewalk as well as provide an attractive vegetative buffer that enhances the visual appearance from the roadways. As proposed, this landscape plan goes beyond standard perimeter buffer provisions and complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. In addition, all the proposed landscape materials will be Florida Grade #1. The requested reductions to the landscape perimeter buffers are acceptable to Staff. In regards to interior landscaping, a reduction to two existing interior islands located in the northern portion of the reserve parking lot has been requested to allow interior islands with 7.8 feet of greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 143 square feet of interior island and 7.9 feet of greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 147 square feet of interior island to remain. CDC Section 3-1202.E requires interior islands to be 8 feet of greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 150 square feet. Staff believes the islands are acceptable as is since the landscaping for this parking area was approved as a part of the development to construct the Hooters Corporate Building in 2003 (BCP2003-03288B). However, the applicant shall restore and/or replace any unhealthy or dead landscaping found within that parking area as shown on the approved landscape plan. The approved landscape plan is compliant with current landscape standards. The remainder of the interior landscaping shown on the landscape plan meets the provisions set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.E. In regards to the overall landscaping plan, the applicant proposes to incorporate a Florida friendly Mediterranean theme to enhance the building improvements by offering a variety of contrasting plant textures, shapes and colors. Plans indicate that there will be sprawling dark green groundcovers planted in front of a light green upright yellow flowering shrubs as well as upright variegated yellow and green dense foliage shrubs planted behind dark green delicate ferns. Fountain like palms and crape myrtles will add height and depth to the design. Landscape material planted to achieve this theme will mostly be planted along the buildings east façade and around the retention pond. Plants to be included are lavender crape myrtles, pigmy date palms, pond cypresses, firecracker plants, wild date palms, and silver saw palmettos. Over 2,000 landscape materials will be planted on site, and to ensure sustainability, the majority of plants will be drought tolerate native plantings. Staff believes the overall landscape plan exceed minimum code requirements to off-set where code requirements will not be met. 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 Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment 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 location of the new enclosed dumpster on the northwest side of the building addition has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. It is a condition of approval that the new dumpster enclosure shall be made of a masonry wall of similar material, architectural details and colors as the proposed addition; 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. As shown on site plan, a portion of the outdoor seating area is located within the sight triangle. The applicants plan to use a non-opaque fence material as the railing that encloses this seating area. Traffic Engineering has reviewed the proposal and has determined the encroachment not to be a safety issue. The conversion of the existing entrance from Gulf to Bay Boulevard into a right turn in/right turn out only access way eliminates the ability for vehicles to cross Gulf to Bay Boulevard to gain entry into the east bound traffic lanes. For this reason, the structure encroachment was determined to not be a hazard within the sight triangle. Signage: There is no sign request a part of this application. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the Commercial General (CG) and Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) future land use plan categories and the Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2.1001.1 and Tables 2-704 and 2-1004. Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.13 X ISR 0.90 (CG) 0.70 X 0.75 (R/OL) 0.50 Minimum Lot Area N/A 84,141 square feet (1.93 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A South: 185.01 feet X West: 255 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 15 feet (to pavement) X 1.2 feet (to building) West: 3.9 feet (to pavement) X 1.1 feet (to building) Side: N/A East: 3.3 feet (to pavement) X 114.3 feet (to building) North: 157.8 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) West: Zero feet (to pavement) X Maximum Height N/A 21.3 feet (mid-point of pitched roof) X Minimum 15 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 107 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (106 parking spaces required) Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Sections 2-704.C and 2-1004.B (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 – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of October 6, 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 1.93 acre property is located on the northeast corner of Hampton Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard; 2.That the subject property has two separate zoning classifications with the southern portion of the property located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and the northern portion of the property located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.The subject property is the location of the original Hooters restaurant which consists of a 4,996 square foot restaurant and 111 parking spaces; 4.The subject property has a lot area of 84,141 square feet (1.93 acres), a lot width of 185.1 feet along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 255 feet along Hampton Road; 5.The maximum allowable FAR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. The proposed ISR is 0.13; 6.The maximum allowable ISR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.70; 7.The maximum allowable ISR for the Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.50; 8.The application proposes to expand the existing restaurant by adding 2,138 square feet of interior floor area; Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 9.The proposal includes front and side setback reductions to recognize the location of the existing building and pavement at less than the required setbacks, but also to provide for the proposed building addition with front setbacks of 3.6 feet and 10.1 feet; 10.The building addition will be 15.4 feet in height (to top of parapet) and 21.3 feet (to mid- point of pitched roof); 11.The request includes a reduction to the front (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction to the front (west) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to 1.1 feet (along Hampton Road), a reduction to the side (east) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, a reduction to the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of side (west) perimeter landscape buffer of 5 feet to zero feet through the Comprehensive Landscape Program; 12.The wood deck (accessory structure) located at the southeast corner of on the subject property does not serve the principal use, nor does it contribute to the comfort, convenience or use of the principal use; 13.The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program will provide additional landscaping within green spaces and interior islands as well as retain a number of shade trees; 14.Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed building addition is compatible and consistent with this character of the immediate area; and 15.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 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-1001.1 and Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2- 704.C of the Community Development Code; 4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2- 1004.B of the Community Development Code; 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 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 this Flexible Development application to permit a 2,138 square foot addition to an existing 4,996 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District with a lot area of 84,141 square feet (1.93 acres), a lot width of 185.01 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and 255 feet (along Hampton Road), front (south) setbacks of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.2 feet (to building), front (west) setbacks of 3.9 feet (to proposed pavement) and 1.1 foot (to building), side (east) setbacks of 3.3 feet (to pavement) and 114.3 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setbacks of 5.1 feet (to pavement) and 157.8 feet (to proposed addition), side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement), and a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 15.8 feet (to top of parapet wall) and 21.3 feet (to mid-point of pitched roof), and 107 off- street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09030 2011-11-15 the Community Development Code sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B., as well as reduction to the front (south) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 1.2 feet (along Gulf to Bay Boulevard), a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 1.1 feet (along Hampton Road), a reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.3 feet, a reduction to the side (north) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of side (west) perimeter buffer of 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction to the parking lot interior island standard for existing interior islands from 8 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 150 square feet to 7.8 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 143 square feet and 7.9 feet greenspace (from back of curb to back of curb) and 147 square feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the 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 the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed architectural modifications and color changes to the building be consistent with the design, color, and elevations approved by the CDB; 3.That the dumpster enclosure shall be made of a masonry wall of similar material, architectural details and colors as the proposed addition; 4.That prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall comply with any outstanding comments from the Engineering Department. 5.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the applicant shall apply for a demolition permit to remove the accessory structure (wood deck) and submit evidence that the accessory structure (wood deck) in the side (east) yard has been removed; 6.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; 7.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; and 8.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the applicant must install any/all landscape materials missing, dead or unhealthy from the northern parking area as per the previously approved landscape plan for the site, and that any materials being installed are to be Florida Grade #1. 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 2800 - Hooters (C) & (O) - 2011.xx - KWN\Hooters 2800 G to B- Staff Report.docx Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011- 09030 – Page 11 Formatted: Font: 16 pt EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-10002 2011-11-15 : CDB Meeting Date November 15, 2011 Formatted: Normal, Centered Case Number: TA2011-10002 Ordinance Number: 8306-11 Agenda Item: E.1. CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance No. 8306-11 INITIATED BY: City Attorney’s Office BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Proposed Amendments: Florida Statutes Section 509.233, the “Dixie Cup Clary Local Control Act”, allows local governments to authorize the presence of patrons’ dogs in outdoor areas of state-licensed public food service establishments as exemptions to the Food and Drug Administration Food Code. In order to implement this concept, local governments must adopt an ordinance providing for local permitting of the establishments, application procedures, regulations, and permit expiration. There is also a requirement that a system for the handling of complaints be established. The local jurisdiction must provide copies of applications, permits, and complaint handling documentation to the state. Within the City of Clearwater, the ordinance would apply to outdoor areas of restaurants located on private property and to outdoor café areas of existing restaurants. Outdoor cafées located in public rights-of-way are permitted in certain Zoning Districts pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-909. ANALYSIS: Proposed Ordinance No. 8306-12 includes the following amendments: 1.Creates Article 3, Division 25, Dog-Friendly Restaurants, Sections 3-2501 through 3-2506. These Sections provide for purpose and authority, applicability, and application requirements. Further, they establish regulations for permitted establishments regarding hand washing and sanitizing, instruction of employees and patrons, leashing and control of dogs, location of dogs, cleanup of accidents, Staff Report - 2 Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 - TA2011-1001002 – Page 1 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 16 pt EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-10002 2011-11-15 and posting of signage. Additionally, dogs shall not be permitted to travel Formatted: Normal, Centered through indoor or nondesignated outdoor portions of the establishment and separate ingress and egress to designated areas is required. Permits will expire annually on September 30. A complaint reporting and resolution procedure is established along with state reporting provisions. 2.Adds Permit Fee: Appendix A, Section VIII(1) is amended to add Subsection (m), providing for a $75.00 permit fee for Dog-Friendly Restaurant Permits. STANDARDS FOR REVIEWCRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Community Development Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides in part as follows: Objective A.6.8 Identify those areas of the City that are appropriate for redevelopment as livable communities and require that specific sustainable elements be used in the redevelopment of these areas. Policy A.6.8.1. Build active, attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of mass transit. Policy A.6.8.7. Create mixed-use, higher density, livable communities through design, layout and use of walkability techniques within existing and proposed transit corridors…. Policy A.6.8.8. Design and construct pedestrian-oriented streets to include continuous tree-lined sidewalks buffered from traffic by on-street parking and/or landscaping and that include pedestrian amenities…. Policy A.6.8.9. Promote a variety of transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, ride sharing and mass transit to increase transportation choices and decrease dependence on the single-occupancy Formatted: Font: Bold automobile. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25", 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. Tab stops: 0.25", List tab + Not at 0.5" Section 1-103E. provides that it is the purpose, inter alia, of the Community Development Code to: protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city Formatted: Font: Bold Staff Report - 2 Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 - TA2011-1001002 – Page 2 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1.5" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 16 pt EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-10002 2011-11-15 through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and Formatted: Normal, Centered beneficial development of land within the city [Subsection 2.]; provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the city, with particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement [Subsection 4.]; and coordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions…designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water within the city [Subsection 12.]/ The Comprehensive Plan provides in part as follows: A.6.8 Objective—Identify those areas of the City that are appropriate for redevelopment as livable communities and require that specific sustainable elements be used in the redevelopment of these areas. Policy A.6.8.1. Build active, attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of mass transit. Policy A.6.8.7. Create mixed-use, higher density, livable communities through design, layout and use of walkability techniques within existing and proposed transit corridors…. Policy A.6.8.8. Design and construct pedestrian-oriented streets to include continuous tree- lined sidewalks buffered from traffic by on-street parking and/or landscaping and that include pedestrian amenities…. Policy A.6.8.9. Promote a variety of transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, ride sharing and mass transit to increase transportation choices and decrease dependence on the single-occupancy automobile. The Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and promotes the above-referenced Objectives and Policies of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and meets the other applicable criteria for text amendment adoption. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, The the Planning Department APPROVAL recommends of Ordinance No. 8306-11 that amending amends the Community Development Code in the manner described above. Prepared by Planning and Legal Department Staff: ____________________________________ ___ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney ATTACHMENT: Staff Report - 2 Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 - TA2011-1001002 – Page 3 Formatted: Left Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 2.5", First line: 0.5" Formatted: Underline Formatted: Indent: Left: 3", First line: 0" Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 16 pt EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-10002 2011-11-15 Ordinance No. 8306-11 Formatted: Normal, Centered ATTACHMENT: Proposed Ordinance No. 8306-11 Staff Report - 2 Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 - TA2011-1001002 – Page 4 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-08028 Agenda Item: D.4 Owner/Applicant: Michael Thomas Modano Agent: Chancey Design Partnership Address: 740 Eldorado Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,534 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District FUTURE LAND USE Residential Urban (RU) CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current: Detached Dwelling Proposed: Detached Dwelling EXISTING North:Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings ZONING AND USES: South:Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings East: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings West: Preservation (P) District Water ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125 feet south of Bohenia Circle South. The property is presently developed with a detached dwelling which is going to be demolished. The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Land to the west is zoned Preservation (P) District and is the Gulf of Mexico. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 Development Proposal: The proposal is to redevelop the subject property with single-family detached dwelling. A similar request on the subject property was approved by the Community Development Board in 2010; however, the time period of the Development Order has expired requiring a review of the project through the Flexible Development application. Back then as now, this request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear (west) setback reduction to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool and decking. The pool and decking location has shifted from the southern portion of the rear year towards the northern end of the property from the previous request, but does not affect the proposal or request. The main structure will maintain a 20-foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with both houses immediately adjacent to the subject property. It will have relatively the same footprint as the previously approved project; however, the buildings square footage will slightly increase as the new proposal moves the side walls closer to the side setback which results in an increase from 2,500 square feet to 2,900 square feet. Nevertheless, as pursuant to Section 3-905.C.2 of the Community Development Code (CDC), any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is discussed below. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.55 is proposed. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance. Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no minimum lot area. The lot area of the subject property is 6,600 square feet which exceeds the detached dwelling minimum standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-202. Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no minimum lot width. The subject property lot width is 60 feet which exceeds the detached dwelling minimum standard of 50 feet found in Table 2-202. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill Projects may have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five feet, and a rear setback between zero to 15 feet. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 10 feet and a rear (west) setback of zero feet. The building will also be setback 5 feet on both the north and south side setbacks. The development is compliant with the above referenced requirements. The reduction in front and rear setbacks allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and emerging development pattern. The existing detached dwellings immediately Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 adjacent to the subject property to the north and south are setback 10 feet or less from the east property lines. With regard to the rear setback reduction, the development pattern along Eldorado is moving from typical ranch style Florida homes toward larger homes occupying a greater portion of lot area than the existing homes. In addition, a site visit and review of aerial photographs show that several existing waterfront detached dwellings in the vicinity of the subject property appear to have zero foot structural and building setbacks from the CCCL. Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the emerging development pattern. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects, the maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The building height of the detached dwelling will have a height of 29.1 feet as measured from the Base Flood Elevation to midpoint of pitched roof, which is consistent with the above. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects, two parking spaces are required. The proposal is to provide two parking spaces for the dwelling, which is consistent with the above. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar mechanical equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing units for air conditioners as well as pool equipment will be placed adjacent to the side of the dwelling. Compliance with screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utility facilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is impractical. This proposal will comply with this requirement. Solid Waste: The dwelling unit will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal which will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires these black barrels to be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls, fences or other appropriate screening materials will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac (1 unit) 6.6 du/ac (1 unit) X ISR 0.65 0.56 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 6,600 square feet X 1 Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X 1 Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet East: 10 feet X 1 Side: 0 - 5 feet North: 5 feet X South: 5 feet X Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet X 1 Maximum Height 30 feet 29.1 feet X Minimum Off-Street 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces X Parking COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E (Residential Infill Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity or other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913: 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 October 6, 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 0.15 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125 feet south of Bohenia Circle South; 2.That the property is developed with a detached dwelling which is to be demolished; 3.That the proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling; 4.That the proposal includes a reduction of the rear setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) of 10 feet to zero feet where zero feet is allowable; 5.That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.3, any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; 6.That the proposal includes a reduction of the front (east) setback from and 25 to 10 feet where 10 feet is allowable; 7.That the building height of the detached dwelling will have a height of 29.1 feet as measured from the Base Flood Elevation to midpoint of pitched roof; and 8.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2- 204 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E of the Community Development Code; and 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08028 2011-11-15 APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application for the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,534 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 204.E with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1.That the final design and colors of the detached dwelling be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a separate right-of-way permit must be approved for the installation of the brick paver drive apron; 3.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangle; 4.That pool and deck not be constructed higher than 12 inches above existing grade; 5.That vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway blocking the pedestrian access to the concrete sidewalk; 6.That prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Engineering Department; 7.That black barrels stored exterior to the dwelling and outdoor mechanical equipment including air conditioning and pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; and 8.That all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water, wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and transformers, shall be located underground, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 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 of Site and Vicinity S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Eldorado 0740 - Detached Dwelling (LMDR) - Report -2011.docx 2011.xx - KWN\740 Eldorado Staff Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-08028 – Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-09029 Agenda Item: D. 2. Owner/Applicant: Robert F. Clayton Agent Jay F. Myers 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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 for 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 Project. The development proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the CDC is discussed below. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-701.1, CDC, the maximum 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 Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to Zoning District 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 square feet 5,000 square 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 Minimum Front Setback Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to Standard Flexible to Zoning District LDR 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet 5 feet 25 feet 5 feet LMDR 25 feet 15 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 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 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 Redevelopment 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 redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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 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. This criterion requires consistency with three distinctly different areas of concern, and each bears need for its own response. Consistency 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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 subject 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. Consistency 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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. Consistency 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 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: 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; Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09029 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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. 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 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. 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 objective has not been achieved, the criterion has not been met. Community Development Board – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09029 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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 Determined 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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 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 – November 15, 2011 FLD2011-09029 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per 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 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 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-11-15 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. DENIAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends 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