12/20/2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 20, 2011
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice-Chair
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member – departed at 7:47 p.m.
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Kurt B. Hinrichs Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning & Development Director
Robert Tefft Development Review Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: November 15, 2011
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of November 15, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
D. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Items 1 – 4)
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 sidewalk), a building height of 48.2 feet (to top of flat roof) with an
Community Development 2011-12-20 1
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
See Agenda for Staff Report and Exhibit: Memorandum FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
Member DiPolito moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
Alan Zimmet requested Party Status on behalf of homeowners R.J. and Patience Wood
and the Paradise Cove condominiums.
Member Coates moved to grant Alan Zimmet Party Status on behalf of homeowners R.J.
and Patience Wood and the Paradise Cove Townhomes. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Madge McClure requested Party Status on behalf of the Brightwater Townhomes
Homeowners Association.
Member Coates moved to grant Madge McClure Party Status on behalf of the Brightwater
Townhomes Homeowners Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
James A. Martin, Jr. requested Party Status on behalf of himself and his neighbors James
and Deborah Soboleski and Christopher Mariani. He said proposed docks will be within 500 feet
of their homes.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides objected to the request, expressing concern a
precedent would be set if the CDB (Community Development Board) grants Party Status to those
living more than 500 feet from a project.
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the CDB can grant Party Status to any
substantially affected person. It was noted there are no structures between the residents’ homes
and the project and the residents will look out on the proposed docks.
Member Coates moved to grant James A. Martin, Jr. Party Status on behalf of himself,
James and Deborah Soboleski, and Christopher Mariani. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2011-12-20 2
R.J. Wood requested Party Status on behalf of the Harborside Townhomes Homeowners
Association.
Member Coates moved to grant R.J. Wood Party Status on behalf of the Harborside
Townhomes Homeowners Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Planner III Scott Kurleman reviewed the staff report.
Representative Todd Pressman said nearby units on Brightwater Drive offer short-term
rentals. He said Beach by Design designates this district for timeshare/fractional ownership.
He said the developer worked to address neighbor concerns. He said a minimum one-week
stay will be required and half the units will have single ownership. He said the number of units
was reduced and the eight residential towers will be shorter than permitted. He said property
access points have been spread out, the number of docks has been reduced, their design
modified, and commercial activity prohibited. He said the development will not have a
restaurant. He said the development has more parking and landscaping and its footprint is
smaller than required. He reviewed conditions designed to meet neighbor concerns.
Member Coates moved to accept Terri Skapik as an expert witness in the fields of
docks, microbiology, molecular biology, and hydrogeology. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Member Coates moved to accept Alex Azan as an expert witness in the field of
stormwater engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Party Status Holder James Martin submitted a memorandum with recommendations for
one revised and one additional condition of approval. He said he and his neighbors would not
object to the docks if these conditions of approval are adopted.
Party Status Holder Alan Zimmet said nearby homeowners oppose the westernmost
access point’s location as it will be noisy and affect Paradise Cove Townhome aesthetics and
pedestrian safety. He submitted a December 20, 2010 letter from Ethel Hammer, who opined
the access point’s location is not consistent with General Standards for Level Two approvals per
Section 3-914.A and only three parking spaces would be lost if the access point is moved.
Member Coates moved to accept Tom Ashburn as an expert witness in the field of
planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member
Carlough did not vote.
Party Status Holder R. J. Wood said the development is not in harmony with the
neighborhood and the impact of increased traffic has not been studied. He said the phased
construction would burden nearby residents and could be extended to seven years. He
expressed concern the development will put children at risk and vehicle headlights from the site
will shine into neighbor homes. He said only one nearby motel remains operational.
Community Development 2011-12-20 3
Party Status Holder Madge McClure expressed concern the development will create
dangerous traffic levels and impact neighborhood safety. She said sidewalks are narrow;
pedestrians and children walk, ride, and play in the street.
Five people spoke in opposition to the project.
Mr. Kurleman said the plan proposes 31 more parking spaces than required. The
abandoned structure must be removed. Pull-out parking is safer than back-out parking. The
project is requesting two deviations: 1) swimming pool setback and 2) width of the docks.
Party Status Holder Zimmet said project drive aisles do not meet Code standards,
headlights will shine into neighbor bedrooms, noise from garage doors will disturb neighbors,
and most traffic will use the western exit. He opposed the length of the project and requested
denial.
Party Status Holder Wood said the Harborside Townhomes Homeowners Association
does not oppose the development as long as the western access point is relocated.
Mr. Pressman said the western access point is legal and relocating it would create a
dead end. He said most traffic from the site will depart via other exits. He said the project is
designed for minimal activity on its west side, where the setback could be 10 feet smaller. He
said a stop sign will be added to the access point and garage doors will be constructed of quiet
materials. He said project buildings will be shorter than nearby structures.
Mr. Pressman said the applicant would agree to Condition of Approval 13 as proposed
by Party Status Holder Martin. Developer Bill Mazas opposed the second proposed condition
as it would impact the rights of the homeowners association. He said proposed setbacks far
exceed Code. Mr. Kurleman said CDB approval would be required before any vertical structure
could be constructed in the setback.
Discussion ensued with comments that this Tourist District project could be much more
intense, nearby developments are much closer to each other, setback requests are minor, the
development is tasteful, and docks are appropriately sized.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2010-06004 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, including revised Conditions 12 and 19 as listed in Mr. Kurleman’s December
19, 2011 memorandum and revised Condition 13 to read: “That use of the docks be for
exclusive use for the mooring of boats by owners or guests and that the docks are not permitted
to be rented, leased, or sold separately from use by owners or guests nor shall the docks be
open to the public or a commercial use (e.g. casino boat, dinner boat).” The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
The CDB recessed from 2:30 to 2:37 p.m.
Community Development 2011-12-20 4
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, I 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
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. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the staff report. The property has
been zoned commercial since 1993; the property owner acquired the property in 1999. A single-
family home is not a permitted or conditional use. Staff recommends denial.
Carrie Matteoli, representative for the applicant, said the project adheres to Development
Code flexibility standards; the property cannot be developed without flexibility. She said
stagnation of the neighborhood is a problem. She said the property owner has not received an
offer to aggregate properties for development during the past 12 years. She said the project
mitigates its impact on the abutting property. She requested special consideration due to the
project’s planned use as a home and home office. She said a new green building technique will
be used and the home will serve as the property owner’s goods and services.
Property owner Robert Clayton said the house will be surrounded by a privacy wall and
fence. He wished to waive the 12-foot buffer requirement as it serves no purpose. He said the
home and its design will provide a valuable service to the community and will serve as a model
home for the use of hempcrete. He said home tours will attract visitors to Clearwater.
Mr. Tefft said commercial activities, such as house tours, are not permitted at single-family
homes.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that approval would establish a precedent,
the project would be an island in the commercial district and provide a possible barrier to
aggregating properties, and this is the wrong location for a great idea.
Community Development 2011-12-20 5
Member Coates moved to deny 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. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Chair Fritsch voted
“Aye”; Member Hinrichs voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not
vote.
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 acre 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 the amount of required interior landscaping from 437
square-feet to 177 square-feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions
of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Residential Shelter
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, East Gateway Business and
Neighbors Association
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Chair Fritsch recused himself, stating he had an ex parte conversation.
Member Barker moved to accept Matthew Jackson as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and landscape ordinance. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs, and Acting Board
Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Jackson reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends denial.
Monsignor Patrick Erwin requested Party Status as pastor of St. Cecilia’s Church and
School.
Community Development 2011-12-20 6
Member Coates moved to grant Monsignor Patrick Erwin Party Status as pastor of St.
Cecilia’s Church and School. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame,
DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Hinrichs, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Chair
Fritsch abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Frank Murphy, representative for the applicant, said the request is not for a homeless
shelter. He said Catholic Charities’ pregnancy centers’ staff will refer women who need shelter to
the facility, which will have a house mother; all residents will be drug screened, have mentors, and
case workers. He anticipated the facility will serve approximately 15 women annually. He said
while vacant, the former convent has been broken into and its air-conditioning stolen twice. He
said the residential facility will not add to neighborhood problems. He said Catholic Charities
plans to spend $160,000 on renovations and landscaping. He said the residential facility will
provide food; residents will have no reason to walk to the St. Vincent de Paul Society Soup
Kitchen, which is more than 1,700 feet from the facility via sidewalk.
Party Status Holder Monsignor Patrick Erwin supported the project as it will help pregnant
women.
One person spoke in support and four people spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Murphy said the residential facility is not a social services agency. He said the building
is on the edge of the East Gateway neighborhood and will be boarded if this use is denied.
Discussion ensued with comments that the City established minimal distances between
social service organizations for good reasons, residents and staff are working to redevelop East
Gateway, and facility residents would meet the definition of homeless. While sympathy was
expressed for the plight of these women, it was indicated these types of uses can no longer be
added to East Gateway.
Member Dame moved to deny Case FLD2011-09032 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was
duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, and Acting Board Member
Carlough voted “Aye.” Member Hinrichs voted “Nay.” Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried.
4. 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, Long Range Planning Manager.
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Community Development 2011-12-20 7
Long Range Planning Manager Lauren Matzke reviewed the staff report. Proposed
regulations are based on Florida Statute. Ms. Dougall-Sides said dogs cannot be on tables or
chairs.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that enforcement will be difficult. In response
to a suggestion, it was noted regulations require wait staff to clean their hands and prohibit them
from touching dogs. Concern was expressed that the proposal amounts to overregulation.
Support was expressed for dog friendly restaurants.
Member Barker 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 and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not
vote.
E – CONSENT AGENDA: Following cases are not contested by applicant, staff, neighboring
property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Items
1 – 8)
1. Case: FLD2011-10039 – 220 Tulane Road Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: 220 Tulane, LLC
Agent: John Mueller, P.E., Howard Civil Engineering (4805 Independence Pkwy, Suite
250B, Tampa, FL 33634; phone: 813-341-0496; fax: 831-341-0498; email:
john@howardcivilengineering.com)
Location: 0.41 acre on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of
Drew Street
Atlas Page: 280A
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving
existing attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east)
setback of 10 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable as a Residential Infill Project under
the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Skycrest Neighborhood
Association
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 13 for motion of approval.
2. Case: FLD2011-09031 – 1421 S. Missouri Ave. Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Salvatore Belloise
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-443-8036; email:
brenee@northsideengineering.net).
Location: 0.24 acre located on the east side of S. Missouri Avenue approximately 380
feet south of the intersection of S. Missouri Avenue and Lakeview Avenue
Community Development 2011-12-20 8
Atlas Page: 314B
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit 2,245 square-feet of retail sales and services
and 800 square-feet of office use in the Commercial (C) District within an existing building with a
lot area of 10,463 square-feet, a lot width of 104 feet, front (west) setbacks of 1.2 feet (to existing
building) & zero feet (to existing pavement), side (north) setback of 10.2 feet (to existing building)
& zero feet (to existing pavement), side (south) setbacks of 37 feet (to existing building) & zero
feet (to existing pavement), rear (east) setbacks of 18.5 feet (to existing building) & zero feet (to
existing pavement), a building height of 11 feet (to top of flat roof) and 14 feet (to top of parapet),
and 12 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C., as well as reductions to the
front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, the side (south) landscape buffer from five
feet to zero feet, the side (north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, the rear (east)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to the foundation landscape requirements
from five feet to zero feet and a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to
zero percent under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Office
Neighborhood Associations: Lake Bellevue Neighborhood Association and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 13 for motion of approval.
3. Case: FLD2011-10037 – 2000 Calumet Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Church of Scientology/Flag Service Organization, Inc.
Agent: Cornoyer Construction (1476 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone:
727-442-5231)
Location: The 5.0-acre property is located on the northeast corner of Hercules Avenue
and Calumet Street.
Atlas Page: 262B
Zoning: Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 12,000 square-foot building addition to
an existing 59,943 square-foot warehouse in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
District with a lot area of 217,800 square-feet, lot widths of 658 feet (Calumet Street) and 328
feet (Hercules Avenue), front (south) setbacks of 47 feet (to existing pavement) and 59 feet (to
existing building), front (west) setbacks of 79 feet (to existing pavement) and 50 feet (to existing
building), side (north) setbacks of 27 feet (to existing pavement) and 24 feet (to proposed
building), side (east) setbacks of 140 feet (to existing pavement) and 157 feet (to proposed
building), building heights of 15 feet (to top of flat roof of proposed addition) and 19.2 feet (to top
of roof of existing building), and 12 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1304.C.
Proposed Use: Warehouse
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Community Development 2011-12-20 9
See page 13 for motion of approval.
4. Case: FLD2011-09034 – 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Nikjeh Properties, LLC/Thornton’s Inc.
Agent: Robert Pierro, Avid Group (2300 Curlew Road, Suite 201, Palm Harbor, FL
34683; phone: 727-789-9500; fax: 727-784-76662; email: bob.pierro@avidgroup.com)
Location: 1.12 acres located at the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
Duncan Avenue
Atlas Page: 288B
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the
Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 48,960 square-feet, lot widths of 175 feet (along Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard) and 280 feet (along Duncan Avenue), a building height of 24 feet (to top of
parapet), front (south) setbacks of 16 feet (to pavement) and 58.47 feet (to canopy), front (east)
setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 34.42 feet (to canopy), side (west) setbacks of five feet (to
pavement) and 34.43 feet (to canopy), side (north) setbacks of 20 feet (to pavement) and 82.66
feet (to building), and 19 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Automobile Service Station
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighborhood Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 13 for motion of approval.
5. Case: FLD2011-10038 – 2099 N Highland Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: El Amir of Tampa
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc (300 Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-235-8475)
Location: 0.918 acre located at southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Union Street.
Atlas Page: 252A
Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit an Automobile Service Station use
consisting of six gas dispensers as part of an existing shopping center in the Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 39,956 square-feet, lot widths of 190.03 feet (Highland Ave) and
190.04 feet (Union St), front (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 39.1 feet (to
existing building), front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 54 feet (to proposed
canopy), side (south) setbacks of five feet (to existing parking) and 20.9 feet (to existing
building), side (east) setbacks of 19.8 feet (to existing building) and eight feet (to existing
pavement), a building height of 13 feet (to flat roof of existing building) and 17.5 feet (to flat roof
of proposed canopy) and 38 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C; as
well as a reduction to the width of the north perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet,
a reduction to the width of the east perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to eight feet, a
reduction to the width of the west perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction
Community Development 2011-12-20 10
of the interior landscaping from 2,508 square-feet to 1,395 square-feet, and the removal of the
required foundation landscaping along the west building facade as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Automobile Service Station
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Clearview Lake Estates
Homeowners Association
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 13 for motion of approval.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2011-10036 – 521 Chestnut Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: James P. Gills III/FSH7, LLC.
Agent: Braulio Grajales, P.E. (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-
723-3771; fax: 727-723-7150; email: bgrajales@hpe-fl.com)
Location: 0.29 acre located on the south side of Chestnut Street approximately 165 feet
east of South Fort Harrison Avenue
Atlas Page: 295B
Existing Zoning: Downtown (D) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic within the Downtown (D)
District with a building height of 15.5 feet and 16 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-903.C.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Old Clearwater Bay
Neighborhood Coalition
Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II
See Agenda for Staff Report and Exhibit: Memorandum FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20.
Member Coates moved to accept Ellen Crandall as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and the landscape ordinance. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Planner II Ellen Crandall reviewed the staff report.
Braulio Grajales, representative for the applicant, referenced Condition of Approval 2,
requesting that time to decide if the subject building should be razed or renovated be extended to
four years as one year is insufficient to determine if additional rooms or parking will be needed.
Discussion ensued with comments that the requirement would be difficult to meet as a
decision would have to be made far in advance of the deadline.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2011-10036 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 in the December 19, 2001 memorandum exhibit, except Condition 2 is
Community Development 2011-12-20 11
amended to read “That, within two years from the date of issuance. . . “ The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
7. Level Three Application
Case: TA2011-11004 – Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding numerous provisions
including minor corrections to the general purposes of the development code, adding language
pertaining to setbacks for parking lots, changing the threshold pertaining to when parking
demand studies are required, revising how information is conveyed within the code as it pertains
to temporary uses, amending the submittal requirements for various development approvals,
relocating certain language pertaining to Business Tax Receipts within the code, allowing for the
submittal of zoning atlas amendments without the submittal of an application for development
approval, allowing the processing of Development Agreements without the submittal of an
application for development approval, revising the language regarding nonconformities to make
it more consistent with the stated purpose of those provisions.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 13 for motion to recommend approval.
8. Case: DVA2008-00001A – 100 Coronado Drive Level Three Application
Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC
Agent: J. Paul Raymond, Esq., MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen (625 Court Street,
Suite 200, Clearwater, Florida, 33756; phone: 727-441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470)
Location: 2.75 acres located directly south of Pier 60 between Coronado Drive and
South Gulfview Boulevard, north of Second Street
Atlas Page: 276A
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amendment to the first
amended and restated Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodations use of a total of 450 rooms (163.6 rooms/acre on
total site) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory
to the hotel at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck)
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach
Association
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reported a Public Hearing by the City Council regarding DVA2008-
00001A is scheduled for January 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
Community Development 2011-12-20 12
Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2011-10039, FLD2011-09031, FLD2011-
10037, FLD2011-09034, and FLD2011-10038 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
and recommend approval of Case TA2011-11004 and DVA2008-00001A 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. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not
vote.
The CDB recessed from 4:16 to 4:23 p.m.
F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 –3)
1. Level Three Application
Case: LUP2011-09003 – 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
(Related to REZ2011-09006, DVA2011-10001)
Owner/Applicant: Aviation Engineering Consultants Sunset Point, LLC
Representative: Roger A. Shinholser, Scientists and Engineers, Inc. (1280 Heather
Ridge Boulevard, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-738-9025; fax: 727-738-9505)
Location: 6.571 acres located on the north side of Sunset Point Road approximately 477
feet west of Soule Road.
Atlas Page: 255A
Request: Future Land Use Map amendment from Institutional (I) to Industrial Limited (IL).
Type of Amendment: Small scale
Proposed Use: Manufacturing
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III
Member Dame recused himself, stating he had an ex-parte communication.
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Cases LUP2011-09003 and DVA2011-10001 were heard together.
Planner III Cate Lee reviewed the staff reports. Staff recommends denial. Planning &
Development Director Michael Delk discussed the clerical error that originally permitted
manufacturing to take place on this site.
Ed Hooper, representing the applicant, said manufacturing began on this site in 2003. He
said the company has been a good neighbor and has outgrown its space. He said the company
has 40 employees in skilled positions. He said seven of 12 neighbors support the request. He
said the expansion will create new jobs. He said many governments have offered incentives to
AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants) to relocate.
Member Coates moved to accept Richard Gehring as an expert witness in the fields of
planning, land use, and zoning. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito,
Community Development 2011-12-20 13
Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.”
Member Dame abstained. Motion carried unanimously
Richard Gehring, representing the applicant, discussed the history of zoning and
advocated this location for manufacturing as it represents the new normal, which links
transportation, economic development, and residential activities. He said the City’s 2008
Comprehensive Plan indicated a lack of industry. He said Pinellas County is built out. He said
the hodgepodge of nearby uses includes a cemetery, an intense institutional use at Regency
Oaks, offices, commercial, and a Verizon switching facility, where hazardous materials are
stored. He said the facility will have masonry walls and look like an office building. He said
Robinwood Drive has no connectivity to AEC and one residence has junk in the backyard. He
said the wetlands will be better managed and a buffer will separate AEC from nearby offices.
Mr. Gehring said every comprehensive plan has conflicts and leaders must balance
related issues. He said the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for Clearwater to take a new
direction. He said the City has little industrial land. He said this site will have a development
agreement, design constraints, and restrictive covenants.
Seven people spoke in opposition to the project and one person spoke in support.
Ms. Lee said the proposed use is not characteristic of the neighborhood; there is no
nearby manufacturing.
Mr. Hooper said a more intense use similar to Regency Oaks could be constructed on the
site. He said this industry is clean and quiet and is being wooed by others. He said the
development agreement will include perpetual restrictive covenants.
Mr. Gehring said the bigger context needs to be considered; this proposal provides the
opportunity to address community investment, the economy, jobs, and an expanded tax base.
He said denial will result in the loss of investment, taxes, a targeted industry, payroll, and will
send the message that Clearwater is not open for business. He said this is an economic
development decision.
Kamran Rouhani, president of AEC, said he approached the City in 2001 before
purchasing the property and was told this manufacturing use would be allowed. He said the
occupational license he received from the City in 2002 authorized manufacturing. He said traffic
was more intense when the Elks Club and Police Benevolent Society were on site. He said
internal traffic will be relocated. He said he had received a letter of appreciation from Pinellas
County for his facility. He said the expansion will provide for the greater good.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case LUP2011-09003 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on evidence as presented and hereby
issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code Section(s)
4.603.F. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs
and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member Dame
abstained. Motion carried.
Community Development 2011-12-20 14
2. Level Three Application
Case: REZ2011-09006 – 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
(Related to LUP2011-09003, DVA2011-10001)
Owner/Applicant: Aviation Engineering Consultants Sunset Point, LLC
Representative: Roger A. Shinholser, Scientists and Engineers, Inc. (1280 Heather
Ridge Boulevard, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-738-9025; fax: 727-738-9505)
Location: 6.571 acres located on the north side of Sunset Point Road approximately 477
feet west of Soule Road.
Atlas Page: 255A
Request: Zoning Atlas amendment from Institutional (I) to Industrial, Research and Technology
(IRT)
Type of Amendment: Small scale
Proposed Use: Manufacturing
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Member Dame recused himself, stating he had an ex-parte communication.
Member Hinrichs moved to accept Cate Lee as an expert witness in the fields of zoning,
site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting
Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member Dame abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Nicole Nate requested Party Status on behalf of the Sunset Point Properties Association.
Member Hinrichs moved to grant Nicole Nate Party Status on behalf the Sunset Point
Properties Association. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson,
Barker, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member
Dame abstained. Motion carried unanimously
James Kasper requested Party Status on behalf of Cornerstone Communities, Inc.
Member Hinrichs moved to grant James Kasper Party Status on behalf of Cornerstone
Communities, Inc. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson,
Barker, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member
Dame abstained. Motion carried unanimously
Dalla Johnson requested Party Status on behalf of herself and residents John and Shelly
Wilson, Begnner M. Schwarz, Natarsha Rogers-Bell, Angela Lane, Don Robinson, Kenneth
Casher, Samuel Hayward, Earnell Samuels, Evelyn Thumbtzen, and Harrison Washington.
Member Coates moved to grant Dalla Johnson Party Status on behalf of herself and
residents John and Shelly Wilson, Begnner M. Schwarz, Natarsha Rogers-Bell, Angela Lane, Don
Robinson, Kenneth Casher, Samuel Hayward, Earnell Samuels, Evelyn Thumbtzen, and Harrison
Washington. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker,
Community Development 2011-12-20 15
Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.” Member Dame
abstained. Motion carried unanimously
Ms. Lee reviewed the staff report.
Mr. Delk said within the last three months, the City Council adopted updates to the
Comprehensive Plan; the Plan does not contemplate this use in this location.
Member Coates moved to accept Richard Gehring as an expert witness in the fields of
planning, land use, and zoning. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito,
Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye.”
Member Dame abstained. Motion carried unanimously
Mr. Gehring said the change of zoning is important for jobs and the City needs to
encourage this type of investment. He said this use has been on site for almost ten years. He
said staff made a judgment call when deciding that preservation and manufacturing are not
compatible. He said this proposal provides Clearwater the ability to use its Code in a creative
way that blends residential and industrial uses.
Party Status Holder Nicole Nate expressed concern rezoning would result in high daily
traffic counts. She requested that the item be continued to allow affected parties time to
communicate.
Party Status Holder James Kasper said his biggest concern is internal traffic. He said his
office shares easement and maintenance for the entrance road with the AEC property; the
agreement was signed with the Elks. He said this private road, the only egress to the factory,
was not constructed to carry industrial equipment and is in poor condition with potholes and
patches and poor visibility at its intersection with Sunset Point Road. He said his firm paid
100% of the last road repairs; AEC did not reimburse any costs. He said he had been provided
no details regarding the project and requested that the item be continued to give neighbors time
for review.
Party Status Holder Dalla Johnson opposed rezoning this site as it will increase traffic into
their neighborhood. She supported offices or a multi-story building but not manufacturing. She
said the project will negatively impact wetlands and nearby properties. She expressed concern
the company will outgrow this site soon and the neighborhood will be stuck with a more egregious
use. She said AEC has not been a good neighbor, stating it took two years of negotiations to
stop AEC from accessing its site via Robinwood Drive. She requested that their neighborhood
retain its character and not force this use on them. She said four neighbors have rescinded
their previous letters of support.
In response to questions from Mr. Gehring, Party Status Holder Kasper said he had not
been provided an opportunity to review project plans. He did not know if a traffic study would
resolve his concerns. He said before incompatible uses are submitted to the City, efforts usually
are made to sit down with affected parties.
Mr. Delk challenged language in Mr. Gehring’s submission, stating staff cannot pick and
choose which Codes to support. Additional flexibility would need to be added to the Code
Community Development 2011-12-20 16
before staff could support this request. He said the nearby hodgepodge of uses referenced by
the applicant refers to US 19N, where planning efforts are underway to facilitate an economic
development strategic plan. He understood the importance of jobs and economics but said City
standards should not be lowered.
Party Status Holder Nate said expanding the manufacturing facility will increase trips on
the primary access road which is not a public facility. She requested the board condition
approval on requirements that the Sunset Point Properties Association property not be impacted
and that the developer work with neighbors to hammer out details.
Party Status Holder Johnson opposed the rezoning, stating her neighborhood should not
have to face the upheaval that would result.
Mr. Gehring said the project has no absolutes and issues will be worked out. Bill Kimpton,
representative for the applicant, said the City is running out of land. He said project details will be
provided when they become available. He said jobs need to be created and the City should not
adopt a NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) attitude. He said a silent manufacturing process will be
used and a wall will be constructed between the facility and neighbors.
In response to a question, Mr. Rouhani reviewed products produced on site. He said he
invested $8 million in state of the art equipment for the manufacturing process. In response to a
comment that the manufacturing facility stores hazardous materials, Mr. Rouhani said an
environmental health program is in place. In response to a comment that the new operation will
be 12 times larger than before, he said the facility will be 25 feet from the neighbors, separated
by a road and buffer of trees and will conform to noise limits.
Discussion ensued with comments that this project provides a great opportunity to
develop a more integrated community and create jobs, the facility can be a good neighbor by
solving traffic problems, making roadway improvements, removing Brazilian pepper trees, and
designing the facility with offices on the perimeter and manufacturing in the interior. The City,
developer, and neighbors were encouraged to work together.
Concern was expressed that the request does not meet the Code and the board does
not have the latitude to approve requests not supported by the Code.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case REZ2011-09006 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on evidence as presented and hereby
issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code Section(s)
4.602.F. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs
and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member Dame
abstained. Motion carried.
Community Development 2011-12-20 17
3. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2011-10001 – 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
(Related to LUP2011-09003, REZ2011-09006)
Owners/Applicant: Aviation Engineering Consultants Sunset Point, LLC
Representative: William J. Kimpton, Esquire, (605 Palm Boulevard, Suite B, Dunedin, FL
34698; phone: 727-733-7500; fax: 727-733-7511)
Location: 6.571 acres located on the north side of Sunset Point Road approximately 477
feet west of Soule Road.
Atlas Page: 255A
Request: Review of a proposed Development Agreement between Aviation Engineering
Consultants Sunset Point, LLC (the developer) and the City of Clearwater under the provisions
of Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Proposed Use: Manufacturing use of up to 130,000 square-feet of floor area (0.45 Floor Area
Ratio) at a maximum height of 35 feet
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Member Dame recused himself, stating he had an ex-parte communication.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reported a Public Hearing by the City Council regarding DVA2011-
10001 is scheduled for January 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
Cases LUP2011-09003 and DVA2011-10001 were heard together. See Case LUP2011-
09003 on pages 13 - 14 for discussion.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2011-10001, based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on evidence as presented and hereby
issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code Section(s)
4.606.F. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito, Adelson, Barker, Hinrichs
and Acting Board Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member Dame
abstained. Motion carried.
G. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2011-00006
Appellant: Avi Ovaknin, Surf West, Inc.
Agent: Alex Plisko, Plisko Architecture, PA (800 Drew Street, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-442-7200; fax: 727-461-0030).
Request: An appeal of an administrative interpretation of Sections 3-913 (outdoor display/storage)
and 3-1502.F.1. (exterior storage and display/nonresidential properties), Community Development
Code, denying outside display at 311 Gulfview Boulevard.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Michael Delk, Planning & Development Director
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Community Development 2011-12-20 18
Member Coates moved to accept Michael Delk as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, and economic
development. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
Mr. Delk reviewed the staff report. He determined the area in front of the business is not
enclosed. Since the store owner appealed his decision, the City Council declined to amend the
Code to permit the display of goods at this location.
Alex Plisko, representative for the appellant, said the Circuit Court judge had
recommended the store owner readdress the issue with the City in hopes of resolution before
he continued the case. He said the recessed area has three walls and a roof and meets the
definition of an enclosed space. He said goods are displayed on building property, not Beach
Walk. He showed photographs of other beach business displays, including one in a breezeway.
He said displaying goods at this location is necessary to attract business as passing tourists
cannot see into the store due to turtle light restrictions.
Gilad Ovakin, brother of the appellant, said the store is requesting an equal opportunity
to display merchandise in an aesthetic way. He said the store won a beautification award.
Mr. Delk said ordinances do not address every scenario. He said Clearwater is a
premier community due to its history of managing its beach areas. He said the breezeway
where displays are permitted is behind stairs. He said the appellant benefits from 35 feet of
public right-of-way.
Mr. Plisko said the City Council knows this problem exists. He said outdoor displays are
allowed elsewhere and all stores need to be treated fairly. He said the display does not block
store ingress or egress. He noted the judge had encouraged them to approach the City as rules
are vague.
Discussion ensued with comments that a more liberal interpretation of the Code should
be considered as some outdoor displays should be permitted. Frustration was expressed due
to difficulty in interpreting the Code when considering that an indentation exists and
merchandise does not extend beyond the building’s edge. It was felt the display is aesthetically
pleasing and should be considered as the business is losing money.
Mr. Delk said an internal breezeway cannot be equated with a covered area by a front
door. He said the subject breezeway is sufficiently enclosed due to its location on an upper
deck and differs substantially from the subject alcove.
It was felt the Code needs work. Concern was expressed other store owners will display
merchandise in front of their businesses if this use is allowed. It was noted that merchandise
cannot be seen through store windows; only reflections are seen.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said when a term in the Code is not defined, the dictionary is to be
used. It was stated the word “enclosed” means to surround or be shut or hemmed in on all
Community Development 2011-12-20 19
sides; a breezeway does not meet that definition. It was felt the definition of an enclosed area
should be that it has three sides and a roof that protects people from rain.
Member Coates moved that pursuant to Section 4-504 regarding Case: APP2011-00006
and the CDB overturned the administrative interpretation of Sections 3-913 (outdoor display/
storage) and 3-1502.F.1. (exterior storage and display/nonresidential properties), Community
Development Code, denying outside display at 311 Gulfview Boulevard as: 1) the decision
appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development code;
2) the decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
development code; and 3) the decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, DiPolito,
Barker, and Hinrichs voted "Aye"; Members Dame and Adelson and Chair Fritsch voted "Nay."
Motion carried. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
H. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: (Items 1-5)
1. Thank Planning and Development Department staff
2. Hope Community Development Board members and City staff continue to give to the
less fortunate
41-
3. New Clearwater Maine Aquarium attraction: the Dolphin Tale movie set has opened
4. New Cobb Theater at Westfield Countryside Mall has opened
5. Season's Greetings
I. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
;i= X71'
Chair
Community Development Board
Attes
Board Rep
Community Development 2011-12-20 20
EXHIBIT: Memorandum FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
To: Community Development Board Members
From: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Date: December 19, 2011
RE: FLD2010-06004 – 150 – 190 Brightwater Drive
The applicant has requested the following revised conditions based upon discussions that took
place at one of the neighborhood meetings. Staff is in agreement with the revised conditions. If
you have any questions, please contact me at 562-4553.
12. That no docks be constructed prior to vertical construction of the upland units at the
also, the location and configuration of the docks shall be conceptually
respective phasing;
consistent with the revised schematic drawings approved by the CDB;
19. That the proposal expressly commits that a minimum of 50 percent of the units in each phase
shall be sold to fee simple buyers of the entire unit interest (i.e., no time share, fractional
ownership, personal residence club, or similar less-than-whole ownership interest shall be sold
for at least 50 percent or more of the units, by phase, as the project is developed, marketed and
sold). Up to the remaining 50 percent of the units, by phase, may be sold via a form of fractional
ownership interest(s) if desired by the developer; subject, however, to the minimum one week
rental/use period set forth above, for all units, and the condominium documents indicating
containing restriction shall be providedfor review
such be provide to the City of Clearwater
and approval, for each phase
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ;
EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
To: Community Development Board Members
From: Ellen Crandall, Planner II
Date: December 19, 2011
RE: FLD2011-10036 – 521 Chestnut Street
The following is a revised list of conditions of approval for the above referenced project.
Condition #5 was a result of confusion from an error on the site data table that listed 58 parking
spaces where the site plan shows 59. There are 59 parking spaces on the site. The original project
(FLD2010-08003) approved 43 parking spaces and this revision will provide 59 parking spaces –
a total 16 additional parking spaces. Staff is in agreement with the removal of the condition.
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, prior to the submission for a site development building permit, a Unity of Title be
approved and recorded for parcels 16-29-15-94626-001-0050, 16-29-15-94626-002-0030 and
16-29-15-94626-010-0030;
2.That, within one year from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for St. Luke’s
Cataract & Laser Institute the building, 521 Chestnut Street, be demolished, or architectural
elevations meeting the Downtown Design Guidelines must be submitted to and approved by
City Staff and that the Certificate of Completion for these modifications must be obtained
within one year of the approval of the architectural elevations;
3.That all signage be permitted separately; and
4.That the proposed chain link fence on C-4.1. will be removed and revised fencing which
must comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines will be determined at time of building
permits.
5.That at time of building permits the Site Data Table is revised to list the correct number of
parking spaces as 16.
,4-
° rrwa er
} ea
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2"d packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
2. Case: FLD2011-11039—220 Tulane Road
Yes 'k No
3. Case: FLD201 1-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
Yes X No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes X No
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S Missouri Avenue
Yes No
7. Case: FLD201 1-10038 —2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes /r No
S:APlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
4.
4
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS(Item 1):
L Revised staff report for Case: TA20 1 1-1 0002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: , (�� Date: 1 l OP
glc.HAV.fl Af7e SOH
PRINT NAME
S:(Planning DepartmentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
Uearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 15, 2011 2nd packet
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS Items 1:
1. Case: FLD2011-09034– 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes x No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Items 5:
1. Case: LUP2011-09003–2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
DVA2011-10001)
2. Case: REZ2011-09006– 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-09003
DVA2011-10001)
3. Case: DVA2011-10001 — 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
LUP2011-09003 ) Yes 3( No
4.DVA2008-00001A– 100 Coronado Drive
Yes No
5.TA2011-11004
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2011-00006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following)properties.
j2
Signature: ' Date: il%'/ZQ/ 1 J
�Zl�-1U 17
AP E Lso i1
PRINT NAME
S:(Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201112 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
4
° Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2" packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
2. Case: FLD2011-11039—220 Tulane Road
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201 1-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes No
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S Missouri Avenue
Yes No
7. Case: FLD2001111-10038 —2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes No
S.Planning Department\C D B1Agendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
1
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS(Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA2011-10002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature:
Date: /27 OA
7rL ti ' ker
PRINT NAM
S:APlanning DepartmentAC D B1Agendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LL
JH
Uearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 15, 2011 2nd packet
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS Items 1:
1. Case: FLD201 1-09034– 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes x No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Items 5:
1. Case: LUP2011-09003–2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
DVA2011-10001)
2. Case: REZ2011-09006– 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP20 1 1-09003
DVA2011-10001)
3. Case: DVA2011-10001 — 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
LUP2011-09003 ) Yes No
4. DVA2008-00001A–100 Coronado Drive
Yes X No
5.TA2011-11004
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2011-00006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the followinj properties.
Signature: Date: /2/240///
a tie ef`
PRINT NAM
S.(Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201112 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
y s
LL
arwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the ri packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
2. Case: FLD201 1-1 1039—220 ulane Road
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2011-10036— 521 Mestnut Street
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 umet Street
Yes No
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S 1Vssouri Avenue
Yes No
7. se:FLD201 1-10038—2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes No
S.(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
w
r •
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS(Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA20 1 1-1 0002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have condu a er nal i vestigztio n the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Date: ()" ( I "
ik) 6,e 0 1 ii- ''' , Cit-- 1 C 0 u ci /4,-/----
PRINT NAME
S.\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
Uearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 15,2011 2nd packet
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS Items 1:
1. Case:\FLD2011-09034– 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes J No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Items 5:
1. Case: LUP2011-09003–2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
DVA2011-10001)
2. Case: REZ2011-09006– 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-09003
DVA2011-10001)
3. Case: DVA2011-10001 — 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point.goad (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
LUP20 1 1-09003 ) Yes No
4.DVA2008-00001A–100 Cor ado Drive
Yes No
5.TA2011-11004
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2011-00006 ,..,
I have conducted alpe sonal inVesti ' tior�'pn the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: l r �I�✓ Date: /c?" t / 7
I k". Cfi (
PRINT NAME
S:(Planning Department l C D BlAgendas DRC&CDB I CDBI2011 12 December 201112 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LL
} clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2nd packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
2. Case: FLD�2/011-11039—220 Tulane Road
Yes JSc No
3. Case: F D2011-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes No
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S Missouri Avenue
Yes No
7. Case: FLD2011-10038 —2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes No
S:APlanning Departmeni\C D BlAlgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS(Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA20 1 1-1 0002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have conducted a I .,so%;._�t� stigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
.0,-- mow
Signature. Date:/I'll/7//
PRINT NAME
S:APlanning DeparonentAC D BL9gendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011doc
° �a r cva er
}
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2"d packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029 — 507 Cedar Street
2. Case: FLD2011-11039—220 Tulane Road
Yes
No
3. Case: FLD201 1-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
Yes , No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes No
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S Missouri Avenue
Yes No
7. Case: FLD2011-1 8 —2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes No
S:APlanning DepartrnentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI201102 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA2011-10002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have co ducted a r erso • in on on the •ersonal site visit to the followinP properties.
Signature: _.,:iii
Date: 1,
---D( Ce--e----rN --) \
PRINT NAME
S:1Planning DeparbnentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
O
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2"d packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
AI o Y ',
2. Case: FLD2011-11039—220 Tulane Road w------,— — -----
Yes No v
3. Case: FLD201 1-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
Yes No
4. Case: FLD2011-10037 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes No ✓
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S/Missouri Avenue
Yes No iJ
7. Case: FLD201 1-1003 8 —2099 N/Highland Avenue
Yes No
S:1Planning DepartmentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB120I1112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS(Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA2011-10002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
II/4-
I have conducted a perso al investi!ation on the •ersonal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: (2r'2- , Date:
PRINT NAME
S:APlanning DepartmentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
Lcater
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, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 15,2011 2nd packet
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS Items 1:
1. Case: FLD2011-09034– 1698 Gulf to By Boulevard
Yes No V
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Items 5:
1. Case: LUP2011-09003–2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
DVA2011-10001)
2. Case: REZ2011-09006– 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-09003
DVA2011-10001)
3. Case: DVA2011-10001 — 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Read (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
LUP2011-09003 ) Yes No
4.DVA2008-00001A–100 Coronado Drive
Yes V No
5.TA2011-11004
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2011-00006 � /V
I have conducted 6 personal investij'ai.o�ersonal sle visit to the folloowin1 properties.
Signature: G '"'i1) C G Date: /.Z'" r �l
/iii iA4 C'� P-L, /
PRINT NAME
S.•IPlanningDepartmentlCD B\Agendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201112 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LL
} clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
This is your 1sT Packet the 2'"d packet will come on Thursday,December 15,2011
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 09,2011
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Anyone who was unable to attend last month's CDB meeting you will have the cases that
have been con't to this meeting also in your box.
1. Staff report revised for Case: FLD201 1-09029— 507 Cedar Street
+I°'S1 �2. Case: FLD2011-11039—220 Tulane Road 111 ""
Yes t. No
3. Case: FLD201 1-10036— 521 Chestnut Street
'
Yes No
4. Case: FLD�J2 011-/1000337 -2000 Calumet Street
Yes X'!/vr�/-y No •
6. Case: FLD2011-09031 -1421 S Missouri Avenue
Yes � No
7. Case: FLD2011-10038 —2099 N Highland Avenue
Yes Y(" No
S:APlanning DepartmentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 20101 Cover MEMO 2011_doc
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Revised staff report for Case: TA20 1 1-1 0002— Amendments to the Community
Development Code
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Date: Z L(
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2011112 December 201111 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
LL
° Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for December 20,2011
DATE: December 15,2011 2nd packet
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS Items 1:
1. Case: FLD20 1-09034– 1698 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Items 5:
1. Case: LUP2011-09003–2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
DVA2011-10001)
2. Case: REZ2011-09006– 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to LUP2011-09003
DVA2011-10001)
3. Case: DVA2011-10001 — 2750 nd 2754 Sunset Point Road (Related to REZ2011 09006 &
LUP2011-09003 ) Yes No
4.DVA2008-00001A– 100 Coronado Drive
Yes No
5.TA2011-11004
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2011-00006
I have condict i a per a a investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature- _MEIrST Date: / 2-- / 7 A
z ,
PRIN NAME
S:APlanning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDB\CDBI2011112 December 201112 Cover MEMO 2011.doc
L; 77
iI
„ 7
4,1 "yr/
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2010-06004
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner/Applicant: Brightwater Blue Resort, LLC
Representative: Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc.
Address: 150 – 190 Brightwater Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
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 12 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) and 35 feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of nine feet
(to building) and zero feet (to sidewalk), a building height of 48.2 feet
(to top of flat roof) with an additional 15.6 feet for architectural
parapets and 113 112 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 46-slip, 6,773 5,921 square-foot Commercial Dock with
an increase to the permitted width of docks from 75 percent of the
waterfront lot width to 86 78 percent under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-601.
ZONING: Tourist (T) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:Small Motel
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant
Proposed: Resort Attached Dwelling use of 54 units and 12 Overnight
Accommodation units with a 57 46 slip dock
EXISTING North: Preservation (P) District Clearwater Harbor
SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Attached dwellings
ZONING AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Attached dwellings
West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 2.07 acre site is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800 feet east
of Hamden Drive. The subject property is comprised of eight parcels with approximately 730
feet of frontage along Brightwater Drive and frontage along Clearwater Harbor. The subject
property is zoned Tourist (T) District and is located within the Small Motel District of Beach by
Design which provides for the redevelopment of Brightwater Drive with townhomes and
timeshares between two and four stories above parking. A large portion of Brightwater Drive has
been redeveloped with attached dwellings (townhomes and condominiums). The properties to the
south, west, and east are presently developed with attached dwellings (condominiums and
townhomes). The western most parcel on the subject property contains and abandoned structure
with the remaining parcels being vacant.
Development Proposal (Upland):
The proposal is to construct 54 resort attached dwellings and 12 overnight accommodation units
with a 57 46-slip commercial dock. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section
8-102 a resort attached dwelling is a dwelling unit located in the Tourist (T) District that shares
one or more common walls with at least one other dwelling unit and the occupancy of which
may occur or which may be offered or advertised as being available for any term. The City
understands that tourists have a variety of preferences for the types of facilities they want to stay
in when visiting the City. The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design
and subsequent amendments to the plan that it recognizes the need for “destination resorts” as
well as “small and mid-size hotel rooms” to serve this population. This broad range of
accommodations types creates the unique character and atmosphere that is Clearwater Beach. In
order to accommodate those visitors that prefer a limited resort-type accommodation with a
residential feel and density, a new resort attached dwelling use was created within the Tourist
District to accommodate this niche market. This is the first resort attached dwelling use proposed
since the adoption.
The resort attached dwellings and overnight accommodations are proposed at a height of 48.2
feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof deck and an additional 15.6 feet for
architectural parapets. The proposal includes eight towers with four floors over parking and a
common building over parking. The ground floor parking garage will contain 113 parking
spaces, entry lobbies for each tower and refuse areas. All resort attached dwelling units will
contain private covered balconies overlooking Clearwater Harbor and those units located on the
second floor will also contain private gardens. The 12 overnight accommodation units are
identified on the proposal as “lock out units” which function as a hotel room. These units are
accessible via the vestibule or the exterior walkway and contain a bedroom, closet, bathroom,
wet bar and a sitting area. Towers one and eight will each contain seven resort attached
dwellings. and one overnight accommodation unit. Towers two, five, six and seven will each
contain seven resort attached dwellings, and two overnight accommodation units and towers
three and four will each contain six resort attached dwellings. and one overnight accommodation
unit. The second floor of the common building includes approximately 3,362 square feet of
accessory uses (restaurant/lounge, fitness center, meeting room and game room), which
represents approximately 6.2 percent of the gross floor area. Also located on the second floor is
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 2 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
the lobby, concierge, administrative offices and a 4,807 square foot pool area with restrooms and
locker rooms.
The tropically-inspired elevation designs of Brightwater Blue Resort (stucco on masonry walls,
louvered panels, large projecting overhangs and deep porches) is an updated version of exotic
styles resort architecture that began in Florida in the 1920’s. Fanciful parapets have been created
for each of the eight unit buildings lining the waterfront. These parapets are the crowning
element to the massing that brings the silhouette of the building down to a one story base. The
building has been designed with an open colonnaded walkway spanning the entire street
frontage. This walkway is on the first floor atop the street edge of the parking garage. As the
main path between the units and the lobby, pool and café, this colonnade will provide for people
overlooking the street and activity that enhances the streets pedestrian activity. Terraces between
the buildings will contain gardens that can be glimpsed from the street and the water. Numerous
architectural elements are incorporated into the designs of the buildings. Traditional column
designs will be seen along the Brightwater Drive elevation on the open-air vestibules of the
residential buildings, as well as along the entire first floor walkway. Deep distinctive cornices
crown the pitched roof areas at the cantilevered side bays of the residential buildings and the rear
balconies. A strong stringcourse separates the ground floors from the upper stories of each
residential building. Awnings shade the expansive glazing at the rear of the common buildings,
as well as at the large windows on the sides of the penthouse units. Louvered panels typical of
tropical architecture provide screens at the garage openings, as well as at openings in the
cantilevered bays on the sides of the residential buildings. Shutters frame openings on the rear
ground floor of the common buildings. Trellis members cover the breezeways leading from the
1st floor walkway to the private walkways. Five exterior colors are proposed including:
Benjamin Moore “Mountain Peak White”; Benjamin Moore “Whipple Blue”; Benjamin Moore
“Huntington Beige”; Benjamin Moore “Black”; and Benjamin Moore “Pre-weathered
Galvalume”.
The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 12 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) and 35 feet (to building) and a rear (north) setback of nine feet (to
building) and zero feet (to sidewalk). All areas within the front setback will be landscaped to
enhance the site and building.
The applicant is requesting a development order to allow project phasing. Phase I is proposed to
include 12 resort attached dwellings, two overnight accommodation units 37 36 parking spaces,
the common building including the accessory uses, a temporary fire pump room and a drainage
vault. Additionally, in Phase I the abandoned building on the eastern most parcel will be
removed. Phase II includes 14 resort attached dwellings, three overnight accommodation units,
and 23 parking spaces., ancillary building #1 housing the permanent fire pump and a drainage
vault expansion. Phase III includes 14 resort attached dwellings, four overnight accommodation
units, 30 parking spaces, ancillary building #2 #1 housing the trash compactor and drainage vault
expansion. Phase IV includes 14 resort attached dwellings, three overnight accommodation units
and 23 parking spaces. The proposed phasing requires an application for building permit to be
submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project for Phase I and an
application for building permit must be submitted for Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV within
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
five years of the date the CDB approves the 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 CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum
density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 30 dwelling units per acre.
and 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. Based on the lot acreage of 2.07 acres and the
base density of 30 dwelling units/acre and 50 overnight accommodation units/acre, a maximum
of 54 62 dwelling units and 13 overnight accommodation units are permitted. The proposal is for
54 resort attached dwellings (30 dwelling units/acre) (26 dwelling units/acre). and 12 overnight
accommodation units (48.5 overnight accommodation units/acre).
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.73, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for overnight accommodations
can range between 10,000 – 20,000 square feet and resort attached dwellings can range between
5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The lot area is 90,596 square feet. Pursuant to the same Table, the
minimum lot width for overnight accommodations can range between 100 – 150 feet and resort
attached dwellings can range between 50 – 100 feet. The lot width along Brightwater Drive is
approximately 730 feet. The proposal exceeds this Code provision.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum required setbacks for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
the same CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for overnight accommodations and resort
attached dwelling uses can range between 0 – 15 feet, while the minimum side setback can range
between 0 – 10 feet for both overnight accommodations and resort attached dwelling uses and
the minimum rear setback can range between 0 – 20 feet for overnight accommodations and 10 –
20 feet for resort attached dwellings. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 12 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) and 35 feet (to building) and a rear
(north) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to sidewalk). The front setback of 12 feet
(to building) is the area of the lobby, stairs and elevator for each tower, while the main building
for each tower is setback 28 feet. The proposed front setback of 12 – 28 feet will provide a more
open environment which differs from previous developments on Brightwater Drive. Both side
setbacks of 10 feet to building are to the ancillary buildings which house the fire pump and trash
compactor, the actual side setback to the main structure is 35 feet. The rear setback of nine feet
to building is to a storage area and pool deck, the actual setback to the main structure is 18 feet.
The rear setback of zero feet is to a proposed sidewalk along the seawall and boat slips. It is
anticipated that this sidewalk will allow both residents and guests to enjoy the waterfront. Staff
supports the proposed setbacks to the building and to other structures as they will not discourage
the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
the same CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for overnight accommodation and
resort attached dwelling uses can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed building height of
48.2 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof deck and an additional 15.6 feet for
architectural parapets is below the code maximum. This site is located within the Small Motel
character district of Beach by Design which envisions Brightwater Drive to be developed with
townhomes and timeshares between two and four stories above parking.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum off-street
parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to the same CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for
overnight accommodations can range between 1.0 – 1.2 parking spaces per room and resort
attached dwellings is 1.5 parking spaces for resort attached dwellings. This results in a
requirement of 97 81 parking spaces. The proposal has provided 1.81 2.09 parking spaces for
each resort attached dwelling and 1.2 parking spaces for each overnight accommodation
resulting in a total of 113 112 parking spaces. This parking is adequate for residents, guests and
employees.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will
be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the building. The location of the
mechanical equipment and the building parapets surrounding the roof appear to be sufficient to
screen the mechanical equipment. This screening of the mechanical equipment will also be
reviewed at time of the building permit submission.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Brightwater Drive, no structures or landscaping may be installed which
will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within
20-foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic
Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight
visibility triangles, as well as any landscaping planted within the Brightwater Drive right-of-way,
will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.B, to
enhance views of the water, no structures or landscaping may be installed within 20-foot
waterfront sight visibility triangles. This proposal does not propose any landscaping other than
turf within the waterfront sight visibility triangles, complying with this provision.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development will
be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead
utility lines, serving this development, within the right-of-way along the north side of
Brightwater Drive that will need to be undergrounded.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
T District for this site. This proposal meets or exceeds the required minimum five-foot wide
building foundation landscape area along Brightwater Drive. The foundation landscape area is six
feet wide along Brightwater Drive and the applicant has provided foundation plantings along the
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
other three facades as well. With a vehicular use area of 4,193 square feet, the applicant is required
to provide 10 percent of that area as interior landscape islands. The 4,193 square feet of vehicular
use area is located outside of the parking garage with no parking spaces contained in it; therefore
the applicant has provided 14.47 percent additional planting spaces along the frontages and
buildings. The site will be planted with various palm trees (Washingtonia, foxtail, pygmy date and
specimen canary island date), accent trees (crape myrtle and ligustrum), shrubs (oleander, hibiscus,
Indian hawthorne and yaupon holly) and ground covers (lantana, jasmine and liriope).
Solid Waste: A large trash compactor is proposed just east of the eastern most building. As this
is proposed to be a phased project and the compactor will not be constructed until Phase III, the
applicant proposes to place dumpsters in the trash rooms during Phases I and II and roll them to a
trash staging area near the street. Once the compactor is in place and operational the dumpsters
will be replaced with carts in the trash rooms. These carts will be routed through the parking
garage to the compactor where there is a cart tipper to assist in the dumping of the refuse. The
compactor building has been designed to contain the same architectural elements and
landscaping as the others. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid
Waste Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future
freestanding sign should be designed as a monument-style sign, match the exterior materials and
color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six-foot height
through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Attached signage must meet Code requirements.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 of Beach by Design requires buildings with
a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the
three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed
building footprint is approximately 54,014 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane
dimensions are approximately 660 feet along Brightwater Drive and 93 feet deep (north/south
plane), while the vertical plane is 69.75 feet from grade to the top of the parapet. None of these
dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing also provides considerable
dimensional variation.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. All façades of the building have been designed in
compliance with this requirement, with the largest linear dimension of approximately 44 feet.
All other portions of the building façade are modulated with at least a five-foot deviation.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The application indicates compliance with this requirement.
Section D.1 requires the area between the building and edge of the right-of-way to be 12 feet
wide. The proposal includes a 12 foot setback from the property line to the building; thus in
compliance with this requirement.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as
per CDC Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30 dwelling units/acre 54 resort attached dwellings X
50 rooms/acre 12 overnight accommodation units
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.73 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area N/A 90,596 square feet (2.07 acres) X 1
Minimum Lot Width N/A 730 feet X 1
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 5 feet (to pavement) X 1
12 feet (to building)
Side: N/A East: 10 feet (to pavement) X 1
10 feet (to building)
West: 10 feet (to pavement) X 1
10 feet (to building)
Rear: N/A North: Zero feet (to pavement) X 1
9 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 48.2 feet (from BFE to flat roof) X 1
Minimum N/A 113 112 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking
1
See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. 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 – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 8 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
Development Proposal (Dock):
The development proposal also includes five docks totaling 6,773 5,921 square-feet. 57 46 wet
slips are proposed for these multi-use docks as an amenity to the proposed upland development.
Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.2 of the Community Development Code, a multi-use dock is defined
as any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development,
condominium, cooperative apartment, mobile home park or attached zero lot line development.
However, pursuant to Section 3.601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, any multi-use
dock with a deck area exceeding 500 square feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. As the
proposed dock exceeds this threshold (6,773 5,921 square feet), the dock is treated as
commercial and is subject to the relevant review criteria. The docks are proposed to be
constructed in four phases to coincide with the upland development. Phase I of the upland
development will include 12 10 slips, Phase II will include 10 8 slips, Phase III will include 10 8
slips and Phase IV will include 25 20 slips.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS
(SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for commercial
docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are
included with their application. The individual criteria for commercial docks are set forth in the
following table
:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort,
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the X
property.
2. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent X
properties and the neighborhood in general.
3. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. X
4. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock
shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using X
the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it
shall not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses
including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
5. Impacts on Navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, X
recreational or other public conveniences.
6. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas. X
7. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil X
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which
has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be
approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
8. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated
with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that X
a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a
vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at mean or
ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
Consistent Inconsistent
9. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling
of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or X
limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in
which the dock is proposed to be located.
10. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as X
to be contrary to the public interest.
11. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial,
or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of X
the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding
grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve
to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated preservation areas
such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife
refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird
sanctuaries.
12. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse X
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
The dimensional standards criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be
located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to
ten percent of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property
line on the subject property is 780 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from both
the east and west property line a minimum of 78 feet. As proposed, the docks will be set back
from the east property line a distance of 83 91.3 feet and will be set back 78 81.5 feet from the
west property line.
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 585 feet.
As proposed, the longest dock has a length of 150 feet.
The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the
proposed dock should not exceed 585 feet. The total width of the docks is proposed at a width of
674 607.2 feet. The request for an increase in the total dock width is due to the extensive sea
grass beds located along the entire shoreline. The sea grass beds extend out from the seawall
between 40 – 60 feet making these areas unsuitable for boat slips. Had these sea grass beds not
been located along the shoreline, it would have allowed for fewer docks with more slips thus
limiting the total width.
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject property (78 feet) East: 83 X
91.3feet
(Minimum)
10% of the width of the subject property (78 feet) West: 78 X
81.5feet
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject property (585 feet) 150 feet X
(Maximum)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject property (585 feet) 674 607.2 feet X 1
(Maximum)
1
See analysis in Staff Report
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 meetings 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 and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 2.07 acre subject property is located on the north side of Brightwater Drive,
approximately 800 feet east of Hamden Drive;
2.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the subject property is located in the Small Motel District of Beach by Design;
4.The proposal is to construct 54 resort attached dwelling units at a density of 30 26 dwelling
units/acre; and 12 overnight accommodation units at a density of 48.5 overnight
accommodation units/acre;
5.The proposal also includes approximately 3,362 square feet of accessory uses
(restaurant/lounge, fitness center, meeting room and game room), which represents
approximately 6.2 percent of the gross floor area;
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
6.The proposed building height is 48.2 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of flat
roof with an additional 15.6 feet for architectural parapets;
7.The proposal includes 113 112 parking spaces;
8.The subject property is comprised of eight parcels with approximately 730 feet of frontage
along Brightwater Drive and frontage along Clearwater Harbor.
9.The western most parcel contains an abandoned building with the remaining parcels vacant;
10.The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to building) and five feet (to
pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building and pavement), a side (east) setback
of 10 feet (to building and pavement) a rear (north) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero
feet (to sidewalk);
11.The proposal also consists of a 6,773 5,896 square foot dock with 57 46 slips;
12.The proposal includes a deviation to increase the width of the dock from 75 percent of the
waterfront lot width to 86 78 percent; and
13.There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per
Section 3-601 of the Community Development Code;
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code;
5.That the development proposal is consistent with the Small Motel District of Beach by
Design; and
6.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the 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 12 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) and 35 feet (to building), a rear (north)
setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to sidewalk), a building height of 48.2 feet (to top
of flat roof) with an additional 15.6 feet for architectural parapets and 113 112 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 46-slip, 6,773 5,921 square-foot
Commercial Dock with an increase to the permitted width of docks from 75 percent of the
waterfront lot width to 86 78 percent under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 3-601, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
1.That application for a building permit to construct Phase I of the approved project be
submitted no later than November 15, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to
CDC Section 4-407;
2.That application for a building permit to construct Phase II, III and IV of the approved
project be submitted no later than November 15, 2016, unless time extensions are granted
pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
3.That, prior to the issuance of any permit for Phase I, a Declaration of Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records for such parcels;
4.That, prior to the issuance of any permit for Phase II, a Declaration of Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records for parcels in Phase I and Phase II;
5.That, prior to the issuance of any permit for Phase III, a Declaration of Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records for parcels in Phase I, Phase II and Phase III;
6.That, prior to the issuance of any permit for Phase IV, a Declaration of Unity of Title be
recorded in the public records for all parcels included in the proposal;
7.That prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase I, the abandoned structure on the eastern
most parcel be removed;
8.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
9.That any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign, be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at
six-foot height through a Comprehensive Sign Program;
10.That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines
serving this development within the right-of-way along the north side of Brightwater Drive
be placed underground;
11.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from Brightwater Drive, be painted the same color as the building;
12.That no docks be constructed prior to vertical construction of the upland units at the
respective phasing;
13.That use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by owners or guests and
that the docks are not permitted to be rented, leased or sold separately from use by owners or
guests;
14.That covered boatlifts are prohibited;
15.That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the
vicinity;
16.That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental
permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if
applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction.
17.That all Parks and Recreation fees and any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be
paid prior to the issuance of any permits;
18.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic
Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed;
19.That the proposal expressly commits that a minimum of 50 percent of the units in each phase
shall be sold to fee simple buyers of the entire unit interest (i.e., no time share, fractional
ownership, personal residence club, or similar less-than-whole ownership interest shall be
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2010-06004 2011-12-20
sold for at least 50 percent or more of the units, by phase, as the project is developed,
marketed and sold). Up to the remaining 50 percent of the units, by phase, may be sold via a
form of fractional ownership interest(s) if desired by the developer; subject, however, to the
minimum one week rental/use period set forth above, for all units and the condominium
documents indicating such be provide to the City of Clearwater prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy;
20.That fencing or a wall be constructed on both the west and east property boundary; and
21.That the proposal expressly commits that there shall be no commercial use whatsoever
approved for the project, which shall be a residential use project, only. Without limiting the
foregoing, the application shall be revised to expressly commit that there shall be no public
restaurant, bar or lounge in the development project, and that all amenities constructed for
the project shall be ancillary, supporting facilities for the residential project, only, and
therefore shall be used only by the residential owners and their guests.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2010-06004 – Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 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)
UPDATE:
This case was continued at the November 15, 2011, Community Development Board (CDB)
meeting to this meeting as a result of a 3-2 vote by the Board to deny the application (four votes
are required to approve or deny an application). During the discussions regarding this
application there was a question as to the zoning history of the property. Based upon the zoning
atlas’s that are presently available, as of November 5, 1987, the property was zoned Multiple
Family Residential 8 (RM8). At some point between that date and November 18, 1993, the
property was rezoned to Infill Commercial (CI). Upon the adoption of the Community
Development Code (CDC) on January 21, 1999 (which became effective March 8, 1999), the
property was rezoned to Commercial (C) District, which is the current zoning designation of the
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
property. It can also be confirmed that the subject property was purchased by Mr. Clayton on
January 12, 1999.
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.
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
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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:
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:
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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
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.”
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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
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.
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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.
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.
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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;
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.
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09029 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09029 2011-12-20
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.
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 2011-12-20
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 2011-12-20
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 2011-12-20
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
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: November 15, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-09032
Agenda Item: D. 3.
Owner: Robert N. Lynch, as Bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg
Applicant: Catholic Charities Community Development Corporation
Representative: Frank Murphy, Steve Zintek, Sabrina Burton Schultz, Joe DiVito
Address: 1305 Franklin Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
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 the amount of required interior landscaping
from 437 square feet to 177 square feet, as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Institutional (I)
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Institutional (I)
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CHARACTER
DISTRICT:East Gateway
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant
Proposed: Residential Shelter of 6,760 square feet of floor area and
five parking spaces (including one handicapped space) with
a 0.14 Floor Area Ratio at a height of 23 feet (to midpoint of
pitched roof).
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
EXISTING North: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
SURROUNDING Single and Multi-Family Dwelling Units
ZONING AND USES: South: Open Space/ Recreation (OSR) District
Glen Oaks Park
East: Institutional (I) District
St. Cecilia School
West: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Attached Dwellings
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.02 acre subject property is located on the north side of Franklin Street approximately 145
feet east of Betty Lane which is within the “East Gateway” Character District of the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. The site is currently developed with a 6,760 square foot two-story building.
The building was previously used as a nunnery and includes such associated facilities as
bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, chapel, office and garage for two parking spaces.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal is to re-use the existing building and through minor renovations
operate the facility as a residential shelter for expectant and new mothers who are in need of a
temporary, safe and healthy living environment. The Diocese anticipates that the women will be
referred to the residence through one of their local pregnancy centers. After the renovations the
building will have 10 bedrooms including one room for the weekend staff, seven bathrooms,
community room, chapel, office, laundry room, dining room and parlor. A handicapped
accessible parking stall is also proposed bringing the total number of off-street parking spaces to
five consisting of two in the garage and three outdoor.
The proposal is being processed as Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment application as in the
Institutional (I) District a residential shelter at a minimum can only be approved through a
Flexible Standard Development (FLS) application subject to standards and criteria. One of the
required standards is the provision of a 10 foot side setback, and only a five foot side setback is
proposed on the west property line. Furthermore, two FLS criteria require a residential shelter to
be within 600 feet of a transit line and more than 1,500 feet away from another residential
shelter. Neither of these criteria are met.
The proposal does not include any architectural style changes to the building as there are a
number of architectural details present. The building design includes a stairway canopy, changes
in building elevation, distinctive window fenestration patterns and railings. And as part of the
proposal, the building will be painted four complimentary colors. The colors will be used to add
variety to the building exterior as well as bring attention to the existing ground floor window
reliefs.
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
FLD2011-09032 – Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1201.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a future land use plan designation of Institutional is .65. The
proposal is for a total of 6,760 square feet of floor area at a FAR of 0.14, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1201.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.16, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there is no minimum lot area or
width requirement for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The subject property has a
lot area 44,577 square feet and lot width along Franklin Street of 218 feet. It is noted that the lot
area/ width of the subject property exceeds that which is typical for uses in the I District.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there are no minimum setback requirements
for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The development proposal includes 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),
and a rear (south) setback of 210 feet (to existing covered parking structure). It is noted that the
proposed setbacks are generally consistent or exceed with what would typically be required in
the I District.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, there is no maximum allowable
height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The existing building is 23 feet to
midpoint of pitched roof. It is noted that the proposed height is within the maximum range
established for multiple uses within the I District and is compatible with the surrounding
buildings.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1204, the minimum off-street parking
requirements for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects shall be as determined by the
Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1203, the minimum off-street parking requirement for residential
shelters is one per two residents. As the proposal includes ten residents at one time and five off-
street parking spaces (including one handicapped space), adequate off-street parking is provided.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project – Flexibility Criteria: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-
1204.A.2, the development or redevelopment will be consistent with the intent and purpose of
this zoning district. As previously stated and in the I District, residential shelters are not to be
within 600 feet of a transit line and are not to be located within 1,500 feet of another residential
shelter.
In the I District and the other two zoning districts residential shelters are allowable (IRT and
MHDR), the Code requires one parking space per two residents and to be within 600 feet of a
transit line. The intent of these provisions results from the understanding that typically not all
residents will own automotive transportation. Some residents share vehicles and others will rely
on local transit systems. For those using transit lines and especially in a tropical climate where
heat and rain storms are access factors, being within a close proximity to the transit line is
imperative to accessibility and function. There does exist a transit line within a 600 foot buffer
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
of the subject property line along Court Street to the south. However, to access the transit line
the legal pedestrian path exceeds 1,000 feet.
In the I District as well as in the other two zoning districts where residential shelters are allowed,
the Code requires there to be a separation of 1,500 feet. The intent of this Code provision is to
prohibit a concentration of such uses in a small geographic area. Historically the East Gateway
District has been characterized with businesses and problematic uses such as day labor, homeless
shelter and a soup kitchen. And while staff recognizes and agrees that facilities are necessary for
the provision of employment, food and shelter to the homeless population, staff also recognizes
that the intent of the Code is to not concentrate all such facilities in one neighborhood. As such,
and as the St. Vincent De Paul soup kitchen is currently operating and within 1,500 feet of the
subject property, the application does not meet the separation requirement.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, mechanical equipment shall be
screened from any public right-of-way and adjacent properties. No new mechanical equipment is
proposed and existing equipment is screened from view by landscaping.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at street or
driveway intersections, 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. There is only one existing driveway on this property accessing Franklin
Street that is not to be changed. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic
Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The existing distribution lines are located underground.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-1202.D.1, there is a 10-foot wide landscape buffer
required along the north and west property lines, and five foot landscape buffers along the south
and east property lines. The proposal includes the reduction to the landscape buffer along the
west property line from 10 to five feet and the removal of the required landscape buffers along
the south and east property lines.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, 10 percent of the gross vehicular use area is required to be
landscaped through the use of interior landscaped islands. The proposal includes the reduction in
the amount of required interior landscaping from 437 square feet to 177 square feet.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings are required for 100 percent of a
building facade with frontage along a street right-of-way in a minimum of a five-foot wide
landscaped area. The proposed foundation plantings are consistent with the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
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 that
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 N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
The intent of the perimeter landscaping buffer requirement is to provide a physical and
aesthetically pleasing buffer between developments. The proposal includes a tiered perimeter
buffer along the north property line abutting Franklin Street that exceeds Code requirements. In
typical developments, perimeter buffers along the remaining property lines are necessary to meet
the buffering intent. In the case of the subject property though, there exists a large expanse of
open space between the subject property and properties to the south, east and west. Furthermore,
the land to the south and east of the subject property is a drainage area. In conjunction with the
large area of green space, there are multiple large shade trees which buffer the subject property
from the attached dwellings on the west side of the property.
With regard to the interior of the surface parking area the proposal meets the majority of the
applicable Code Requirements. However, the application does request a reduction of the amount
of interior landscaping. The reduction is necessary as the existing vehicular use area is sufficient
for the access and parking requirements and there is no additional area for interior landscaping.
There is one existing interior landscaped island in the middle of the circular driveway that is
consistent with Code provisions. Furthermore, the additional landscaping along the north
property line will buffer the majority of the vehicular use area from view.
Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Department has reviewed the application and has determined that
the black barrel level of service will not changed from the previous use. There is ample room to
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
store the black barrel out of view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way in the attached
garage.
Signage: No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time. Freestanding signage in
the East Gateway Character District is restricted to a maximum height of four feet, or six feet
through a Comprehensive Sign Program. If approved, this application should include a condition
allowing for freestanding signage, where such future freestanding signage must be a monument-
style sign meeting Code requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color
of the building. Any proposed attached signage not meeting minimum Code requirements will
be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in
particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public
and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of
the Plan.
The site is located within the East Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. This being the case the proposal is governed by the Institutional (I)
District zoning with regard to intensity, density and setbacks while also having to be consistent
with the East Gateway Character District policies. This area is envisioned to be a vibrant, stable,
diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural base and mixed land uses. It will continue to
be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported with
neighborhood commercial and professional offices concentrated along the major corridors of
Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Missouri Avenue.
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be
consistent with the following Policy:
Policy 1: The design guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all
projects must be consistent.
East Gateway Character District Policies:
The following policies governing development
within the East Gateway character district have been reviewed and have been determined to be
applicable to the development proposal:
Policy 12: Encourage the adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings in the event
redevelopment is not feasible.
Downtown Design Guidelines:
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with
regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown.
A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items
were identified:
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
Buffering and Screening: The Downtown Design Guidelines require buffering and screening to
enhance an area’s quality and character through the use of landscaping. As discussed previously,
the proposal includes a higher quality perimeter buffer along the north property line abutting
Franklin Street.
Landscaping: The Downtown Design Guidelines require plant species that are appropriate to the
space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs, growth rates, size, etc. in order to
conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health. The proposal includes native
species with appropriate maturity size to limit maintenance and conserve water.
Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines require building colors to be cohesive, varied, and
appropriate to the buildings architectural design to provide visual appeal. The proposal includes
using a four color earth tone palette with the main portion of the building one color and the trim
and architectural details in complimentary colors.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-1201.1 and
Table 2-1204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 0.65 6,760 square feet (0.14) X
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.85 0.19 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 44,577 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 218 feet X
Minimum Setback Front: N/A North: 28 feet (to building) X
Rear: N/A South: 210 (to existing parking X
structure)
Side: N/A East: Zero feet (to existing X
driveway)
Side: N/A West: 5.2 feet (to existing X
pavement and parking
structure)
Maximum Height N/A 23 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) X
roof)
Minimum Off-Street N/A 5 parking spaces X
Parking
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1204.A (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. 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
FLD2011-09032 – Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
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.That the 1.02-acre subject property is within the Institutional (I) District and the Institutional
(I) future land use plan category;
2.That the site is located within the East Gateway character district of the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan;
3.That the vision of the “East Gateway” Character District is envisioned to be a vibrant, stable,
diverse neighborhood defined by its unique cultural base and mixed land uses. It will
continue to be developed as a low and medium density residential neighborhood supported
with neighborhood commercial and professional offices concentrated along the major
corridors of Cleveland Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Missouri Avenue;
4.That adjacent uses are zoned Medium High Density Residential District developed with
single-family and multi-family dwellings between one and three stories high, Open Space/
Recreation developed for stormwater drainage and Institutional developed with educational
facilities (St. Cecelia School);
5.That the subject property has a lot area of 44,431 square feet;
6.That the proposal includes the re-use of an existing building with limited interior
renovations;
7.That the site is permitted 12 dwelling units (12.5 dwelling units per acre);
8.That based on a parking ratio of two spaces per resident, a total of five spaces are required;
9.That the CDC in the I District requires 1,500 feet between residential shelters;
10.That the CDC defines a residential shelter as a building or portion thereof, the use of which is
for a nonprofit service providing a place of temporary residence or sustenance to homeless or
needy persons or families;
11.That the St. Vincent De Paul soup kitchen provides temporary sustenance to the homeless;
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
12.That the proposed development is within 1,500 feet of the St. Vincent De Paul soup kitchen;
13.That the CDC in the I District requires residential shelters to be within 600 feet of a transit
line;
14.That the proposed development is not within 600 feet of a transit line; and
15.That 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 Policies of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the East Gateway character district of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community
Development Code (CDC) Tables 2-1201.1 and 2-1204;
5.That the development proposal is not consistent the with Flexible Standard criteria set forth
in CDC Section 2-1203.K.2 that residential shelters be located within 600 feet of a transit
line;
6.That the development proposal is not consistent the with Flexible Standard criteria set forth
in CDC Section 2-1203.K.3 that residential shelters not be located within 1,500 feet of
another residential shelter;
7.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC
Section 2-1204.A;
8.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A; and
9.That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program
criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G;
DENIAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the
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 the amount of required interior landscaping from 437
square feet to 177 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G.
Prepared by: Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09032 2011-12-20
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Franklin Street 1305 Fountains of Live Villa (IRT) - 2011.10
MJ\Staff Report 2011.10.docx
Community Development Board – November 15, 2011
FLD2011-09032 – Page 11 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-10039
Agenda Item: E. 5.
Owner/Applicant: 220 Tulane, LLC
Representative: John Mueller, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC
Address: 220 Tulane Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a
parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback of
10 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential
Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-304.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY:Residential Medium (RM)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached Dwellings
Proposed: Attached Dwellings
EXISTING North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
SURROUNDING
Vacant land
ZONING AND USES:
South: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales and Storage
East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached Dwellings and Parking for office and
commercial uses fronting on Drew Street
West: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached Dwelling and Vacant land
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of Drew
Street.The subject property is currently developed with four attached dwellings and accessory
parking. The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road, which
is a right-of-way of approximately 30 feet in width that dead ends at the north side of the subject
property.
At its meeting of June 15, 2010, the Community Development Board approved a Flexible
Development request for a reduction of the front setback to 15 feet as a Residential Infill
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
Development Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G of the Community Development
Code; however, the applicant was unable to perform the work within the approved time frame
detailed in the Development Order which has since expired. The applicant is now proposing to
further decrease the front (east) setback to 10 feet where 10 feet is allowable. The primary
purpose of this proposal is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces per
unit.
The property to the north is presently zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is
presently vacant. Properties to the east across Tulane Road are zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District and are developed with a detached dwelling and a parking lot for the
office and commercial uses fronting on Drew Street. The property to the south at 1808 – 1820
Drew Street is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales and storage uses.
Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District and are developed with a detached dwelling and are otherwise vacant.
Development Proposal:
The purpose of this application is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces
for each dwelling unit (eight spaces proposed), rather than the 1.5 spaces per unit that currently
exist (six spaces presently provided). Due to a large healthy tree at the northeast corner of the
northern unit and the existing building locations, laying pavement for additional vehicular use
area is restricted on the west side of the parking lot; therefore, additional pavement is proposed
on the east side of the parking lot which will be within the required front setback. To achieve the
desired number of parking spaces, the applicant has proposed a front (east) setback of 10 feet.
For this reason, this application is being processed as a Residential Infill Project since the
attached dwelling use in the MDR District does not afford such flexibility to the front setback.
Other proposed modifications to the existing parking lot include adding pin-curbs and curbs
around the edge of the parking lot, placing wheel stops in each parking stall, expanding the throat
of the driveway to 26 feet, constructing ADA compliant ramp, sidewalks, and parking space as
well as adding some shrubs and shade trees in the front perimeter landscape buffer and along the
northern edge of the parking lot.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Residential Medium (RM)
land use category and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-301.1, the maximum
density of 15 dwelling units per acre would allow for a maximum of six dwelling units on this
parcel. There exist four dwelling units on the property (9.756 dwelling units per acre), which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC
Section 2-301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.45, which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area
for this parcel is 17,986 square feet (0.41 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot
width requirement for attached dwellings is 100 feet. The lot width along Tulane Road is
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 2 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
approximately 131 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for attached
dwellings.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum front setback for Residential
Infill Projects can range between 10 – 25 feet. The minimum side setback can range between 0 –
5 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 0 – 10 feet. It is noted that for attached
dwellings, the minimum required front setback is 25 feet, the minimum side setback is five feet
and the minimum rear setback is 10 feet. The proposal exceeds both the minimum side and rear
setback requirements. The design of the proposal includes the location of the expanded parking
lot at a front setback to the Tulane Road property line of 10 feet. The purpose of this proposal is
to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit. However, the width of
each standard parking space is greater than the required 9 feet. Pursuant CDC Section 3-1402,
off-street parking spaces at a 90 degree angle shall be 9 feet by 18 feet unless it is found
necessary to alter the parking space dimensions for safe and efficient vehicular movement
particularly where columns, walls, or other site conditions impede maneuverability or vision. No
such obstruction exists on site at the driveway or parking lot; therefore Staff, recommends that
each parking space other than the handicap space meet the standard parking space dimension.
For this reason, Staff recommends a reduction to the front (east) setback at 12 feet rather than the
requested 10 feet setback to existing pavement.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the maximum allowable height for a
Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) can range between 30 – 50 feet. The height of
the existing one-story residential building is approximately 10 feet to the midpoint of the pitched
roof, which is less than the allowable height.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum required parking for
a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) is two spaces per unit. The purpose of this
application is to upgrade the site from 1.5 spaces per unit (six spaces existing) to the current
Code requirement of two spaces per unit (eight spaces). One of these spaces will be a handicap
space meeting Code requirements. The existing driveway is also being widened to the required
24-foot width.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveway on Tulane Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct
views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight
visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department
and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-912 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be
installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this
proposal shows that overhead utility lines have been placed underground as a condition of
approval for the dumpster enclosure (FLD2009-06019), in conformance with this Code
requirement.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along Tulane Road. The proposal will meet this required perimeter buffer by providing
a 10-foot wide area that will be planted with a hedge and a shade tree on both sides of the
driveway for screening of the parking area. No additional landscaping is required since the cost
of the project is less than 25 percent of the value of the principle structure and that the parking
lot area is less than 4,000 square feet.
Solid Waste: A dumpster enclosure on the subject property serves the attached dwellings as well
as the the commercial uses to the south (approved through FLD2009-06019). The applicant has
proposed no changes to the existing method of waste collection. The proposal has been found to
be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
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 Residential Medium (RM) future land use plan category and the Medium Density Residential
(MDR) District as per CDC Section 2-301.1 and Table 2-304:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 15 dwelling units per acre 9.756 dwelling units per acre X
(maximum of 6 dwelling units) (4 dwelling units)
Impervious Surface 0.75 0.45 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area N/A 17,986 sq. ft. (0.41 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 131 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: : 10-25 feet East: 10 feet (to pavement); 25 X 1
feet (to existing building)
Side: 0-5 feet North: 8 feet (to pavement); X
28.8 feet (to existing
building)
South: 24.9 feet (to existing
building)
Rear: 0-10 feet West: 15 feet X
Maximum Height 30-50 feet 10 feet X
(to mid-point of pitched roof)
Minimum 2 spaces per unit (8 parking spaces) 8 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking
1
See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-304.G (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; other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 1
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 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of
Drew Street;
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10039 2011-12-20
2.The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road;
3.The site is currently developed with four attached dwelling units;
4.The proposal is to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit (eight parking spaces),
rather than the 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit under prior regulations (six spaces);
5.The proposal includes a reduction of the front (east) setback to 10 feet where 10 feet is
allowable;
6.The front (east) setback shall be set at 12 feet rather than the requested 10 feet since no
columns, walls, or other site conditions impede maneuverability or vision exist on site that
would permit a revision to the standard parking space dimension of 9 feet by 18 feet;
7.The proposal exceeds the required 10-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer along Tulane
Road;
8.The property owner has undergrounded the overhead utilities within the Tulane Road right-
of-way;
9.A dumpster enclosure that serves the commercial uses to the south (approved through
FLD2009-06019), as well as these attached dwellings, has been constructed in the southeast
corner of the property; and
10.There is no active Code Enforcement case for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-301.1 and 2-
304 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
304.G 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.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving existing
attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback
of 12 feet (to pavement), as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-304.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the Site Plan be revised to reflect a front (east) setback of 12 feet to structure;
2.That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements and landscaping
improvements; and
3.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion all landscaping shall be installed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10039 – Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-09031
Agenda Item: E. 3.
Owner/Applicant: Salvatore Belloise
Representative: Housh Ghovee / Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc
Address: 1421 S. Missouri Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 2,245 square feet of
retail sales and services and 800 square feet of office use in the
Commercial (C) District within an existing building with a lot area
of 10,463 square feet, a lot width of 104 feet, front (west) setbacks of
1.2 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement),
side (north) setback of 10.2 feet (to existing building) and zero feet
(to existing pavement), side (south) setbacks of 37 feet (to existing
building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), rear (east) setbacks of
18.5 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement),
a building height of 11 feet (to top of flat roof) and 14 feet (to top of
parapet), and 12 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C., as well as reductions to
the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, the side
(south) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, the side (north)
landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, the rear (east) landscape
buffer from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to the foundation
landscape requirements from five feet to zero feet and a reduction to
the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to zero percent
under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant, Retail Sales and Services
Proposed: Office, Retail Sales and Services
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District Vacant
SURROUNDING South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services
ZONING AND USES: East: Open Space/Recreation Open Space
(OS/R) District
West: Commercial (C) District Retail sales and vacant
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.24 acres is located on the east side of S. Missouri Avenue approximately 380 feet south of
the intersection of S. Missouri Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. The subject property is currently
developed with a 3,245 square-foot commercial building with multiple tenant spaces. The
building has been vacant for ten months.
Surrounding properties adjacent to this site are zoned Commercial (C) District, with the
exception being a retention pond to the east being zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) and
Preservation (P) Districts. Properties to the north and south of the subject property all have
similar building and structure setbacks, and are either vacant or being currently used as a retail
sales and service use. Properties to the west across S. Missouri Avenue are developed with retail
sales and services uses.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to establish retail sales and services use and an office use in a building that has
been vacant for ten months. The building presently has two tenant spaces. The western tenant
space of 2,245 square feet is to operate as a retail sale and service use. The other tenant space
consists of 800 square feet that is to be utilized as an office space. No specific tenant is proposed
to occupy either space. The applicants are aware that a condition of approval shall be that the 800
square feet of gross floor area proposed for Office use shall only for Office use.
This site is nonconforming to current setback requirements. CDC Section 6-102.E requires
nonconforming structures that have been abandoned for more than six months to be brought into
full compliance with current Code requirements. Due to this site being fully developed, this
proposal recognizes many of the existing setbacks to the existing building and pavement that do
not meet current Code requirements. Site improvements are being made where possible and
appropriate while providing as many parking spaces as possible. This proposal reorients the
location of some of these parking spaces so that they function and comply with the parking
standards of the Code. This proposal requires a minimum of 12 parking spaces as determined by
shared parking table in CDC Section 3-1405 for an office and retail use in a building with 3,245
square feet of gross floor area.
Pavement and trees are being removed in order to meet Code provisions and to improve sight
triangle requirements at the entrance to the site. An existing greenspace area within the South
Missouri Avenue right-of-way is being removed to provide an ADA compliant sidewalk and
handrail offering access to the subject building. The removal of pavement at the rear of the
property allows for added greenspace which will provide needed visual improvements to this
site. These improvements, while not meeting the full Code provisions, will greatly improve the
appearance of this site in an area of S. Missouri Avenue that needs improvement and re-
investment. Without the reductions requested, the redevelopment of this site would be otherwise
impractical.
In order to form an attractive appearance, the proposal includes a few architectural design
elements. The addition of a decorative black cloth awning will be added along the west and
south elevations which includes extending the awning to wrap around the northwest corner of the
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 2 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
building. A decorative aluminum handrail is proposed along the south sidewalk that will add an
architectural detail to the design of the structures. The applicants propose to provide a distinctive
color pallet of rich brown, black and white. Such improvements to the appearance of the
building will be in striking contrast to the previous condition of the building.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. There
presently exists a total floor area of 3,245 square feet for a FAR of 0.31, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The existing ISR is 0.92 and, after construction of
the proposed improvements, the ISR will be 0.91, which while still nonconforming, will at least
reduce the existing nonconformity.
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, pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum lot area for office and retail sales uses
can range between 3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The existing site is 10,463 square feet of lot area,
which exceeds these Code provisions. Pursuant to this same Table, the minimum lot width for
office and retail sales uses can range between 35 – 100 feet. The site has 104 feet of frontage
along S. Missouri Avenue, which exceeds these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
CDC Table 2-704, the minimum front setback for office and retail sales services uses can range
between 15 – 25 feet, the minimum side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet and the minimum
rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 1.2
feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), side (north) setbacks of 10.2 feet
(to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), side (south) setbacks of 37 feet (to
existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement) and rear (east) setbacks of 18.5 feet (to
existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement).
Due to this site being fully developed, this proposal recognizes many of the existing setbacks to
the existing building and pavement. With the number of parking spaces meeting the minimum
number required, site improvements are being made where possible and appropriate. No further
removal of pavement will allow for the installation of enhanced perimeter landscaping without
eliminating required parking spaces and drive aisles. Surrounding properties have setbacks to
buildings and pavement similar to this site.
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 office and retail sales and services can range between 25 and
50 feet. As proposed, the height of the flat roof will be at 11 feet with an additional 18 inches for
a parapet wall, both of which are well below that which may be permitted based upon the above
Code provisions.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
Minimum Off-Street Parking: The applicant indicates there are 14 existing parking spaces that
are not well marked and don’t meet current Code requirements. This proposal reorients the
location of some of these parking spaces so that they function and comply with the parking
standards of the Code. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for office
uses can range between 3 – 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, retail sales uses can range between 4
– 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. CDC Section 3-1405 requires two or more uses to calculate
parking based on a Shared Parking basis. When taking both uses into account for this site and
the Shared Parking calculation, the required parking is 12 parking spaces. The proposed site
plan provides 12 parking spaces.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1405, when any land, building or area is used for two or more uses
that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall
be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the appropriate
percentages listed in the table. The following table depicts the development proposals parking
requirement as per the shared parking table:
WEEKDAYWEEKEND
Use: Midnight 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 9 A.M. 6 P.M.
6 A.M. 4 P.M. Midnight4 P.M. Midnight
Retail (11.225) 5% = 0.56 70% = 7.85 90% = 10.1 100% = 11.225 70% = 7.85
Office (3.2) 5% = 0.16 100% = 3.2 10% = 0.32 10% = 0.32 5% = 0.16
Totals: 0.72 11.05 10.42 11.545 (12) 8.01
Based upon the above, the development proposal requires a minimum of 12 parking spaces. As
proposed, a total of 12 parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal meets its
parking requirement.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveways on S. Missouri Avenue, 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 has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering
Department and been found to be acceptable.
Landscaping: The applicant has reoriented four parking spaces at the rear of the property. This
has allowed for the removal of 276.5 feet of pavement which will be replaced with greenspace.
Proposed plantings within this area will include two southern magnolias and white Indian
hawthorne groundcover. The northern perimeter of the property will be planted with two crape
myrtles, twenty-one schefflera shrubs and bahia grass groundcover. In addition to these
plantings, seven schefflera shrubs will be added along the rear building foundation. The
applicant is also proposing to landscape the State Road right-of-way along South Missouri
Avenue with 840 square feet of groundcover. With very little area available to include
landscaping, due to the need for every parking space proposed and drive aisles, there is no
remaining area on site that can be further landscaped.
The proposal includes a reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) along S. Missouri Avenue from
15 to zero feet, a reduction to the north perimeter buffer from five to zero feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the south perimeter buffer from five to zero feet (to existing
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter buffer from five to zero feet (to existing pavement),
a reduction to the foundation planting area from five to zero feet and a reduction to the
percentage of interior landscape area from 10% to 0%, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Much like required setbacks, this proposal
recognizes many of the existing perimeter buffers. Staff finds the landscape proposal satisfactory
due to the built conditions of the site.
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.
Solid Waste: The property will be served by black barrels for the office and retail uses. The
proposal includes the construction of a concrete pad and sidewalk at the rear of the property.
Black barrels will be stored on the pad. The sidewalk will allow the tenants to wheel the black
barrels around the building to be brought to the front for collection. The proposal has been found
to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste and Fire Departments.
Signage: There exists a nonconforming (height and setback) freestanding sign. CDC Section 6-
104.A applies to this proposal in which any redevelopment of a principal structure, or a principal
structure is vacant for a period of 180 days, signs on the parcel proposed for development shall
be brought into compliance. No signage is proposed at this time, however, a condition of
approval is that the nonconforming sign shall be removed and replaced with a sign that
compliant with current Code requirements either through a building permit or the
Comprehensive Sign Program. The removal of the existing sign must be done in conjunction
with the other improvements being made to the property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.33 X
ISR 0.90 0.91 X 1
Minimum Lot Area N/A 10,463 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 104 feet X
Maximum Height N/A 11 feet (to flat roof) X
11.18 feet (to parapet wall)
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A West: 1.2 feet (to existing building) X
0 feet (to existing pavement)
Side: N/A North: 10.2 feet (to existing building) X
0 feet (to existing pavement)
South: 37 feet (to existing building) X
0 feet (to existing pavement)
Rear: N/A East: 18.5 feet (to existing building) X
0 feet (to existing pavement)
Minimum Office: 4 per 1,000 SF 12 total parking spaces (12 spaces X
Off-Street Parking required per Shared Parking
Retail: 5 per 1,000 SF
calculation)
1 – See discussion in Staff Report
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. 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 – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
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 0.24 acres is located on the east side of S. Missouri Avenue approximately 380 feet
south of the intersection of S. Missouri Avenue and Lakeview Avenue
;
2.The subject property is currently developed with a 3,245 square foot commercial building
with two tenant spaces that have been vacant for more than six months;
3.The proposal is to permit an office and retail sales and service use in the building;
4.This site is nonconforming to current setback requirements;
5.This proposal includes the provision of 12 parking spaces as determined by the Shared
Parking calculation set forth in CDC Section 3-1405;
6.The maximum allowable FAR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. The proposed FAR
is 0.13;
7.The maximum allowable ISR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.90. The proposed ISR is
0.91 which while nonconforming will result in a reduction of the existing nonconformity on
the subject property;
8.The existing site is 10,463 square feet of lot area, which exceeds Code provisions;
9.The site has 104 feet of frontage along S. Missouri Avenue, which exceeds Code provisions;
10.The proposal includes reductions to setback and landscaping requirements;
11.The creation of new landscaped areas, as well as the landscaping of existing perimeter
buffers, while not meeting the full Code provisions, will greatly improve the appearance of
this site in an area of S. Missouri Avenue that needs improvement and re-investment;
12.There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
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 Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
4.The proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per
Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to (1) permit 2,245 square feet of retail sales and services
and 800 square feet of office use in the Commercial (C) District within an existing building with
a lot area of 10,463 square feet (0.24 acres), a lot width of 104 feet, a front (west) setback of 1.2
feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of 10.2 feet
(to existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), side (south) setbacks of 37 feet (to
existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), rear (east) setbacks of 18.5 feet (to
existing building) and zero feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 11 feet (to top of flat
roof) and 14 feet (to top of parapet), and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
704.C., as well as reductions to the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet, the
side (south) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, the side (north) landscape buffer from
five feet to zero feet, the rear (east) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, a reduction to the
foundation landscape requirements from five feet to zero feet and a reduction to the interior
landscape requirement from 10 percent to zero percent 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 a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and
building improvements;
2.That prior to the issuance of any Business Tax Receipt, that the parking lot improvements,
landscaping, and building improvements are completed;
3.That the tenant space which consists of 800 square feet of gross floor shall be only for Office
use;
4.That the existing 6 foot wooden fence which restricts access to the rear parking area be
removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
5.That the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed architectural modifications to the
building be consistent with the design, color, and elevations approved by the CDB;
6.That mechanical equipment on the exterior of the building shall be screened on all four sides;
and
7.That the existing nonconforming freestanding sign shall be removed in conjunction with the
other improvements and that any future signage must meet the requirements of Code.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09031 2011-12-20
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09031 – Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-10037
Agenda Item: E. 6.
Owner/Applicant: Church of Scientology/Flag Service Organization
Agent: Cornoyer Construction
Address: 2000 Calumet Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a 12,000 square foot building
addition to an existing 59,943 square foot warehouse in the Industrial,
Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 217,800
square feet, a lot width of 658 feet (along Calumet Street) and 328 feet
(along Hercules Avenue), front (south) setbacks of 47 feet (to existing
pavement) and 59 feet (to existing building), front (west) setbacks of 79
feet (to existing pavement) and 50 feet (to existing building), side
(north) setbacks of 27 feet (to existing pavement) and 24 feet (to
proposed building), side (east) setbacks of 140 feet (to existing
pavement) and 157 feet (to proposed building), a building height of 15
feet (to top of flat roof of proposed addition) and 19.2 feet (to top of
roof of existing building), and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive
Infill Development Project under the provisions of the Community
Development Code section 2-1304.C.
ZONING DISTRICT: Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY:Industrial Limited (IL)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Warehouse facility
Proposed: Warehouse facility
EXISTING North: Unincorporated Pinellas County
SURROUNDING
Vehicle Repair and Warehouse
ZONING AND USES:
South: Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District
Vacant Retail Sales and Services
East: Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District
Warehouse and Retail Sales and Services
West: Unincorporated Pinellas County
Retail Sales and Services
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
This five acre property was voluntarily annexed into the City of Clearwater in 2007. Then, as
now, it consists of a 59,943 square foot warehouse and distribution center with 38 off-street
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
parking spaces, known as the Central Warehouse. Work performed within this facility includes
hotel laundry service, mail processing, motor pool maintenance, book and media material
distribution center, and record archives. It is located at the northeast corner of Calumet Street and
North Hercules Avenue. The purpose of the annexation was to receive solid waste and sanitary
sewer service from the City. Based upon the land uses on site and surrounding land uses, the
City assigned the property a Future Land Use Plan designation of Industrial Limited (IL) and a
zoning category of Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT).
The need for sanitary sewer service was prompted by the applicant’s proposal to construct a
6,040 square foot laundry facility on this property. The site was nonconforming with regard to
drainage and landscaping and back-out parking located within the Calumet Street right-of-way.
The main objective of the annexation was to upgrade the property and bring it into compliance
with City of Clearwater standards; however, due to timing issues, the applicant constructed the
addition while located in the County. The Planning and Engineering Departments worked with
the applicant and Pinellas County to ensure that the site plan approved by the County complied
with the provisions of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Properties to the west across Hercules Avenue consists of a few commercial properties such as
an automobile service station with convenience store, awning sales and services business, and a
retail sales and service tire store in the unincorporated area of Pinellas County. The property to
the north consists of an auto repair shop that is also located in an incorporated area of Pinellas
County. Located to the south are a vacant commercial property and a printing sale and service
business. Directly east is a United Parcel Service sales and service with a distribution facility.
The properties to the south and east are within the City of Clearwater jurisdiction.
Development Proposal:
The request proposes to expand an existing 59,943 square foot building to 71,943 square feet by
adding a 12,000 square foot addition for record storage. This addition will be on the north side
of the existing building and its location will result in the loss of thirty-eight parking spaces that
currently exist within the project area. The applicant does not plan to replace these parking
spaces which will result in a total of 12 parking spaces remaining on site. For this reason, the
application has been submitted as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. When built the
new addition will be setback 23.7 feet from the side (north) property line, 157.3 feet from the
side (east) property line, and 203 feet from the front (west) property line. It will have a building
height of 15 feet (to top of flat roof of proposed addition) and will be architecturally similar to
the existing building. The warehouse addition will be cohesive in appearance by using the same
materials as the existing building and will provide visual interest by adding a step-down change
in the horizontal building plane. Such building modification will allow for the extension of the
gable roof design of the original building.
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 and CDC Section 2-1301.1, the
maximum allowable FAR is 0.65. The overall proposed FAR is 0.33, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed ISR is 0.54, which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for warehouse facility is 20,000 square feet. The
subject property has a lot area of 217,800 square feet (5 acres). The minimum lot width
requirement for a warehouse facility is 200 feet. The width of the subject property is 658 feet
along Calumet Street and 328 feet along Hercules Avenue. The proposal is consistent with these
criteria.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for warehouse facility is 20 feet while a minimum side
setback is 15 feet. Specific to this project is a front (west) setback of 203 feet (to proposed
addition), a side (north) setback of 23.7 feet (to proposed addition), and a side (east) setback of
157.3 feet (to proposed addition). Each setback meets code. As for existing setbacks to
pavement and/or structure, each setback also meets code.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for warehouse facility is 50 feet in height. The proposed height of
the building addition is 15 feet (to top of flat roof of proposed addition) and 19.2 feet (to top of
roof of existing building). The proposed building height is less than the Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, the minimum required parking for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The minimum off-street
parking requirement for warehouse facility uses is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area which requires the applicant to provide 105 parking spaces on site. Currently, the property
has 38 off-street parking spaces; however, after the proposed addition is constructed the
properties off-street parking will be reduced to 12 spaces. Four new parking spaces will be
located on the west side of the proposed building addition while eight existing spaces are located
on the southeast side of the main warehouse. These off-street parking spaces shall be designed
in accordance with the standards set forth in CDC Section 3-1402. For this reason, a parking
demand study was required to justify the reduction in off-street parking.
The parking demand study found that 12 parking spaces will be adequate for this facility after the
building expansion. A study was conducted at this location from Saturday, September 24, 2011
through Wednesday September 27, 2011. The counts were taken to determine the number of staff
at the facility and the number of parking spaces used at various times of day. The times selected
were 9:00 a.m., 3 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. As previously mentioned, work performed within this
facility includes hotel laundry service, mail processing, motor pool maintenance, book and media
material distribution center, and record archives. Based on the parking demand study, the most
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
heavily used parking occurs on weekdays with a maximum of 4 parked vehicles. On a typical
day there is on average 14 staff a members in the facility at the various job functions. The study
states that most employees arrive by three means of transportation which are private bus service,
private van service or bicycle. The Church’s bus system is the primary means for the staff to
arrive and depart at this facility. Based on the findings, the number of proposed parking spaces
is acceptable by staff.
Landscaping: In accordance with CDC Section 3-1202.A., the improved value of the building
addition is 25 percent or more of the valuation of the existing principal structure as reflected on
the Pinellas County property appraiser which requires the landscaping to be brought into full
compliance with code. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15 foot wide
landscape buffer along both Hercules Avenue and Calumet Street, as well as 5 foot wide
landscape buffers within each side yard. As shown on the submitted landscape plan, all required
landscaped perimeter buffers will be provided to code. A condition of approval has been added
to ensure that all landscaping must be installed prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy.
In regards to foundation plantings along Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue, the landscape plan
shows that 100 percent the building façade will be planted as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.E.
The foundation plantings along Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue are within an area that is a
minimum of five feet wide and consists of at least 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 is shown to contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover with
one shade tree every 35 feet as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.D. All proposed plant material
shall be Florida Grade No. 1 or better.
In regards to interior landscaping requirements, the submitted landscape plan shows that 1,758
square feet of greenspace will be dedicated to interior landscaping area which exceeds the 10
percent of Vehicle Use Area provision set forth in CDC Sections 3-1202.E.1
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.C, it shall be a condition of approval that the applicants shall
install an automatic permanent irrigation system providing complete water coverage for all
required and other landscaping materials and be maintained as a fully functioning system in
order to preserve the landscaping in a healthy growing condition or submit evidence that an
irrigation system exists that will provide complete water coverage for the new landscaping.
Solid Waste: The applicant has proposed no changes to the existing method of waste collection.
The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize any 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 exceeding either 30 inches or more is proposed within the
site triangles.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Industrial Limited (IL) future land use plan category and the Industrial, Research, and
Technology (IRT) District as per CDC Section 2-1302 and Table 2-1304:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.65 0.33 X
ISR 0.85 0.8754 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 217,800 sq. ft. (5 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A Calumet: 658 feet X
Hercules: 328 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 47 feet (to pavement) X
59 feet (to building)
West: 79 feet (to pavement) X
50 feet (to building)
Side: N/A North: 27 feet (to pavement) X
24 feet (to building)
East: 140 feet (to pavement) X
157 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 15 feet (to flat roof of addition) X
19.2 feet (to top of existing building)
Minimum 1.5 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 12 spaces X
Off-Street Parking
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-1304. (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 – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
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 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.That the five acre subject property is located at the northeast corner of Calumet Street and
Hercules Avenue;
2.That the subject property is located within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
District and the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.The site is currently improved with a 59,943 square foot of gross floor area warehouse
facility known as the Central Warehouse;
4.The subject property has a lot area of 217,800 square feet (5 acres), a lot width of 658 feet
(along Calumet Street) and 328 feet (along Hercules Avenue);
5.The maximum allowable FAR is 0.65, the proposed FAR is 0.33;
6.The maximum allowable ISR is 0.85, the proposed ISR is 0.54;
7.The application proposes to expand the existing warehouse facility by adding a 12,000 square
foot addition to accommodate for additional record archives storage;
8.The building addition will be 15 feet in height (to flat roof) and 19.2 feet (to top of roof of
existing building);
9.The development proposes to decrease the number of off-street parking spaces from 38 to 12
spaces;
10.The submitted parking demand study demonstrates that 12 off-street parking spaces will be
adequate for parking needs for the warehouse facility during all periods of hours of operation
since the Church’s bus system is the primary means for the staff to arrive and depart at this
facility; and
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10037 2011-12-20
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:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-1301.1 and
Table 2-1304 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
1304.C of the Community Development Code;
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
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
this Flexible Development application to permit a 12,000 square foot building addition to an
existing 59,943 square foot warehouse in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
with a lot area of 217,800 square feet, a lot width of 658 feet (along Calumet Street) and 328 feet
(along Hercules Avenue), front (south) setbacks of 47 feet (to existing pavement) and 59 feet (to
existing building), front (west) setbacks of 79 feet (to existing pavement) and 50 feet (to existing
building), side (north) setbacks of 27 feet (to existing pavement) and 24 feet (to proposed
building), side (east) setbacks of 140 feet (to existing pavement) and 157 feet (to proposed
building), a building height of 15 feet (to top of flat roof of proposed addition) and 19.2 feet (to
top of roof of existing building), and 12 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Development
Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code section 2-1304.C., 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 an automatic permanent irrigation system shall be provided for complete water
coverage for all required and other landscaping materials and maintained as a fully
functioning system in order to preserve the landscaping in a healthy growing condition; and
3.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all of the proposed landscaping shall
be installed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011- 10037 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-09034
Agenda Item: E. 2.
Owner/Applicant: Nikjeh Properties, LLC/Thornton’s Inc.
Address: 1698 Gulf to Bay Blvd.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service
station in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 48,960
square feet, lot widths of 175 feet (along Gulf to Bay Blvd.) and
280 feet (along Duncan Avenue), a building height of 24 feet (to
top of parapet), front (south) setbacks of 16 feet (to pavement) and
58.47 feet (to canopy), front (east) setbacks of 10 feet (to
pavement) and 34.42 feet (to canopy), side (west) setbacks of five
feet (to pavement) and 34.43 feet (to canopy), side (north) setbacks
of 20 feet (to pavement) and 82.66 feet (to building), and 19 off-
street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-704.C.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant Restaurant
Proposed: Automobile Service Station
EXISTING North: Office (O) District Offices
SURROUNDING
South: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services
ZONING AND USES:
East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services
West: Commercial (C) District Offices
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.12 acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Blvd and Duncan
Avenue. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a commercial corridor that runs east to west from Tampa to
Clearwater with predominately retail, office and restaurant uses. As the property is located on a
corner lot it contains two front setbacks and two side setbacks. There is approximately 175 feet
of frontage along Gulf to Bay Blvd and 280 feet of frontage along Duncan Avenue. A 4,666
square foot building (formerly Krispy Kreme Donuts) presently exists on the site, as well as its
associated off-street parking. The site has two ingress/egress areas on Gulf to Bay Blvd and one
on Duncan Avenue.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
On July 17, 2001, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved a Flexible Development
application (FL 01-05-21) with three conditions to permit restaurant use (Krispy Kreme Donuts)
on this property. The approval included a front (south) setback of one foot (to bike rack) and a
front (east) setback of eight feet (to pavement).
The surrounding land use is office (The Florida Knee & Orthopedic Center) to the north, retail
(Auto Zone) to the south, office (Synovus Bank) to the west and an abandoned building to the
east.
Development Proposal:
On September 23, 2011, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was
submitted to obtain approval to redevelop the property with an automobile service station. The
development consists of the construction of eight gas dispensers under a canopy, underground
gas storage containers, and a 3,740 square foot building containing restrooms, point of sale and
retail items along with 19 off-street parking spaces and a dumpster enclosure.
The proposed building has been located so as to comply with all setback requirements; however
the applicant has requested flexibility with regard to setbacks measured to pavement, specifically
with respect to the setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Duncan Avenue. Along Gulf
to Bay Boulevard the proposal provides for a setback of 16 feet from the property line to
proposed pavement. Along South Duncan Avenue, the proposal provides for a setback of 10 feet
to proposed pavement. These setbacks do not meet the flexibility provided for a Flexible
Standard Development application for automobile service stations; therefore the development
proposal is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal
is for the establishment of an automobile service station use with a total gross floor area of 3,740
square feet at a FAR of 0.08, which is below the above referenced maximum.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.70, which is below the above
referenced maximum.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area for automobile service stations in the Commercial (C) District
is 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 48,960 square feet (1.12 acres), which exceeds
these comparative Code provisions. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for
automobile service stations in the C District is 100 feet. The subject lot width along Gulf to Bay
Boulevard is 175 feet, while the lot width along South Duncan Avenue is 280 feet, which
exceeds the comparative Code comparison.
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
automobile service stations must have 25 foot (front) and 10 foot (side) setbacks. It is noted that
corner lots have front setback requirements on both street frontages and side setback
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
requirements from the remaining lot lines. The proposal includes front (south) setbacks of 16
feet (to pavement) and 58.47 feet (to canopy), front (east) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and
34.42 feet (to canopy), side (west) setbacks of five feet (to pavement) and 34.43 feet (to canopy)
and side (north) setbacks of 20 feet (to pavement) and 82.66 feet (to building).
This proposal includes the addition of eight gas dispensers, underground gas storage containers,
canopy and associated building to a vacant site. Staff is supportive of front and side setback
reductions as it is anticipated that any proposed use will need setback reductions for vehicular
use area. The setback reductions will allow for the Code required minimum 19 parking spaces,
underground gas storage containers as well as an air/ water island typical to automobile service
stations.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for automobile service stations is 25 feet. The proposed building height is 24
feet (to top of parapet) which is less than the comparative Code comparison. The height of the
proposed canopy is not reflected on the canopy elevation plans but the plans do reflect that the
canopy height is approximately 20 feet which exceeds the comparative Code comparison.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, the minimum off-street parking
requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the
Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required
parking for automobile service stations is five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The proposal
includes the construction of a 3,740 square foot building which results in the need for 19 parking
spaces. As the proposal includes 19 parking spaces, this meets the comparative Code
comparison.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based
upon the plans submitted, it is unclear of the location of such mechanical equipment, whether
such will be placed on the ground or on the roof area. The location and screening of such
mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this
application be approved by the CDB.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Duncan Avenue, no structures or
landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade
and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed
by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The proposal includes undergrounding of the utility
distribution lines.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
Signs: Pursuant to CDC Section 6-104.A., in the event a building permit is required for the
redevelopment of a principal use/structure, or a principal use/structure is vacant for a period of
180 days, signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance by
obtaining a level one approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, Division 3. There
exists one freestanding sign that appears to exceed the allowable height of 14 feet. The proposal
includes the removal of the sign and it is also attached as a condition of approval that the
freestanding sign be brought into compliance with CDC Section 6-104.A prior to issuance of any
certificates of occupancy.
The proposal includes a monument and attached signage on the building and canopy. Any
signage proposed exceeding minimum Code standards will need to be requested per the
Comprehensive Sign Program standards and requirements pursuant to CDC Section 3-1807.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, there is a 15 foot wide landscape buffer
required along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, a 10 foot wide landscape buffer required along South
Duncan Avenue, and five foot wide landscape buffers required along the north and west sides of
the site. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, 10% of the gross vehicular use area shall be
provided within interior landscape islands. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation
plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building facade with frontage along a street
right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-
foot wide landscaped area.
The front landscape buffers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Duncan Avenue (south and
east respectively) will be tiered and planted with Florida live oak, southern magnolia, crepe
myrtle and cabbage palm trees with a variety of underplantings. Along the north and west
property lines there exists a large quantity of oak trees and the proposal includes the addition of a
southern magnolia tree and underplantings.
The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with crepe myrtle, cabbage palm and
Florida live oak trees with a variety of underplantings.
The foundation plantings along the south and east building facades will be planted with windmill
palm trees and underplantings.
The submitted landscape plan complies with Section 3-1202 for perimeter, foundation, and
interior parking lot landscaping and should provide adequate visual relief from the scale of the
parking area and structures.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides a 25 foot by 15.5 foot dumpster enclosure at the northeast
corner of the property. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards the
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
F.A.R. 0.55 0.08 X
I.S.R. 0.90 0.70 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 48,960 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width N/A Gulf to Bay Blvd 175 feet X
S. Duncan Avenue 280 feet
Maximum Height N/A 24 feet (to top of building parapet) X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 16 feet (to pavement) X
58.47 feet (to canopy)
East: 10 feet (to pavement)
34.42 feet (to canopy)
Side: N/A North: 20 feet (to pavement X
82.66 (to building)
West: 5 feet (to pavement) X
34.43 feet (to canopy)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 5 / 1,000 SF GFA 9 parking spaces X
(9 parking spaces)
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
Building stepbacks; and
Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
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 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.That the 1.12 acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and South Duncan Road;
2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) future land use plan category;
3.The subject property has 175 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 280 feet of
frontage along South Duncan Road;
4.That the site was previously developed with a Krispy Kreme retail store that closed in August
2006;
5.That adjacent uses are zoned C District and developed with retail sales and services and
office uses;
6.That based upon the gross floor area of the proposed building, a minimum of 19 off-street
parking spaces are required and the applicant has proposed 19 parking spaces;
7.That in order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal
includes reductions to required setbacks;
8.That the proposal includes setback reductions to pavement from the south, east and west
property boundaries;
9.That the proposal includes a building height of 24 feet to top of parapet; and
10.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-09034 2011-12-20
Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches
the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1. and 2-
704 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the Commercial
(C) District with a lot area of 48,960 square feet (1.12 acres), a lot width of 175 feet along Gulf
to Bay Blvd.) and 280 feet (along Duncan Avenue), a building height of 24 feet (to top of
parapet), front (south) setbacks of 16 feet (to pavement)and 58.47 feet (to canopy), front (east)
setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 34.42 feet (to canopy), side setbacks (west) of five feet (to
pavement) and 34.43 feet (to canopy), side (north) setbacks of 20 feet (to pavement) and 82.66
feet (to building) and 19 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under
the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C., subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed canopy and building be consistent
with the conceptual design, color, and elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB;
2.That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building;
3.That all utilities serving this building be relocated underground on-site in compliance with
the requirement of CDC Section 3-912
4.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the crepe myrtles located in the southeast
corner of the property in the sight visibility triangle be relocated outside of the sight visibility
triangle;
5.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a
certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of
arboriculture is submitted to the Land resource Department;
6.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the site plan must show that all outdoor
mechanical equipment shall be completely screened on four sides by a fence, gate, wall,
mounds of earth, or vegetation from view from public streets and abutting properties. If such
screening is provided by means of a fence, gate, or wall, materials shall be consistent with
those used in the construction of and the architectural style of the principal building as set
forth in CDC Section 3-201.D; and
7.That prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the existing freestanding sign, if
found to be nonconforming, be brought into compliance with CDC Section 6-104.A.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: _____________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-09034 – Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-10038
Agenda Item: E. 4.
Owners/Applicant: El Amir of Tampa
Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
Address: 2099 N Highland Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the addition of Automobile
Service Station use consisting of six gas dispensers to an existing
shopping center in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of
39,956 square feet, lot widths of 190.03 feet (Highland Avenue) and
190.04 feet (Union Street), front (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing
parking) and 39.1 feet (to existing building), front (west) setbacks of 10
feet (to existing parking) and 54 feet (to proposed canopy), side (south)
setbacks of five feet (to existing parking) and 20.9 feet (to existing
building) and side (east) setbacks of 19.8 feet (to existing building) and
eight feet (to existing pavement), a building height of 13 feet (to flat
roof of existing building) and canopy height of 17.5 feet (to flat roof of
proposed canopy) and 38 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C; as well as a reduction to
the width of the north perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10
feet, a reduction to the width of the east perimeter landscape buffer
from 10 feet to eight feet, a reduction to the width of the west perimeter
landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction of the interior
landscaping from 2,508 square feet to 1,395 square feet, and the
removal of the required foundation landscaping along the west building
facade as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales, Restaurant
Proposed: Retail Sales, Restaurant, Automobile Service Station
EXISTING North: Pinellas County Jurisdiction Retail Sales
SURROUNDING South: High Density Residential (HDR) Attached dwellings
ZONING AND USES: District
East: HDR District Attached dwellings
West: Low Medium Density Residential Detached dwellings
(LMDR) District
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.918-acre subject property is located on the southeast corner of Union Street and Highland
Avenue. The property is a corner lot, having street frontage on both Union Street (north) and
Highland Avenue (west). The property consists of an outdated 5,737 square foot one-story
building with driveways accessing Union Street and Highland Avenue and 45 parking spaces.
The west property line adjacent to Highland Avenue is landscaped with a number of oak trees
and shrubs while the majority of the remaining open area of the property is landscaped with grass
only.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal is to establish an automobile service station use within the existing
vehicular use area through construction of six gas dispensers and canopy. The proposal includes
reducing the number of parking from 45 to 38 spaces. A shared parking analysis was provided
showing that the proposed parking meets minimum Code parking requirements. The existing
building setbacks are conforming to current Code requirements while the existing vehicular use
area setbacks are nonconforming along all four property lines. Asphalt is proposed to be
removed along all property lines; this will increase the site conformity with increased setbacks
and landscape buffers. The applicant proposes to make modifications to the building facade by
painting the building, providing a new stucco finish over existing masonry banding and
reconfiguring and refinishing the existing shingle canopy with metal panels. Other site
improvements include restriping the parking lot, foundation landscaping and providing a
handicapped accessible path complying with ADA standards to the building.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal
is for the addition of an automobile service station use to an existing shopping center for a total
gross floor area of 5,737 square feet at a FAR of 0.14, which is below the above referenced
maximum.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.83, which is below the above
referenced maximum.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum lot area for restaurants and retail sales and services in the Commercial
(C) District may range from 3,500 – 10,000 square feet and pursuant to Table 2-703, the
minimum lot area for automobile service stations is 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is
39,956 square feet (0.92 acres), which exceeds these comparative Code provisions. Pursuant to
the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants and retail sales and services in the C
District may range from 35 – 100 feet and pursuant to Table 2-703 the minimum lot width for
automobile service stations must be 100 feet. The subject lot width along Highland Avenue is
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
190.03 feet, while the lot width along Union Street is 190.04 feet, which exceeds these
comparative Code comparisons.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum setbacks for restaurants and retail sales and services in the C District may be within 15
– 25 feet (front) and zero – 10 feet (side) while automobile service stations must have 25 foot
(front) and 10 foot (side) setbacks. It is noted that corner lots have front setback requirements on
both street frontages and side setback requirements from the remaining lot lines. The proposal
includes front (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 39.1 feet (to existing
building), front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 54 feet (to proposed canopy),
side (south) setbacks of five feet (to existing parking) and 20.9 feet (to existing building) and
side (east) setbacks of 19.8 feet (to existing building) and eight feet (to existing pavement).
This proposal includes the addition of six gas dispensers and canopy to an existing site on which
the existing building has operated for quite some time. The existing building exceeds setback
standards for the existing uses and proposed automobile service station use. Staff is supportive
of front and side setback reductions to the existing pavement, as any proposed use will need
setback reductions for this existing vehicular use area. The setback reductions will allow for 38
parking spaces which is two more than Code requires as well as a loading zone which the site is
currently lacking.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
maximum height for restaurants and retail sales and services in the C District may range from 25
– 50 feet and the maximum height for automobile service stations is 25 feet. The existing
building height is 13 feet (to flat roof) and the height of the proposed canopy is 17.5 feet (to flat
roof), which exceeds these comparative Code comparisons.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking
requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the
Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required
parking for restaurants can range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for
retail sales and services can range between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. And while
automobile service station use is being added to the subject property, the proposed gas canopy
does not add to the existing gross floor area. Therefore, based upon the high range for restaurant
and retails sales and services, the required parking totals 36 parking spaces. The proposal
includes 38 parking spaces, which exceeds these comparative Code comparisons.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. All
mechanical equipment is located on the roof of the existing building. The view of the equipment
is screened from view by the existing canopy on the west building elevation as well as the
existing trees on the east and west property lines and will be further screened from view by the
proposed trees along the north and south property lines.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Union Street and Highland Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be
installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above
grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic
Engineering Department and found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. There are existing distribution lines running from utility lines
along the east property lines to the building. After discussion with the applicant and staff, it was
agreed that undergrounding the distribution lines was not practicable due to the impact the
undergrounding would have on existing healthy trees.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, there is a 15-foot wide landscape buffer
required along Highland Avenue and Union Street, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer required
along the east side of the site and a five-foot wide landscape buffer required along the south side
of the site. The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along Highland Avenue
and Union Street from 15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the east perimeter
landscape buffer from 10 feet to eight feet (to existing pavement). Pursuant to CDC Section 3-
1202.E.1, 10% of the gross vehicular use area shall be provided within interior landscape islands.
The proposal includes a reduction to this requirement from 10% to 5.5%. Pursuant to CDC
Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building facade
with frontage along a street right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building ingress and
egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area. The proposal includes a reduction to
the width of the foundation landscape area on the west side of the building from five feet to zero
feet.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G., the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent Inconsistent
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 N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
The ability to meet the Code requirements for perimeter, interior and foundation landscape areas
is restricted by the property configuration and the provision of the greatest number of parking
spaces possible. Given these design constraints, the applicant has designed as much landscaping
as possible within the planting areas provided.
The proposal includes a request to reduce the width of the required perimeter landscape buffers
along the north, east and west property lines. The requested reduction is the result of the need to
provide required parking for the existing and proposed use with consideration of maintaining
tenant vehicular access to the rear (east side) of the building. The proposed perimeter landscape
buffers will increase the existing buffering from 1.3 feet to 10 feet along the north property line,
from 2.1 feet to 10 feet along the west property line and from four feet to eight feet along the east
property line. The Code required five foot landscape buffer will be provided along the south
property line. The front landscape buffers along Union Street and Highland Avenue (north and
west respectively) will be tiered, meander and be planted with southern live oak and southern
magnolia trees with a variety of underplantings. Along the east perimeter there exists a large
quantity of oak trees and the proposal includes the addition of watermelon red crepe myrtle trees
and underplantings. The south perimeter buffer will be planted with winged elm, Dahoon holly
and watermelon red crepe myrtle trees with a variety of underplantings.
The proposal includes a request to reduce the required amount of landscaping within the interior
landscape islands from 10% to 5.5% of the gross vehicular use area. This requested reduction is
also a result of the need to provide required parking for the existing and proposed uses. The
purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and
provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors the other landscape reductions
requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended
use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with winged elm, watermelon red
crepe myrtle, cabbage palmetto, trees with a variety of underplantings.
The proposal includes a reduction to the required foundation landscaping area facing Highland
Avenue from five feet wide to zero feet. This reduction is due to the need to provide sidewalk
access to the existing tenant spaces. The Code required foundation landscaping is being
provided on the north side of the building, consisting of Will Flemming yaupon with yew pine
underplantings.
Solid Waste: The proposal provides a 10 foot by 12 foot dumpster enclosure on the south
property line. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards the proposal has
been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.14 X
ISR 0.90 0.83 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 39,956 square feet (0.92 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A North: 190.04 feet X
West: 190.03 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 39.1 feet (to existing building) X
10 feet (to existing pavement)
West: 54 feet (to proposed canopy) X
10 feet (to existing pavement)
Side: N/A South: 20.9 feet (to existing building) X
5 feet (to existing pavement)
East: 19.8 feet (to existing building) X
8 feet (to existing pavement)
Maximum Height N/A 13 feet (to flat roof of existing building) X
17.5 feet (to flat roof of proposed canopy)
Minimum Determined by the 38 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking Community Development (36 spaces required based on Code
Coordinator based on the shared parking requirements)
specific use and/or ITE
Manual standards
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
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 – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
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 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.That the 0.92 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and
Union Street;
2.That the subject property is within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General
(CG) future land use plan category;
3.That the subject property has 190.03 feet of frontage along Highland Road and 190.04 feet of
frontage along Union Street;
4.That adjacent uses are zoned High Density Residential District and developed with multi-
family dwellings two stories high; Low Medium Density Residential and developed with
single-family dwelling units; and land under Pinellas County Jurisdiction and developed with
retail sales and services (Walgreens);
5.That based upon the gross floor area of the existing building, a minimum of 36 off-street
parking spaces are required for the existing and proposed uses and the applicant has proposed
38 parking spaces and one loading zone;
6.That in order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal
includes reductions to required setbacks and landscape buffers; and
7.That there is no active Code Enforcement case for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-703 of the Community Development Code;
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10038 2011-12-20
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4.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 the addition of Automobile Service Station use
consisting of six gas dispensers to an existing shopping center in the Commercial (C) District
with a lot area of 39,956 square feet, lot widths of 190.03 feet (Highland Avenue) and 190.04
feet (Union Street), front (north) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 39.1 feet (to
existing building), front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to existing parking) and 54 feet (to proposed
canopy), side (south) setbacks of five feet (to existing parking) and 20.9 feet (to existing
building) and side (east) setbacks of 19.8 feet (to existing building) and eight feet (to existing
pavement), a building height of 13 feet (to flat roof of existing building) and canopy height of
17.5 feet (to flat roof of proposed canopy) and 38 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC)
Section 2-704.C; as well as a reduction to the width of the north perimeter landscape buffer from
15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the width of the east perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to
eight feet, a reduction to the width of the west perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet,
a reduction of the interior landscaping from 2,508 square feet to 1,395 square feet, and the
removal of the required foundation landscaping along the west building facade as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G, subject to
the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual
materials, colors and elevations approved by the CDB;
2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the canopy outdoor lighting for this
development be approved as set forth in CDC Section 3-1302; and
3.That prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy and pursuant to Section 3-1806.B
of the CDC, a comprehensive sign program will be required for all signage of the shopping
center including signage for the proposed canopy.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: ___________________________________
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10038 – Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Numbers: FLD2011-10036
Agenda Item: E.1.
Owner/Applicant: James P. Gills III/ FSH7, LLC.
Representative: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering
Addresses: 521 Chestnut Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic within
the Downtown (D) District with a building height of 15.5 feet and
16 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
903.C.
CURRENT ZONING
AND LAND USE PLAN Downtown (D) District
CATEGORY: Central Business District (CBD)
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Downtown Core
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
EXISTING North: Downtown (D) District
SURROUNDING
Automobile Service Station and Office
ZONING AND USES:
South: Downtown (D) District
Retail Sales and Service and Off street parking
East: Downtown (D) District
Office
West: Downtown (D) District
Automobile Service Station
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The subject site comprises 0.336 acres located on the south side of Chestnut Street and north side
of Rogers Street approximately 165 feet east of South Fort Harrison Avenue. The parcel is
located in the Downtown (D) District within the Downtown Core Character District of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Downtown Core is the government center and
principal employment core of the City. Many of the Pinellas County government offices are
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
located in the Downtown Core as well as private offices and support uses that desire the proximity
to the government center.
The parcel has an existing 1,280 square foot structure located on it and it is currently vacant. On
June 3, 2010, the Development Review Committee (DRC) approved case FLS2010-03011 to
allow beer and wine sales for on-site consumption accessory to and in conjunction with existing
retail sales and services (cigar bar). In February of 2011, FSH7, LLC acquired the subject
property known as Cigar Central. The parcel has 170 feet of frontage on both Chestnut Street and
Rogers Street. To the west is a 15 foot wide alley that is also adjacent to the St. Luke’s Cataract
& Laser Institute, currently under construction, which the Community Development Board
(CDB) approved on October 19, 2010 (FLD2010-08003).
Regarding uses, to the northwest of the subject property is a vacant nonconforming automobile
service station and to the northeast is an office, to the east is office, to the south is the parking lot
for St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute, to the southeast is a retail sales and service plaza, and
to the west is an automobile service station (Hess).
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to redevelop the existing site for additional parking for St. Luke’s Cataract &
Laser Institute and at a future date use the existing structure as a medical office or demolish it to
allow for more clinic parking. While a medical clinic is not specifically authorized in the
Downtown (D) District, it is permissible in the Central Business District (CBD) Future land use
plan category and other medical clinics have been established in the D District including the
recently approved St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute. In addition there exists a 15 foot wide
alley between the subject property and St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute. The applicant has
requested that the City vacate this alley to allow one uniform site. The alley was vacated on
December 1, 2011. The subject property and the vacated alley will provide an additional 16
parking spaces for St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute.
Regarding architecture, the applicant has requested one year from the date of issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy for St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute, to provide architectural
elevations and have them approved, and to meet the Downtown Design Guidelines or demolish
the existing building. Staff is supportive of such and has been attached as a Condition of
Approval.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the
Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development
of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and
further the goals of the Plan.
Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
A review of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be
consistent with the following Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies:
Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office
and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a
revitalized Downtown.
Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents
and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping
destination.
Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies
of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design
guidelines and the Downtown zoning district.
Objective 1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to
provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for
Downtown.
Policy 1: The design guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all
projects must be consistent.
Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design
review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the
vision of the character district in which it is located.
Downtown Design Guidelines:
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with
regard to various elements associated with new construction and renovations in the Downtown.
A review of these Guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items
were identified:
Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines require the retention of the
existing street grid pattern where it contributes to an active pedestrian environment. Both street
frontages are being maintained with sidewalks to contribute to the pedestrian environment.
Landscaping: The Downtown Design Guidelines require plant species that are appropriate to the
space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs, growth rates, size, etc. in order to
conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health. The proposal includes some
native species with appropriate maturity size to limit maintenance and conserve water.
Community Development Code:
A medical clinic is subject to the relevant review criteria of
CDC Sections 2-901.1, 2-903, and 2-903.C.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the
Downtown Core Character District, the maximum allowable FAR is 4.0. The proposed medical
clinic will have a FAR of 0.099. This calculation includes the land area of the vacated alley.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
Impervious Surface Ration (ISR): Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan,
within the Downtown Core Character District, the maximum allowable ISR. is 1.0. The proposed
medical clinic will have an ISR of 0.78
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, there is
no maximum height restriction in the Downtown Core unless the property it is along Cleveland
Street. The proposed medical clinic has a building height of 15.5 to top of flat roof. The proposal
is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-903, the medical clinic use is not
specifically authorized and as such there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for
medical clinics. However, for a point of comparison the medical clinic use in the Office (O)
District requires five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and in the
Commercial (C) District, the medical clinic use requires three parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area. Based upon the above, the 1,280 square foot medical clinic will require
six parking spaces and the proposal has provided for 16 parking spaces.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster located at the southeast corner of the
building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the vehicular use area must
contain landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size. However, when more than 110
percent of the required parking is provided, 12 percent of the vehicular use area must contain
landscape islands. The proposal provides for 20.5 percent of the vehicular use area to be interior
landscape islands. Landscaping will not screen the parking, however three foot tall walls will
screen the parking. The walls will match the screening walls approved under FLD2010-08003
and will be finished in stucco and be painted to match the building.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation planting shall be provided for 100 percent of
the building façade along a street right-of-way. A minimum five foot wide landscaped area
composed of at least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building façade
and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area is required. A minimum of 50
percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. The subject site is
bound by two rights-of-ways and the proposal meets the above requirements on both facades.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-901.1, 2-903, and 2-903.C. and the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 4.0 0.099 X
ISR 1.0 0.78 X
Maximum Building Height None 15.5 feet X
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Minimum Off-Street Parking Medical Clinic: N/A 11.59 parking spaces/1000 sq. ft. X
(16 parking spaces)
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-903.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;
or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
Building stepbacks; and
Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use 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 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.That the subject site comprises 0.336 acres located on the south side of Chestnut Street and
the north side of Rogers Street approximately 165 feet east of South Fort Harrison Avenue;
2.That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central
Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan as the property is located within the Downtown Core Character District;
4.The property was previously used as a nightclub;
5.The applicant, FSH7, LLC, proposes to establish a medical clinic within the existing 1,280
square feet medical clinic;
6.The existing structure is 15.5 feet in height;
7.The proposal includes 16 parking spaces; and
8.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 district vision of the Downtown Core
Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
901.1, 2-903, and 2-903.C. of the CDC; and
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-10036 2011-12-20
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic within the Downtown (D) District
with a building height of 15.5 feet and 16 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-903.C.,
with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, prior to the submission for a site development building permit, a Unity of Title be
approved and recorded for parcels 16-29-15-94626-001-0050, 16-29-15-94626-002-0030 and
16-29-15-94626-010-0030;
2.That, within one year from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for St. Luke’s
Cataract & Laser Institute the building, 521 Chestnut Street, be demolished, or architectural
elevations meeting the Downtown Design Guidelines must be submitted to and approved by
City Staff and that the Certificate of Completion for these modifications must be obtained
within one year of the approval of the architectural elevations;
3.That all signage be permitted separately; and
4.That the proposed chain link fence on C-4.1. will be removed and revised fencing which
must comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines will be determined at time of building
permits.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Ellen Crandall, Planner II
: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
ATTACHMENTS
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
FLD2011-10036 – Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-11004 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: TA2011-11004
Ordinance No.: 8310-12
Agenda Item: F. 1.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance Number
8310-12
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
The Clearwater Business Task Force (BTF) was established on April 7, 2011 by the City Council
to provide feedback on the current rules and regulations affecting businesses and business
development. The BTF submitted its final report to City Council on August 29, 2011. The report
consisted of 71 recommendations to change public perceptions about being “business friendly”,
streamline development application processes and enable greater signage flexibility. City staff
reviewed each of the recommendations and presented to City Council ideas as to how some of
them may be adopted as well as a prospective timeframe for these adoptions to occur. At the
direction of the City Council, staff is now proposing a text amendment to the Community
Development Code (CDC) that would address some of the simpler or more straightforward
changes that can be made to address the recommendations of the BTF or that would otherwise
assist in fulfilling their goals as well as a few amendments proposed by staff.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 8310-12 includes amendments addressing a variety of different sections
of the CDC. As noted above, some of the amendments were recommended by the BTF while
others were initiated by staff. The following is a description of those amendments recommended
by the BTF:
General Application Requirements for All Development Applications
1. (Pages 10-15 of
proposed ordinance)
The BTF identified several items that were required in order to file virtually any application
for development that they believed to be unnecessary. Staff held discussions with members
of the BTF to discuss these requirements and many of the items they suggested be removed
from the typical list of requirements are proposed to be removed with this amendment. In
fact, this amendment strikes all of Section 4-202.A., CDC, and adopts a much more succinct
version in its place; a version that does not list every element that may be required of an
application, but instead references four general items and referencing additional information
that the Community Development Coordinator may require of an application. The intent
here is that the individual development applications will set forth the specific information
required and that this information can be tailored to what is needed for that request or
application type, and that there would not be a generic application containing a long list of
required items that may have no bearing on an individual request.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
TA2011-11004 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-11004 2011-12-20
In amending this Section of the CDC in this manner, the department also gains the flexibility
to be able to adapt to needs more easily. For example, if it is found over time that something
is being required in the applications that is not truly needed, staff can simply delete the item
from the application and move on – something that can be accomplished in a matter of
minutes. Currently, however, staff would need to propose a text amendment to accomplish
this – something that could only be accomplished after a couple of months.
It is noted that the language in this proposed amendment pertaining to mobile homes is
actually existing language that is being retained, and not new language being added into the
CDC.
Application Requirements for Zoning Atlas Amendments
2. (Page 16 of proposed
ordinance)
Presently, the CDC requires that an application for a Zoning Atlas amendment can only be
initiated by the City Council, the Community Development Coordinator, the Community
Development Board, or by a person applying for a development approval. This amendment
eliminates the need for a development application to be made concurrently with a rezoning
request. The ability to request a rezoning without having to assume all of the expenses
associated with preparing development plans was one of the recommendations of the BTF.
Application Requirements for Landscape Plans
3. (Pages 16-17 of proposed ordinance)
Similar to those changes made under #5, above; this amendment strikes much of the existing
language pertaining to what is required on a landscape plan in conjunction with a
development application, and provides a reference to additional information that the
Community Development Coordinator may require of an application. The purpose for this
change is the same as that of #5.
The following is a description of those amendments initiated by staff:
General Provisions
1. (Page 2 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment intends to revise an element of the stated purposes of the CDC to reflect
what is actually set forth within the CDC. The CDC has never included minimum lot depth
or minimum habitable area requirements, and there is no indication that these would be
necessary to add into the CDC.
Parking Lot Setbacks
2. (Page 2 of proposed ordinance)
Staff conducted an analysis of applications received over a two year period in order to
determine if there was a common reason for projects having to be submitted through either
the Flexible Standard Development (FLS) or Flexible Development (FLD) application
processes. While there was no singularly dominant reason, it was noticed that there were a
sizable number of applications that either had to be made through one of the above processes
or escalated from an FLS to an FLD application as a result of the project proposed setbacks
to off-street parking lots. Therefore, in an effort to provide for a potentially simpler
application process, staff is proposing that setbacks relevant to parking lots be exempted
from the standard setbacks established in the various zoning districts that are presently
applicable to both all forms of pavement and buildings. Instead parking lots would be
required a 15-foot front setback and a side setback equal to the required perimeter landscape
buffer. As there are no perimeter landscape buffers required in the Tourist (T) and
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
TA2011-11004 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-11004 2011-12-20
Downtown (D) Districts, the amendment provides clarification for how this requirement
would be handled in those instances, as well as clarifying that this exemption does not apply
to detached dwellings where parking lots are not permissible. While this amendment was not
specifically recommended by the BTF, we believe that it meets their goals of providing for a
more streamlined and efficient process.
Parking Demand Studies
3. (Pages 2-3 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment modifies when applicants are required to prepare a parking demand study in
conjunction with a request to reduce the amount of off-street parking required by the CDC.
Presently, the CDC is vague in its requirement, stating that applicants “may” be required to
prepare such a study, but providing nothing with regard as to when a study would or would
not be required. This amendment provides specific language that a parking demand study
would need to be provided if the requested flexibility of the parking standards is greater than
50% of the top end of the range (excluding those standards where the difference between the
top and bottom of the range is one parking space). This amendment will hopefully provide
greater up-front clarity to developers as to what needs to be provided as well as eliminating
costs relating to the production of unnecessary parking demand studies. While this
amendment was not specifically recommended by the BTF, we believe that it meets their
goals of providing for a more streamlined and efficient process.
Temporary Uses
4. (Pages 3-10 of proposed ordinance)
While this amendment strikes all of the existing language for temporary uses, the majority of
this language returns unchanged in the proposed text. The purpose of this amendment is to
restate the temporary use provisions in a manner that will provide all applicants’ greater
clarity in what is permissible and what is required in order to apply. The proposed
amendment neither deletes nor adds any type of temporary use.
Business Tax Receipts
5. (Page 15 of proposed ordinance)
This language presently exists as part of Section 4-202.A; however with the changes being
proposed to this Section, it was out of place if it were to remain. Therefore, it is being
relocated into Section 4-205, which is specific to Business Tax Receipts.
Application Requirements for Development Agreements
6. (Page 16 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment makes only minor alterations to a pair of references in the existing
language.
Purpose of Nonconforming Provisions
7. (Page 17 of proposed ordinance)
The purpose of this amendment is to restate the purpose of the nonconforming provisions,
and to make it clear that the purpose of the CDC is not to encourage nonconformities to
continue but to bring them into compliance.
Nonconforming Structures
8. (Page 18 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment accomplishes several things. In subsection B, the inclusion of the word
“replacement” in the existing language was contrary to the very purpose of the provision as it
is not desirable to replace nonconforming structures; therefore the amendment would remove
“replacement” from the provisions. Also, the language being added provides further strength
to the CDC to bring nonconformities into compliance.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
TA2011-11004 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-11004 2011-12-20
Subsection C in the existing text is proposed to be removed as it was supportive of
nonconformities being retained rather than being brought into compliance. Subsection E in
the existing text is proposed to be removed as it was found to be prohibitory to property
owners being able to rent/lease building space that they had available simply because the
building happened to be nonconforming, even when the uses involved were not. Removing
this provision should help facilitate businesses being able to occupy existing structures more
easily.
Subsection D in the existing text (now proposed as subsection C) is being restated for the
purpose of clarity. While this amendment does eliminate a provision relating to compliance
with off-street parking, this should not have been associated with these provisions, as
compliance with off-street parking regulations is a product of the property use and not the
structure on the property.
The new subsection E furthers the purpose of these regulations covering an element not
previously conceived in these provisions: the moving of nonconforming structures and the
removal of portions of nonconforming structures.
Nonconforming Uses
9. (Pages 18-19 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment accomplishes several things. In subsection A, the language being removed
is not relevant to this Section as it pertains to nonconforming structures. The revision to
subsection B provides additional language addressing an element not previously conceived in
these provisions: the moving of nonconforming uses. The amendments proposed to
subsections C and D are minor and not substantive.
Nonconforming Lots
10. (Pages 19-20 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment modifies subsection A to extend the applicability of the provision to all lots
within the City and not just residential lots. Subsection B will function as an exception for
residential lots with only minor corrections being proposed.
Nonconforming Accessory Uses/Structures
11. (Page 20 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment clarifies that an accessory structure is required to meet the development
standards for a principal use in order to be allowed to continue after the principal use of the
property is abandoned or destroyed. Previously, the provision was non-specific and could
have been interpreted that the accessory use/structure provisions of the Code were to be
complied with. However, in the scenario provided by this Section, the structure could be left
on the property as the principal structure and therefore should be required to meet those
standards.
Definition of Temporary Retail Sales and Displays
12. (Page 20 of proposed ordinance)
This amendment removes language from the definition of temporary retail sales and displays
that is not relevant this type of temporary use. Specific temporary uses have been established
for carnivals, residential sales offices and garage sales; therefore they should not be
considered to be part of a temporary retail sales and display and should not be incorporated
into this definition.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Section 4-601, CDC, sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All
text amendments must comply with the following:
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
TA2011-11004 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2011-11004 2011-12-20
1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goals and Policy
which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site
plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development
and/or planned developments that are compatible.
The amendments proposed by this ordinance are intended to simplify or clarify the various
development review processes. By this, the above referenced Policy of the Comprehensive
Plan will be furthered by providing a clearer and more easily understandable process for
property owners to follow in developing their property.
2.The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be
consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.
It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the
city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide
the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land
development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of
neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of
the city (Section 1-103.A., CDC).
It is the purpose of the Community Development Code to create value for the citizens of
the City of Clearwater by allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property
through innovative and creative redevelopment (Section 1-103.B.1., CDC).
The amendments proposed by this ordinance will further the above referenced purposes by
making improvements to the established rules of procedure for land development approvals.
The improvements will remove some upfront costs to development and clarify the process to
more readily enable property owners to enhance the value of their property.
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 Planning and Development Department
APPROVAL
recommends of Ordinance No. 8310-12 that amends the Community Development
Code.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 8310-12
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
TA2011-11004 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00001A 2011-12-10
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: DVA2008-00001A
Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC
Agenda Item: F. 2.
Representative: J. Paul Raymond, Esq., and Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen
Address: 100 Coronado Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of the first
amendment to the first amended and restated Development Agreement
between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the property owner) and the
City of Clearwater.
ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T)
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Beach Walk
PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant (temporary City public parking lot)
Proposed: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 450 rooms
(163.6 rooms/acre on total site) and a maximum of 37,000
square feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory
to the hotel at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck)
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING
Pier 60
ZONING AND USES:
South: Tourist (T) District
Overnight Accommodations
East: Tourist (T) District
Vacant, Retail Sales and Overnight Accommodations
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Beach and Gulf of Mexico
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 2.75-acre subject property is located directly south of Pier 60 between Coronado Drive and
South Gulfview Boulevard, north of Second Street. While the subject property is currently used
as a temporary public parking lot, it was previously developed with various motels (Days Inn,
Beach Towers Motel, Spyglass Motel and Golden Beach Motel) and numerous retail sales and
restaurant uses. The overall property includes several vacated and dedicated rights-of-way.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2008-00001A – Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00001A 2011-12-10
Approved Development:
On October 19, 2004, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved a Flexible
Development application for the construction of a 350-unit hotel with associated amenities and
75 attached dwellings as a mixed-use development (FLD2004-02013). The City Council
approved a companion Development Agreement on February 17, 2005 (Case No. DVA2004-
00001). These development approvals authorized the following:
Use of 250 hotel rooms from the Beach by Design Destination Resort Density Pool;
Maximum building height of 150 feet;
Vacation of a portion of the right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard between Coronado Drive
and proposed Second Street;
Vacation of the First Street right-of-way between Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard;
Dedication of right-of-way for proposed Second Street between Coronado Avenue and
Gulfview Boulevard; and
Dedication of right-of-way for Coronado Drive between proposed Second Street and
Gulfview Boulevard.
On May 17, 2005, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application (FLD2004-02013A)
amending the prior project to modify the location of an elevated pedestrian walkway over South
Gulfview Boulevard. On March 16, 2006, City Council approved an amendment to this original
Development Agreement (DVA2004-00001A), which dealt with issues associated with Beach
st
Walk construction and the timing of the dedication of land for Relocated 1 Street (to be known
st
as Second Street once constructed), as well as for the construction of Relocated 1 Street.
On October 21, 2008, the CDB approved FLD2008-05013. This application consisted of a
“resort hotel” containing 250 overnight accommodation rooms and 200 interval ownership/
timeshare rooms – a total of 450 rooms (163.6 rooms/acre on total site) with 250 rooms being
granted to the project from the Destination Resort Density Pool, and a maximum of 37,000
square feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 150 feet (to
roof deck). Also included with the application was the vacation of the former pedestrian bridge
landing area right-of-way on the northwest corner of the site and the dedication of additional
right-of-way at the intersection of S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive.
At its meeting of December 18, 2008, the City Council approved the companion Development
Agreement (DVA2008-00001) to the above FLD application. In addition to addressing those
elements directly associated with the new development approval, the amendment also
reestablished the “Effective Date” of the Development Agreement – extending the overall life of
the agreement until April 2019, but more importantly extending the developers deadline to
commence construction until February 11, 2012.
Development Agreement:
The currently proposed amendment to the Development Agreement does not have a companion
development application, as the previously established parameters for the development are not
being altered through this amendment. The primary purpose of this amendment is to make clear
that the developer no longer intends to develop the project with “Interval Ownership Units,” i.e.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2008-00001A – Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00001A 2011-12-10
timeshares, but instead to develop the project solely as a hotel (in fact two hotels), and to again
reestablish the “Effective Date” of the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years and
includes the following main provisions:
Clarifies that the applicant is no longer seeking interval ownership/timeshare use for the
units/rooms;
Provides a breakdown of the floor area dedicated to meeting space as Exhibit “O”;
Deletes a paragraph pertaining to interval ownership/timeshare units having to be depicted on
the development plan (Exhibit “B”);
Add language to three section of the Development Agreement stating that the applicant is
requesting an extension of the Effective Date from February 11, 2009 to on or about
February 11, 2012. Based upon this change, the applicant shall have an additional three
years during which they must commence construction or lose the 250 overnight
accommodation units having been received from the Destination Resort Density Pool.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council. The CDB has been provided with
the most recent draft of the Development Agreement.
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 CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 2.75-acre subject property is located directly south of Pier 60 between Coronado
Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard, north of Second Street;
2.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That any development proposal on the subject property is subject to the requirements of
Beach by Design and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located
within the Beach Walk character district;
4.That this is an amendment to the prior Development Agreement (DVA2008-00001) having
been approved by City Council at their meeting of December 18, 2008; and
5.That this amendment would, in part, establish a new “Effective Date” for the Development
Agreement, thereby extending the life of the Development Agreement an additional three
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2008-00001A – Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00001A 2011-12-10
years from the date the approved and recorded agreement is received by the state land
planning agency.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the amendment to the previously approved Development Agreement complies with the
standards and criteria of Section 4-606, Community Development Code;
2.That the amendment to the previously approved Development Agreement is consistent with
and furthers the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
3.That the amendment to the previously approved Development Agreement is consistent with
the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of Beach by Design and the Beach Walk
character district.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
APPROVAL
, and recommendation to the City Council, of the first amendment to the first
amended and restated Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater for the property generally located at 100 Coronado
Drive.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENT: Amended Development Agreement
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2008-00001A – Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-09003 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting: December 20, 2011
Case Number: LUP2011-09003
Applicant: AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants) Sunset Point, LLC
Address: 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: F.3 (Related to F.4 and F.5)
STAFF REPORT
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
I.GENERAL INFORMATION
Request:
To amend the present Future Land Use Map designation from Institutional (I)
to Industrial Limited (IL)
Location:
2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road, located on the north side of Sunset Point
Road approximately 477 feet west of Soule Road
Site Area:
286,219 square feet or 6.571 acres MOL
II.BACKGROUND
This case involves the northeastern portion of 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road, totaling
6.571 acres of a 19.42 acre property, owned by AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants)
Sunset Point LLC. The remainder of the southern parcel (12.84 acres) is designated
Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature and is not proposed to be amended. The property
is comprised of two parcels and currently contains the AEC business on the northeastern
parcel and a portion of the southern parcel.
The subject site was formerly owned by the Clearwater Elks Lodge and operated as such
until 2000. In 2000, a portion of Lot 1 of the Elks Subdivision was approved for a Future
Land Use Map amendment from Institutional (I) to Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) and a
Zoning Atlas amendment from Institutional (I) to Office (O). In that same year, Clearwater
Elks Lodge sold that portion to C.C.I Investments, Inc. The remaining portion of Lot 1, still
designated as Institutional (I), was sold to AEC Sunset Point, LLC in November 2002.
In February 2003, Mr. Rouhani, owner of AEC, obtained an occupational license to operate
as an office use. This license was issued in error, due to incorrect zoning and future land use
designations entered into the City’s permitting software, and staff thought the license was
being issued for the portion of the property that had the future land use and zoning amended
in 2000. Office uses are not permitted in the Institutional (I) zoning district. Mr. Rouhani
has stated that the original occupational license application for AEC also included the
manufacturing category, but staff has been unable to locate the original copy of the
occupational license.
The request is to change the property’s Future Land Use Map designation of Institutional (I)
to Industrial Limited (IL). The applicant has indicated that the intent is to expand the
existing business into a larger facility.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-09003 -Page 1 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
A request for rezoning of the property from Institutional (I) to Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT) and a Development Agreement, which limits the uses and development
potential of the site, are being processed concurrently with this case (see REZ2011-09006
and DVA2011-10001). Community Development Code Section 4-602.B, dealing with
Zoning Atlas amendments, requires an application for development approval be submitted at
the same time as the Zoning Atlas amendment application. However, Planning and
Development Department staff failed to require the application for development approval
and determined the Zoning Atlas amendment application to be complete in December 2009
and the case was heard at the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting held on
January 7, 2010. At the DRC meeting Planning staff listed six conditions that required
response for resubmittal prior to Community Development Board meeting. The applicant
did not resubmit. The case was left open at the applicant’s request in order to respond to
case conditions at a future date. In late September 2011 the applicant’s agent contacted City
staff and indicated they were planning to resubmit in October and respond to case
conditions, which they did on October 12, 2011. In October 2011 the applicant’s agent
indicated to City staff that they would submit an application for a Development Agreement
in November, which they did on November 1, 2011.
III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
A.Site Characteristics
The property currently has two buildings (6,840 square feet and 3,664 square feet), one on
each parcel, with small parking lots and driveways to the buildings, which traverse the
length of the property and connect to Sunset Point Road. The southern 200 feet of the
driveway that connects to Sunset Point Road is designated as Preservation and
Water/Drainage Feature. Adjacent and to the east of the property are single family homes,
offices and a phone utility facility and across Soule Road is a large cemetery. Immediately
adjacent to the west are preservation lands owned by the applicant and beyond, in close
proximity to the intersection of U.S 19 and Sunset Point Road, are various office, retail and
residential uses. To the north is an independent living, assisted living and nursing home
facility, and to the south are places of worship.
The general character of the immediate vicinity is institutional and residential with a small
area of low intensity offices. A major wetland is adjacent to the west of the subject site,
which is owned by the applicant, and creates a natural boundary from the more intensive
commercial area to the east, adjacent to US Highway 19 North and the subject site.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 2 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-09003 2011-12-20
B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Conditions
Direction
Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
North: Independent living, Institutional (I) Institutional (I)
assisted living and
nursing home facility
East: Single family homes, Residential Low (RL) Single Family
offices and phone and Residential/Office Residential (R-2)
utility facility Limited (R/OL) (County) and Office (O)
South: Places of worship Institutional (I) Institutional (I)
West: Preservation lands, Preservation (P), Preservation (P),
offices, mobile homes, Water/Drainage Feature, Commercial Parkway
self-storage and boat Residential/Office/Retail (CP-1) (County),
and travel trailer sales (R/O/R), Commercial Commercial (C), and
General (CG), Mobile Home Park
Residential Low (MHP)
Medium (RLM) and
Residential/Office
General (R/OG)
C.Uses and Intensities Allowed by Present and Requested Future Land Use
Designations
Present FLUM Designation Requested FLUM Designation
Institutional (I) Industrial Limited (IL)
Primary Uses: Public/Private Schools; Light Manufacturing; Overnight
Churches; Public Offices; Accommodations;
Hospitals Research/Development;
Wholesale; Warehouse
Maximum Density: 12.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre 50 or 75 Overnight
Accommodation Units Per Acre
Maximum Intensity: FAR 0.65; ISR 0.85 FAR 0.65; ISR 0.85
Consistent Zoning Institutional (I) Industrial, Research and
Districts: Technology (IRT)
IV.REVIEW CRITERIA
No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or Future Land Use Map shall be recommended
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-09003 -Page 3 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
for approval or receive a final action of approval unless it complies with the standards
contained in Section 4-603.F, Community Development Code.
A.Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan [Section 4-603.F.1]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which
are not supportive of the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.4 Industrial land uses shall be located along arterial or major collector
streets, with rail access if possible. Siting and operation of industrial land uses should
not create adverse off-site impacts, particularly as these off-site impacts may degrade
residential areas.
Policy A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent
with the density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas
Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for
nomenclature, continuum of plan classifications and categories, use and locational
characteristics, map delineations, other standards, and special rules.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure
comprised of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The Citywide Design Structure will
serve as a guide to development and land use decisions while protecting those elements
that make the city uniquely Clearwater.
Policy A.5.1.7 Identify Neighborhood Character Features: natural or manmade elements
that give neighborhoods their distinct personalities.
Policy A.6.1.6 Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of
economic opportunity, the creation of jobs and training opportunities as well as the
maintenance of existing industries through establishment of enterprise zones, activity
centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce,
Tourist Development Council and other economic development organizations and
agencies.
Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site
plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
Among the adjacent properties on the north side of Sunset Point Road, the majority are
residential (or residential equivalent) or preservation uses. This includes 19 residential
properties to the east, the Regency Oaks Independent Living, Assisted Living and
Nursing Home property to the north and the Preservation land to the west. Together,
these account for 85 percent of the perimeter boundary, the remainder of which are
offices and a phone utility facility. Although the existing manufacturing use has been
taking place at the site for some time, the proposed future land use plan amendment
would permit the expansion of the development at a scale 12 times the current size.
West of the wetland that borders the subject site, the Citywide Design Structure (Map
#A-14) designates the area of Sunset Point Road adjacent to U.S. 19 as a multi-
neighborhood shopping center. To the east of the site across Soule Road, the map
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 4 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
designates the Sylvan Abbey cemetery as a neighborhood character feature. While Map
#B-6, Road Network, identifies Sunset Point Road as a minor collector, this location is
not an enterprise zone, activity center or designated redevelopment corridor overlay on
the Citywide Design Structure map.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
This site is located adjacent to a significant wetland with Preservation and
Water/Drainage Feature designations. It is located within an area of the city that is
characterized by institutional and residential uses and in close proximity to a large
cemetery that is designated as a neighborhood character feature. The proposed Industrial
Limited designation for the site is not consistent with any of the surrounding land use
categories or existing land uses. There is no other industrial designated land anywhere
within the vicinity of the site or in this area of the City and there is no rail service that
can access the property. As noted above, 85 percent of the perimeter boundary is
comprised of residential and residential equivalent uses and wetlands. There is clear
potential based on the uses allowed by the proposed land use category to create adverse
off-site impact on surrounding properties. Expansion of the current non-conforming use
is not compatible with these properties. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with
Policy A.2.2.4.
Policy A.6.1.6, states that land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion
of economic opportunity, but goes on to say that this is to be implemented through the
establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas. The subject
site is not located within an enterprise zone, activity center or a redevelopment area, as
shown in Map #A-14. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy
A.6.1.6.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the significant open space and institutional
character of this area surrounding the subject site. This area of the City is not appropriate
for industrial land uses. Industrial land uses are out of character with the surrounding
designations on the Future Land Use Map as well as the Citywide Design structure and
natural characteristics of the surrounding land.
B.Consistency with the Countywide Plan Rules
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Section 2.3.3.6.1 of the Countywide Plan Rules states that the purpose of the Industrial
Limited (IL) future land use classification is to depict those areas of the county that are
now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a limited industrial manner; and so as
to encourage the reservation and use of consolidated areas for industrial and
industrial/mixed-use in a manner and location consistent with surrounding use,
transportation facilities, and natural resource characteristics.
Section 2.3.3.6.1 also states that the Industrial Limited (IL) future land use classification
is generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park
arrangement, as well as integrated industrial/mixed-use projects, with provision for
internal service access in locations suitable for light industrial use with minimal adverse
impact on adjoining uses; and served by the arterial and thoroughfare highway network,
as well as mass transit.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 5 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
The subject property is located on the north side of Sunset Point Road (a minor arterial
road), between US Highway 19 (an arterial road) and Soule Road (a local major street).
To the north of the subject property is an independent living, assisted living and nursing
home facility, to the south are places of worship, to the east are single family homes,
offices and phone utility facility and to the west are preservation lands. The subject site
is bounded by a wetland, residential uses, and some office uses, in an unusually
configured 6.571 acre subject site.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The portion of the property considered under this amendment is situated between the
Preservation wetland to the west and residential and low intensity office uses to the east.
As such, it is not consistent with the surrounding uses or natural resource characteristics
as it is located contiguous to designated Preservation and residential property on the
Future Land Use Map. The property is not of sufficient size to encourage an industrial
park arrangement, nor is it an integrated industrial/mixed-use project. Furthermore, no
adjacent land uses are industrial in nature, as they primarily consist of offices,
residences, and institutional uses.
C. Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood
[Section 4-603.F.3 and Section 4-603.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Immediately adjacent to the subject site is preservation land, independent living, assisted
living, and nursing home facility, single family homes, places of worship, offices, and
phone utility facility. The future land use designations of these properties include
Preservation (P), Institutional (I), Residential Low (RL), and Residential/Office Limited
(R/OL). Further west, beyond the preservation land, are various office, retail and
residential uses. The future land use designations of these properties include
Residential/Office General (R/OG), Residential Low Medium (RLM), Commercial
General (CG), and Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R). Between this more commercial
area and the subject property is the Preservation land, which serves as a dividing buffer
to the institutional uses to the east. The proposed manufacturing use on the subject
property is not compatible with the immediately adjacent properties and neighborhood.
The area is institutional and residential in nature. In addition, Sylvan Abbey Memorial
Park is designated as a Neighborhood Character Feature (Map A-14: Citywide Design
Structure).
The proposed Industrial Limited (IL) future land use category permits 50 to 75 overnight
accommodation units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65. The future land use
designations of surrounding properties include:
Institutional (I) (12.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.65)
Preservation (P) (FAR 0.10)
Residential Low (RL) (5 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.40)
Residential Low Medium (RLM) (10 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.50)
Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) (7.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.40)
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) (18 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.40)
Residential/Office General (R/OG) (15 Dwelling Units Per Acre; 0.50)
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 6 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
The Industrial Limited (IL) future land use classification request is not consistent with
the majority of surrounding future land use classifications that exist in the vicinity of the
subject property.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Although the applicant is proposing Restrictive Covenants that will limit the allowed
uses of the property, manufacturing and outdoor storage are not among the uses
proposed to be prohibited. The proposal to limit, by Restrictive Covenants, a plurality of
allowable uses contained in the Industrial Limited (IL) category suggests inherent
incompatibilities.
In summary, the proposed future land use designation is not in character with the overall
Future Land Use Map designations in the area. The proposal is not compatible with
surrounding uses nor is it consistent with the character of the surrounding properties and
neighborhood.
D. Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-603.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on
the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and
requested Future Land Use Map designations is typically analyzed. However, in this
situation, since the present and requested designations allow the same floor area ratio
(0.65) a comparison will show no change in allowable development.
As shown in Table 1 below, the potential additional maximum daily trips associated
with the requested amendment to the Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use
designation would not lower the operating level of service for Sunset Point Road.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 7 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2011-09003 2011-12-20
Table 1: Maximum Potential Traffic
Net
Sunset Point Road Existing Current Proposed
New
12
(McMullen Booth Road to US 19) Conditions FLUM FLUM
Trips
Potential Additional Maximum Daily Trips N/A 1,262 1,170 -92
Potential Additional Maximum PM Peak N/A 120 111 -9
3
HourTrips
Roadway Volume 16,130 4 17,392 5 17,300 5 -92
Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour B 4 B 5 B 5
Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour
Abbreviations and Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable.
FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
1. Based on PPC calculations of 192 trips per day per acre in the Institutional (I) future land use category.
2. Based on PPC calculations of 178 trips per day per acre in the Industrial Limited (IL) future land use category.
3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
4. Source: Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010 Level of Service Report.
5.
Based on a comparison between the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010 Level of Service Report
and the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it is determined that the traffic generated by the
proposed amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on
Sunset Point Road. Since the present and requested designations allow the same floor
area ratio an amendment would yield no change in levels of service to potable water,
wastewater, parkland, recreation facilities, public school facilities and mass transit.
E. Impact on Natural Resources [Section 4-603.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
A large portion (12.84 acres) of the western parcel has a Future Land Use Map
designation and Zoning Atlas category of Preservation (P) and Water/Drainage Feature.
This same portion is designated by three maps in Comprehensive Plan as Wetland
Forested Mixed (Map A-8), Bay Swamp (Map A-9) and in the 100 year floodplain (Map
A-10). Since wetlands are present on the property, a jurisdictional wetland survey is
required for development of the site. The Community Development Code (Section 3-
907) requires a vegetative buffer adjacent to Preservation district parcels or
jurisdictional wetlands. The portion of the property that is requesting the amendment
gains access to Sunset Point via a driveway that goes through this land designated as
Preservation.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, wetlands appear to be located on the western parcel of the
subject property. In addition, this same portion is designated as Bay Swamp and 100
year floodplain in the Comprehensive Plan. Development of land for industrial uses is
not appropriate adjacent to Preservation designated property. At the time of
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-09003 -Page 8 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
development, the proposed development is required to be compliant with the City’s tree
preservation and storm water management requirements.
V.REVIEW PROCEDURE
Approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment does not guarantee the right to develop
the subject property. The Future Land Use Map amendment is subject to approval by the
Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide
Planning Authority. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect
at the time development permits are requested.
VI.RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following action:
Recommend DENIAL of the request for Future Land Use Map amendment from the
Institutional (I) classification to the Industrial Limited (IL) classification.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _______________________________
Catherine Lee
Planner III
Attachments:
Resume
Application for Future Land Use Plan Amendment
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case LUP2011-01002 - Page 9 of 9
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211M.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-09006 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting: December 20, 2011
Case Number: REZ2011-09006
Applicant: AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants) Sunset Point, LLC
Address: 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: F.4 (Related to F.3 and F.5)
STAFF REPORT
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
I.GENERAL INFORMATION
Request:
To amend the Zoning Atlas designation from the Institutional (I) District to
the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
Location:
2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road, located on the north side of Sunset Point
Road approximately 477 feet west of Soule Road
Site Area:
286,219 square feet or 6.571 acres MOL
II.BACKGROUND
This case involves the northeastern portion of 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road, totaling
6.571 acres of a 19.42 acre property, owned by AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants)
Sunset Point LLC. The remainder of the southern parcel (12.84 acres) is designated
Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature and is not proposed to be amended. The property
is comprised of two parcels and currently contains the AEC business on the northeastern
parcel and a portion of the southern parcel.
The subject site was formerly owned by the Clearwater Elks Lodge and operated as such
until 2000. In 2000, a portion of Lot 1 of the Elks Subdivision was approved for a Future
Land Use Map amendment from Institutional (I) to Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) and a
Zoning Atlas amendment from Institutional (I) to Office (O). In that same year, Clearwater
Elks Lodge sold that portion to C.C.I Investments, Inc. The remaining portion of Lot 1, still
designated as Institutional (I), was sold to AEC Sunset Point, LLC in November 2002.
The request is to change the property’s Zoning Atlas designation of Institutional (I) to
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT). The applicant has indicated that the intent is to
expand the existing business into a larger facility.
A request for a Future Land Use Map amendment of the property from Institutional (I) to
Industrial Limited (IL) and a Development Agreement, which limits the uses and
development potential of the site, are being processed concurrently with this case (see
LUP2011-09003 and DVA2011-10001). Community Development Code Section 4-602.B,
dealing with Zoning Atlas amendments, requires an application for development approval
be submitted at the same time as the Zoning Atlas amendment application. However,
Planning and Development Department staff failed to require the application for
development approval and determined the Zoning Atlas amendment application to be
complete in December 2009 and the case was heard at the Development Review Committee
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-09006 -Page 1 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
(DRC) meeting held on January 7, 2010. At the DRC meeting Planning staff listed six
conditions that required response for resubmittal prior to Community Development Board
meeting. The applicant did not resubmit. The case was left open at the applicant’s request in
order to respond to case conditions at a future date. In late September 2011 the applicant’s
agent contacted City staff and indicated they were planning to resubmit in October and
respond to case conditions, which they did on October 12, 2011. In October 2011 the
applicant’s agent indicated to City staff that they would submit an application for a
Development Agreement in November, which they did on November 1, 2011.
III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
A.Site Characteristics
The property currently has two buildings (6,840 square feet and 3,664 square feet), one on
each parcel, with small parking lots and driveways to the buildings, which traverse the
length of the property and connect to Sunset Point Road. The southern 200 feet of the
driveway that connects to Sunset Point Road is designated as Preservation and
Water/Drainage Feature. Adjacent and to the east of the property are single family homes,
offices and a phone utility facility and across Soule Road is a major cemetery. Immediately
adjacent to the west are preservation lands owned by the applicant and beyond, in close
proximity to the intersection of U.S 19 and Sunset Point Road, are various office, retail and
residential uses. To the north is an independent living, assisted living and nursing home
facility, and to the south are places of worship.
The general character of the immediate vicinity is institutional and residential with a small
area of low intensity offices. A major wetland is adjacent to the west of the subject site,
which is owned by the applicant, and creates a natural boundary from the more intensive
commercial area to the east, adjacent to US Highway 19 North and the subject site.
B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Conditions
Direction
Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
North: Independent living, Institutional (I) Institutional (I)
assisted living and
nursing home facility
East: Single family homes and Residential Low (RL) and Single Family Residential
offices Residential/Office Limited (R-2) (County) and Office
(R/OL) (O)
South: Places of worship Institutional (I) Institutional (I)
West: Preservation lands, Preservation (P), Water/Drainage Preservation (P),
offices, mobile homes, Feature, Residential/Office/Retail Commercial Parkway
self-storage and boat (R/O/R), Commercial General (CP-1) (County),
and travel trailer sales (CG), Residential Low Medium Commercial (C), and
(RLM) and Residential/Office Mobile Home Park
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01002 -Page 2 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
Existing Conditions
Direction
Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
General (R/OG) (MHP)
IV.REVIEW CRITERIA
No amendment to the Zoning Atlas shall be recommended for approval or receive a final
action of approval unless it complies with the standards contained in Section 4-602.F,
Community Development Code.
A.Consistency of Development with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
Community Development Code and City Regulations [Section 4-602.F.1 and 4-
602.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which
are not supportive of the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.4 Industrial land uses shall be located along arterial or major collector
streets, with rail access if possible. Siting and operation of industrial land uses should
not create adverse off-site impacts, particularly as these off-site impacts may degrade
residential areas.
Policy A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent
with the density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas
Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for
nomenclature, continuum of plan classifications and categories, use and locational
characteristics, map delineations, other standards, and special rules.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure
comprised of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The Citywide Design Structure will
serve as a guide to development and land use decisions while protecting those elements
that make the city uniquely Clearwater.
Policy A.5.1.7 Identify Neighborhood Character Features: natural or manmade elements
that give neighborhoods their distinct personalities.
Policy A.6.1.6 Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of
economic opportunity, the creation of jobs and training opportunities as well as the
maintenance of existing industries through establishment of enterprise zones, activity
centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce,
Tourist Development Council and other economic development organizations and
agencies.
Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site
plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01002 -Page 3 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
Among the adjacent properties on the north side of Sunset Point Road, the majority are
residential (or residential equivalent) or preservation uses. This includes 19 residential
properties to the east, the Regency Oaks Independent Living, Assisted Living and
Nursing Home property to the north and the Preservation land to the west. Together,
these account for 85 percent of the perimeter boundary, the remainder of which are
offices and a phone utility facility. Although the existing manufacturing use has been
taking place at the site for some time, the proposed future land use plan amendment
would permit the expansion of the development at a scale 12 times the current size.
West of the wetland that borders the subject site, the Citywide Design Structure (Map
#A-14) designates the area of Sunset Point Road adjacent to U.S. 19 as a multi-
neighborhood shopping center. To the east of the site across Soule Road, the map
designates the Sylvan Abbey cemetery as a neighborhood character feature. While Map
#B-6, Road Network, identifies Sunset Point Road as a minor collector, this location is
not an enterprise zone, activity center or designated redevelopment corridor overlay on
the Citywide Design Structure map
Recommended Conclusions of Law
This site is located adjacent to a significant wetland with Preservation and
Water/Drainage Feature designations. It is located within an area of the city that is
characterized by institutional and residential uses and in close proximity to a large
cemetery that is designated as a neighborhood character feature. The proposed
Industrial, Research and Technology designation for the site is not consistent with any of
the surrounding zoning categories or existing land uses. There is no other industrial
designated land anywhere within the vicinity of the site or in this area of the City and
there is no rail service that can access the property. As noted above, 85 percent of the
perimeter boundary is comprised of residential and residential equivalent uses and
wetlands. There is clear potential based on the uses allowed by the proposed land use
category to create adverse off-site impact on surrounding properties. Expansion of the
current non-conforming use is not compatible with these properties. The proposed
amendment is inconsistent with Policy A.2.2.4.
Policy A.6.1.6, states that land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion
of economic opportunity, but goes on to say that this is to be implemented through the
establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas. The subject
site is not located within an enterprise zone, activity center or a redevelopment area, as
shown in Map #A-14. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy
A.6.1.6.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the significant open space and institutional
character of this area surrounding the subject site. This area of the City is not appropriate
for industrial land uses. Industrial land uses are out of character with the surrounding
designations on the Future Land Use Map as well as the Citywide Design structure and
natural characteristics of the surrounding land.
B.Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood
[Sections 4-602.F.3 and 4-602.F.4]
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01002 -Page 4 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Immediately adjacent to the subject site is preservation land, independent living, assisted
living, and nursing home facility, single family homes, places of worship, offices, and
phone utility facility. The zoning designations of these properties, City and County,
include Preservation (P), Institutional (I), Single Family Residential (R-2) (County), and
Office (O). Further west, beyond the preservation land, are various office, retail and
residential uses. The zoning designations of these properties, City and County, include
Commercial Parkway (CP-1) (County), Commercial (C), and Mobile Home Park
(MHP). Between this more commercial area and the subject property is the Preservation
land, which serves as a dividing buffer to the institutional uses to the east. The proposed
manufacturing use on the subject property is not compatible with the immediately
adjacent properties and neighborhood. The area is institutional and residential in nature.
In addition, Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park is designated as a Neighborhood Character
Feature (Map A-14: Citywide Design Structure).
The proposed Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District primarily permits
manufacturing, publishing and printing, research and technology, self storage, TV/radio
studios, and wholesale/distribution/warehouse facility. Only the self storage use is also
found on one of the surrounding properties, to the far west, while the other primary uses
allowed in this district are not found adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the subject
property.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Zoning Atlas designation will allow uses that are not consistent with
existing institutional, residential, office and preservation uses in the vicinity of the
subject property. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is not
in character with the surrounding area. Although the applicant is proposing Restrictive
Covenants that will limit the allowed uses of the property, manufacturing and outdoor
storage are not among the uses proposed to be prohibited. The proposal to limit, by
Restrictive Covenants, a plurality of allowable uses contained in the Industrial, Research
and Technology (IRT) category suggests inherent incompatibilities.
C.Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-602.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on
the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and
requested Future Land Use Map designations is typically analyzed. However, in this
situation, since the present and requested designations allow the same floor area ratio
(0.65) a comparison will show no change in allowable development.
The Trip Generation Comparison in Tables 1 and 2 below indicate the estimated trip
generation for specific uses allowed in the current and proposed zoning districts based
th
on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation 8 Edition. A
manufacturing use currently exists at the site, but is a nonconforming use in the current
Institutional zoning district. Expansion of nonconforming uses are prohibited by the
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01002 -Page 5 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
Community Development Code, therefore the applicant is requesting this Zoning Atlas
amendment. So, in this case, the current and proposed use is the same, but the scale of
the use varies. Table 1 shows that there would be a net increase in PM Peak Trips when
comparing the current development with the maximum that would be allowed under the
proposed zoning district and under the proposed Development Agreement. However, the
increase would not trip the thresholds for a traffic impact study.
Table 2, which uses employees as the independent variable, shows that there would be a
net increase in PM Peak Trips that would trip the threshold for requiring a traffic impact
study. This study will be required by Traffic Operations upon submittal of a
development application. While square footage is the most commonly used independent
variable when analyzing potential traffic impacts, analyzing the impact by number of
employees is appropriate for this manufacturing use since almost all traffic to the site is
generated by employees. This is very different from retail uses, which generate traffic
based on inventory display area, or office uses, which generate traffic based on floor
area that is filled with offices. In contrast, for this manufacturing use, the employees
generate the traffic, not the amount of square footage available for machines, the
material supply storage, or produced parts storage.
Table 1: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Atlas Designation
PM Net
Net
Avg. Peak Change
Development Change PM Peak
Land Use Daily Trips PM
Potential Avg Daily Trips
Trips Avg Peak
Trips
Rate Trips
Existing Designation: Institutional District
1 10,504 SF 2 40 N/A 0.73 8 N/A
Existing Manufacturing
(3.82 trips/1,000 SF
GFA)
Proposed Designation: Industrial, Research and Technology District
1 186,051 SF 3 711 671 0.73 136 128
Manufacturing (3.82
trips/1,000 SF GFA)
Permitted through Development Agreement (DVA2011-10001)
1 130,000 SF 4 497 457 0.73 95 87
Manufacturing (3.82
trips/1,000 SF GFA)
Abbreviations and Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable SF = Square Feet GFA = Gross Floor Area
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 140.
2. The total square footage of the two buildings given by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser.
3. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying IL Future Land Use Map category is 0.65.
4. DVA2011-10001 limits development of the subject site to 130,000 square feet of manufacturing space.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-01002 -Page 6 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-09006 2011-12-20
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison by Number of Employees
PM Net
Net
Avg. Peak Change
Change PM Peak
Land Use Employees Daily Trips PM
Avg Daily Trips
Trips Avg Peak
Trips
Rate Trips
Existing Development
1 15 2 32 N/A 0.36 5 N/A
Existing Manufacturing
(2.13 trips/per employee)
Proposed Development
1 355 SF 3 756 724 0.36 128 123
Manufacturing (2.13
trips/per employee)
Abbreviations and Notes:
N/A = Not Applicable
1. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 140.
2. The current Business Tax Receipt in City permitting software indicates Aviation Engineering Consultants has 15
employees.
3. Exhibit B, submitted in support of the Zoning Atlas amendment application, indicates the future facility will accommodate
355 employees.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it its determined that the traffic generated by the
proposed amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing level of service on
Sunset Point Road. The traffic generated by the proposed amendment will require a
traffic impact study, to be provided at the time an application for development approval
is submitted. Since the present and requested designations allow the same floor area
ratio an amendment would yield no change in levels of service to potable water,
wastewater, parkland, recreation facilities, public school facilities and mass transit.
D.Location of District Boundaries [Section 4-602.F.6]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District would
introduce a new district in this area and is not compatible with the nursing home use to
the north, residential uses to the east, place of worship use to the south, and preservation
lands to the west.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District is inappropriate in this location.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-09006 -Page 7 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-09006 2011-12-20
V.REVIEW PROCEDURE
Approval of the Zoning Atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop the subject
property. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time
development permits are requested.
VI.RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following action:
Recommend DENIAL of the request for Zoning Atlas amendment from the Institutional (I)
District to the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _________________________
Catherine Lee
Planner III
Attachments:
Resume
Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011 - Case REZ2011-09006 -Page 8 of 8
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1211N.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-10001 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting: December 20, 2011
Case Number: DVA2011-10001
Applicant: AEC (Aviation Engineering Consultants) Sunset Point, LLC
Address: 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road
Agenda Item: F.5 (Related to F.3 and F.4)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION
Request:
Review of a Development Agreement between AEC Sunset
Point LLC (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater
as per Community Development Code Section 4-606.
Current/Proposed Zoning
Current: Institutional (I)
Districts:
Proposed: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
Current/Proposed Future
Current: Institutional (I)
Land Use Map Categories:
Proposed: Industrial Limited (IL)
Property Use:
Current: Manufacturing
Proposed: Manufacturing
Existing Surrounding
North: Institutional (I)
Zoning and Uses:
Independent living facility, assisted
living facility and nursing home
South: Institutional (I)
Places of worship
East: Single Family Residential (R-2) (County),
Office (O) and Institutional (I)
Single family homes, offices and
phone utility facility
West: Preservation (P), Mobile Home Park (MHP),
Commercial Parkway (CP-1) (County), and
Commercial (C)
Preservation lands, offices, mobile
homes, boat and travel trailer sales
and self-storage
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2011-10001 – Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-10001 2011-12-20
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
This case involves the northeastern portion of 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road, totaling 6.571
acres of a 19.42 acre property, owned by AEC Sunset Point LLC. The property is comprised of
two parcels and currently contains the AEC business on the northeastern parcel and a portion of
the southern parcel. The remainder of the southern parcel (12.84 acres) is Preservation land.
Development Proposals:
A request to amend the Future Land Use Map designation of the property from Institutional (I) to
Industrial Limited (IL) is being processed concurrently with this case. In addition, a request for
rezoning of the property from Institutional (I) to Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) is
also being processed concurrently with this case.
Development Agreement Request:
The proposed Development Agreement limits the use and development of the subject site to a
total of 130,000 square feet (FAR of 0.45) of manufacturing space for a period of 20 years,
whereas 186,051 square feet of development (FAR of 0.65) could be allowed. The Agreement
sets forth public and private obligations and requires redevelopment of the site to be consistent
with the following requirements:
1.Is not effective until final approval and effectiveness of the Future Land Use Map and
Zoning Atlas amendments under LUP2011-09003 and REZ2011-09006;
2.Sets out the Developer’s transportation obligations, including the submittal of a traffic
impact study (TIS) and implementation of study recommendations;
3.Prohibits certain uses through a Restrictive Covenant, to be recorded in the Official
Records of Pinellas County;
4.Limits the building height to a maximum of 35 feet;
5.Requires the Preservation area to be protected through an executed perpetual
Conservation Easement, to be recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County;
6.Requires the property to be developed in conformance with the concept plan submitted as
Exhibit B, including a 25 foot setback from structures to the adjacent single family
residential properties to the east and a 25 foot vegetative buffer from the Preservation
zoned land to the west.
Additionally, the Development Agreement obligates the City to comply with the following:
1.Concurrently process the Future Land Use Map amendment under LUP2011-09003 and
Zoning Atlas amendment under REZ2011-09006;
2.Pending a jurisdictional wetland survey submitted by the Developer, obligates the City to
use the administrative adjustment procedure to adjust the Preservation line, providing it is
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2011-10001 – Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-10001 2011-12-20
in accord with the Community Development Code and Pinellas Planning Council
Countywide Rules.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-606.F]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which are not
supportive of the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.4 Industrial land uses shall be located along arterial or major collector streets, with
rail access if possible. Siting and operation of industrial land uses should not create adverse off-
site impacts, particularly as these off-site impacts may degrade residential areas.
Policy A.2.2.8 All land use categories on the Future Land Use Map shall be consistent with the
density and intensity standards and other standards contained in the Pinellas Planning Council
Countywide Plan Rules, including criteria and standards for nomenclature, continuum of plan
classifications and categories, use and locational characteristics, map delineations, other
standards, and special rules.
Goal A.5 The City of Clearwater shall identify and utilize a citywide design structure comprised
of a hierarchy of places and linkages. The Citywide Design Structure will serve as a guide to
development and land use decisions while protecting those elements that make the city uniquely
Clearwater.
Policy A.5.1.7 Identify Neighborhood Character Features: natural or manmade elements that
give neighborhoods their distinct personalities.
Policy A.6.1.6 Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of economic
opportunity, the creation of jobs and training opportunities as well as the maintenance of existing
industries through establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas
and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce, Tourist Development Council and other
economic development organizations and agencies.
Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments
that are compatible.
Among the adjacent properties on the north side of Sunset Point Road, the majority are
residential (or residential equivalent) or preservation uses. This includes 19 residential properties
to the east, the Regency Oaks Independent Living, Assisted Living and Nursing Home property
to the north and the Preservation land to the west. Together, these account for 85 percent of the
perimeter boundary, the remainder of which are offices and a phone utility facility. Although the
existing manufacturing use has been taking place at the site for some time, the proposed
development agreement would permit the expansion of the development at a scale 12 times the
current size.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2011-10001 – Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-10001 2011-12-20
West of the wetland that borders the subject site, the Citywide Design Structure (Map #A-14)
designates the area of Sunset Point Road adjacent to U.S. 19 as a multi-neighborhood shopping
center. To the east of the site across Soule Road, the map designates the Sylvan Abbey cemetery
as a neighborhood character feature. While Map #B-6, Road Network, identifies Sunset Point
Road as a minor collector, this location is not an enterprise zone, activity center or designated
redevelopment corridor overlay on the Citywide Design Structure map.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed expansion of the current nonconforming manufacturing use of the site is not
consistent with any of the surrounding land uses. The Development Agreement indicates that 195
parking spots will be provided. The applicant has pledged to provide 355 jobs. At this time, the
applicant and his representatives have not indicated hours of operation. It appears multiple shifts
may be necessary to accommodate future full employment.
The proposed Development Agreement limits the impact, should the future land use
classification and zoning district be amended, as it prohibits 30 of the 34 allowable uses in the
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) district. The proposal to limit, by Restrictive
Covenants, a plurality of allowable uses contained in the Industrial, Research and Technology
(IRT) category suggests inherent incompatibilities.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of December 1, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following:
Findings of Fact:
1.That the 6.571-acre site is located on the north side of Sunset Point Road approximately 477
feet west of Soule Road;
2.That there is a companion application to amend the Future Land Use Map designation for the
subject property from Institutional (I) to the Industrial Limited (IL) classification (LUP2011-
09003), and to rezone the property from Institutional (I) district to the Industrial, Research
and Technology (IRT) district (REZ2011-09006);
3.That the purpose of this Development Agreement is to restrict the development potential on
the property to less than the maximums allowable and limit the allowable uses of the
property to manufacturing, offices, outdoor retail sales, display and/or storage, and research
and technology use;
4.That a 25 foot setback will be provided to the residential properties to the east and a 25 foot
vegetative buffer will be provided to the Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature land to the
west;
5.That the proposed agreement endures for 20 years;
6.That the proposed use of the property is not compatible with the surrounding area;
7.That the property is situated between a wetland to the west and residential and low intensity
office uses to the east;
8.That the operational characteristics, based on the proposed parking and projected number of
employees, will require the need for multiple shifts.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2011-10001 – Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2011-10001 2011-12-20
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the Development Agreement does not comply with the standards and criteria of Section
4-606 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the Development Agreement is inconsistent with and the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
DENIAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the of
a Development Agreement between Aviation Engineering Consultants Sunset Point LLC (the
property owner) and the City of Clearwater as per Community Development Code Section 4-
606, for the property at 2750 and 2754 Sunset Point Road.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Catherine Lee, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
Staff Resume
Location Map
Aerial Map
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Development Agreements (DVA)\Sunset Point Rd 2750 and 2754 Aviation Engineering Consultants LLC
DVA2011-10001 - (I) 2011.12 - CL\Staff Report\DVA2011-10001 Staff Report.docx
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
DVA2011-10001 – Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00006 2011-12-20
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2011
Case Number: APP2011-00006
Agenda Item: G. 1.
Appellant: Avi Ovaknin, Surf West, Inc.
Agent: Alex Plisko, Plisko Architecture, PA
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST:An appeal of an administrative interpretation of Sections 3-913 (outdoor
display/storage) and 3-1502.F.1. (exterior storage and display/nonresidential
properties), Community Development Code, denying outside display at 311
Gulfview Boulevard.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
On August 9, 2011, it was noticed by a City of Clearwater Code Inspector that
goods/merchandise were being displayed outside of the business (Surf Style) located at 311
Gulfview Boulevard. The manager was instructed that a Temporary Use Permit (TMP) was
required in order to have an outdoor display of goods/merchandise. On August 11, 2011, it was
identified that the goods/merchandise in question had not been removed; therefore a Notice of
Violation (CDC2011-01586) and a Notice to Appear (NTA) to County Court were issued.
Subsequently, on September 12, 2011, a second violation (CDC2011-01875) was issued for the
same property and reason. On November 18, 2011, the aforementioned cases were heard by the
County Court and a guilty verdict was handed down.
On November 22, 2011, at the request of the appellants’ representative, the following
interpretation on outdoor display was issued:
The outdoor display of goods is permitted as either a principle use in the
Commercial (C) or Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts, or as
temporary retail sales and display pursuant to Article 3, Division 21, Community
Development Code (CDC). As defined in the CDC, temporary retail sales and
displays means “any nonpermanent sales or displays which are of the same
product and must be related with the permanent or principal use of the
property.” On Clearwater Beach, the display of goods outside a
structure/building can only be permitted in conjunction with a temporary use.
In sum, the above provisions, as applied to Surf Style, prohibit the storage/display
of goods/merchandise outside of the building unless in conjunction with an
approved temporary use permit. We do not consider the area outside the building
main entrance to constitute “enclosed” display area.
The basis of the appeal, as stated by the appellant in their application, is that the Community
Development Coordinator denied outdoor display at the west entry into the Surf Style building,
despite said outdoor display being on the owner’s property and being surrounded by three walls
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
APP2011-00006 - Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00006 2011-12-20
with a canopy above. In addition to this, the appellant also states that the appeal is of Sections 3-
913 (outdoor display/storage), and 3-1502.F.1 (exterior storage and display/nonresidential
properties); however neither of the Sections are referenced in the interpretation issued by the
Community Development Coordinator. The Sections referenced by the appellant are provided
below:
Section 3-913 Unless otherwise expressly permitted in the zoning district in which the
property is located, the outdoor display and storage of goods and
materials is prohibited.
Section 3-1502.F.1. All equipment, materials and merchandise shall be stored and located at
all times within an enclosed structure and no exterior storage of
merchandise for sale shall be permitted unless expressly authorized
pursuant to the provisions of this Development Code.
The above provisions make it clear
that outdoor display and storage is
not permissible unless expressly
authorized within the Community
Development Code, and that
otherwise all such goods must be
located within an enclosed structure.
The appellant notes that the area
where they have goods displayed is
within an area surrounded by three
walls with a canopy above (see
adjacent photos). However, this
would not seem to meet the
definition of “enclosed.” While the
word “enclosed” is not defined by
the Community Development Code,
according to dictionary.com,
“enclosed” may mean “to shut or
hem in; close in on all sides: a valley
enclosed by tall mountains;” or as
defined by Merriam Webster, “to
close in: surround.” There would
seem little doubt that area being used
for outdoor display does not
constitute an enclosed area as there is
an entire side that is “unenclosed”
and open to the adjacent sidewalk.
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
APP2011-00006 - Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2011-00006 2011-12-20
APPEAL PROCESS:
The appeal from the aforementioned determination was filed on by Mr. Alex Plisko, Jr. on behalf
of the appellant, Avi Ovaknin (Surf West Inc.), on November 22, 2011, consistent with the
timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in Section 4-502.B., CDC. Pursuant to
Section 4-501.A.1., CDC, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear
appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative
official in the administration of the development code.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation
of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5., CDC,
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1.The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of
this development code; and
2.The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this development code; and
3.The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning and Development Director
Community Development Board – December 20, 2011
APP2011-00006 - Page 3 of 3
r
CDB Meeting: November 15. 2011
Case number: TA2011-10002
Ordinance Number: 8306- 11
Agenda Item: E.1.
Planner: Lon� Ran�e Plannin� Mana�er
Lauren Matzke
}
CDB Meeting Date: November 15 2011
Case Number: TA2011-10002
Ordinance Number: 8306-11
Agenda Item: E.1.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TEXT AMENDMENT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code —
Ordinance No. 8306-ll
INITIATED BY: City Attorney's Office
BACKGROUND:
Florida Statutes Section 509233, 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 cafe areas of existing restaurants. Outdoor
cafes 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,
and posting of signage. Additionally, dogs shall not be permitted to travel
Community Development Board—November 15,2011
TA2011-10002—Pa�e 1
�
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 pog-Friendly Restaurant Permits.
CRITERIA 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.
l. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, 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.�.7. Create mixed-use, higiler densiiy, iivabie communiiies inrougn
design, layout and use of walkability techniques within existing and
proposed transit comdors....
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/ar 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
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
through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and
beneficial development of land within the city [Subsection 2.]; provide the most
Community Development Board—November 1 S,2011
TA2011-10002—Page 2
i
beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of
traffic throughout the city, with particular regazd 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.]
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and
wi1] further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the
Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department
recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8306-11 that amends the Community
Development Code.
Prepared by Planning and Legal Department Staff:
. �� , �
Leslie K. Dougall-S d s, Assistant City
Attorney
ATTACHMENT:
❑ Ordinance No.8306-I 1
Communiry Development Board—November 15,2011
TA2011-10�02—Page 3
1
ORDINANCE NO. 8306-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT
CODE �RELATING TO LAND USE; AMENDING ARTICLE 3,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; ADOPTING DIVISION 25,
SECTIONS 3-2501 THROUGH 3-2506, PROVIDING FOR PUBLIG
FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS WITH A PERMIT TO
ALLOW PATRONS' DOGS ON THE PREMISES IN DESIGNATED
OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS, PROVIDING PURPOSE AND
AUTHORITY, PROVIDING DEFINITIONS, PROV�DING FOR
APPLICAT(ON REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDING FOR
REGULATIONS, PROVIDING FOR PERMIT EXPIRATION AND
REVOCATION, AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR
REPORTING AND RESOLVING COMPLAINTS AND FOR
REPORTING iNFORMATION TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA;
AMENDING APPENDIX A, SECTION VIII, LAND DEVELOPMENT,
TO ADD A PERMIT FEE FOR DOG-FRiENDLY RESTAURANTS
AND OUTDOOR CAFES; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPER ADVERTISEMENT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Development
Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, said C;ode provides requirements for restaurant ana sidewaiic cafe
use; and
VNHEREAS, The Dixie Cup Clary Local Control Act, Florida Statutes Section
509.233, grants the City the authority to provide exemptions to certain provisions of the
Food and Drug Administration Food Code, as currently adopted, in order to allow
patrons' dogs within certain designated outdoor portions of public food service
establishments; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to allow patrons and their dogs to be present within
certain designated outdoor portions of public food service establishments, which have
received permits; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Article 3, Community Development Code, is amended to add Division
25 to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 8306-12
t
DIVISION 25. DOG-FRIENDLY RESTAURANTS
Section 3-2501. Purpose and Authority.
The purpose of this division is to aliow patrons' dogs within certain designated
outdoor portions of public food service estabiishments, with permits, in a manner
consistent with The Dixie Cup Ciary Local Controi Act, F.S. § 509.233. Said Act grants
the City the authority to provide exceptions from section 6-501.115, 2001 FDA Food
Code, as adopted and incorporated by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants in
Chapter 61 C-4.010(6), as amended from time to time, which prohibits the presence of
live animals in public food establishments.
Section 3-2502. Definitions.
The term "public food service establishment" as used in this division means a
restaurant and/or outdoor cafe, as defined in Section 8-102, which is also licensed as
such an establishment pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 509, Part I. The term
"employee" or "employees" as used in this division includes, but is not limited to, the
owner or owners of a public food service establishment. The term "dog friendly
restaurant or outdoor cafe" as used in this land development code means a public food
service establishment which has received a permit under this division.
Section 3-2503. Application Requirements.
Public food service establishments must apply for and receive a permit from the
City of Clearwater Community Development Coordinator or his/her designee, before
patrons' dogs are allowed on the premises. A fee to cover the cost of processing the
initial application and renewals shall be charged to the applicant applying for the permit
in accordance with Appendix A, Section VIII(1)(m) of this code. The application for a
permit shall require such information from the applicant as is deemed reasonably
necessary to enforce the provisions of this division, but shall require, at a minimum, the
following information:
1) The name, location, mailing address, and Florida Department of Business
and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants-issued
license number of the public food service establishment.
2) The name, mailing address, and telephone contact information of the permit
applicant.
3) A diagram and description of the outdoor area to be designated as available
to patrons' dogs, including: dimensions of the designated area; a depiction of
the number and placement of tables, chairs, and restaurant equipment, if any;
the entryways and exits to the designated outdoor area; the boundaries of the
designated area and of other areas of outdoor dining not available for patrons'
dogs; any fences or other barriers; surrounding property lines and public
2 Ordinance No. 8306-11
1
rights-of-way, including sidewalks and common pathways; and such other
information reasonably required by the permitting authority. The diagram or
plan shall be accurate and to scale but need not be prepared by a licensed
design professional.
4) A description of the days of the week and hours of operation that patrons'
dogs will be permitted in the designated outdoor area.
Section 3-2504. Regulations.
Public food service establishments that receive a permit to allow dogs in
designated outdoor areas pursuant to this division shall require that:
1) All public food service establishment employees shall wash their hands
promptly after touching, petting, or otherwise handling dogs. Employees shall
be prohibited from touching, petting, or otherwise handling dogs while serving
food or beverages or handling tableware or before entering other parts of the
public service establishment.
2) Patrons in a designated outdoor area shall be advised that they should wash
their hands before eating. Water-less hand sanitizer shall be provided at all
tables in the designated outdoor area.
3) Employees and patrons shall be instructed that they shall not allow dogs to
come into contact with serving dishes, utensils, tableware, linens, paper
products, or any other item involved in food service operations.
4) Patrons shall keep their dogs on a leash at all times and shall keep their dogs
under reasonable control.
51 Doas shalt not be allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings.
6) All table and chair surfaces shall be cleaned and sanitized with an approved
product between seating of patrons. Spilled food and drink shall be removed
from the floor or ground between seating of patrons.
7) Accidents involving dog waste shall be cleaned immediately and the area
sanitized with an approved product. A kit with the appropriate materials for
this purpose shall be kept near the designated outdoor area.
8) A sign or signs reminding employees of the applicable rules shall be posted
on premises in a conspicuous manner and place frequented by employees
within the public food service establishment.
9) A sign or signs reminding patrons of the applicable rules shall be posted on
premises in a conspicuous manner and placed within the designated outdoor
portion of the public food service establishment.
10) A sign or signs placing the public on notice that the designated outdoor area
is currently available for the use of patrons and patrons' dogs shall be posted
in a conspicuous manner near the entrance to the designated outdoor portion
of the public food service establishment.
11)Dogs shall not be permitted to travel through indoor or nondesignated outdoor
portions of the public food service establishment, and ingress and egress to
the designated outdoor portions of the public food service establishment must
3 Ordinance No. 8306-11
�
not require entrance into or passage through any indoor area of the food
establishment.
Section 3-2505. Permit Expiration and Revocation.
A. A permit issued pursuant to this division shall not be transferred to a
subsequent owner upon the sale of a public food service establishment but
shall expire automatically upon the sale of the establishment. The
subsequent owner shall be required to reapply for a permit pursuant to this
section if the subsequent owner wishes to continue to accommodate patrons'
dogs.
B. Permits shall expire on September 30 of each year.
C. A permit may be revoked by the City Community Development Coordinator or
his/her designee if, after notice and reasonable time in which the grounds for
revocation may be corrected, the public food establishment fails to comply
with any condition of approval, fails to comply with the approved diagram, or
is found to be in violation of any provision of this division.
D. If a public food service establishment's permit is revoked, no new permit may
be approved for the establishment until the expiration of one hundred and
eighty (180) days following the date of revocation.
Section 3-2506. Complaints and Reporting.
A. Complaints may be made in writing to the Community Development
Coordinator. The Community Development Coordinator or his/her designee
shall accept, document, and respond to all written complaints and shall report
to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division
of Hotels and Restaurants all complaints and the response to such
complaints.
B. The Community Development Coordinator or his/her designee shall provide
the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of
Hotels and Restaurants with a copy of all approved applications and permits
issued.
C. All applications, permits and other related materials shall contain the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and
Restaurants-issued license number for the public food service establishment.
Section 2. Appendix A, VIII Land Development, (1) Level One, Community
Development Code, is hereby amended to add subsection (m), to read as follows:
;,;,) Doq-friendl� restaurant or outdoor cafe
ermit................................................................................75.00.
Section 3. Amendments to the Community Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
4 Ordinance No. 8306-11
►
Section 4. The City of Ciearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invatid_
Section 6. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable
law.
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call
Assistant City Attorney City Clerk
5 Ordinance No. 8306-11
t
Resume
Lauren Matzke,AICP
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater,FL 33756
727-562-4547
lau ren.matzken,myclearwate r.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
• Long Range Planning Manager December 2011 to present
• Planner III,Long Range Division October 2008 to December 2011
• Planner II,Long Range Division September 2008 to October 2008
City of Clearwater, FL
Responsible for numerous aspects of the Growth Management Act of Florida such as comprehensive
planning, Future Land Use Plan amendments, rezonings, and annexations. Update Community
Development Codes by Ordinance. Prepare staff reports for the City Council and Community
Development Board. Responsible for providing informational assistance to the public and developers
concerning development plans. Coordinate and manage various projects. Serve as the ciTy's
representative on countywide and regional planning agency committees.
� Senior Planner February 2007 to September 2008
City of St. Pete Beach, FL
Implemented new legislative directives for Florida's growth management laws related to
governments' comprehensive planning and land development regulations. Served as staff to the City
Commission, Planning Board and Historic Preservation Board. Administered the land development
regulations, processed future land use plan amendments and rezonings. Responsible for the
preparation of special area plans.
• Environmental Specialist III August 2005 to February 2007
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL
Served as primary reviewer of local government comprehensive plan amendments, sector plans and
evaluation and appraisal reports for the northwest region of Florida. Provided comments and
recommendations to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Drafted policies and
comprehensive plan language regarding natural resource protection, assisting local government
representatives.
EDUCATION
Master's Degree in Urban and Regional Planning,Florida State University, 2006
Bachelor of Science in Design and Environmental Analysis, concentration in Gerontology, Cornell
University, 1998
LICENSES AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of Certified Planners(2009 to Present)
American Planning Association(2003 to Present)
Florida Chapter(2005 to Present)
New York Metro Chapter(2003 to 2005)
Florida Planning and Zoning Association (2009 to Present)