Loading...
03/20/2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER March 20, 2012 Present: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch, Member Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson, Member Brian A. Barker, Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough, Acting Member Donald van Weezel Absent: Vice-Chair Thomas Coates Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Planning & Development Director Michael L. Delk, Planning Manger Robert Tefft, Board Reporter Patricia O. Sullivan A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. B. ROLL CALL: Chair Fritsch, Vice-Chair Coates, Members Adelson, Barker, Carlough, Dame, Hinrichs, Alternate Member van Weezel, City Staff C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 21, 2012 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of February 21, 2012, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair and Vice Chair Continued to April 17, 2012. E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1-4): 1. Case: FLD2012-01001 - 1500 S. Belcher Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Circle K Stores Agent: Braulio Grajales, P.E, High Point Engineering (5300 W. Cypress Street, Suite 282, Tampa, FL 33607; phone: 813-644-8333; fax: 813-644-7000; email: bgrajales@hpe-fl.com) Location: The 0.833 acre property is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Nursery Road and S. Belcher Road Atlas Page: 316B Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development approval for a 3,906 square-foot restaurant with drive- Community Development Code 3/20/2012 1 thru facilities in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 36,313 square-feet, a lot width of 171 feet along S. Belcher Road and 189 feet along Nursery Road, front (east) setback 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 39.3 feet (to proposed building), front (north) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 81.1 feet (to proposed building), side (west) setback of 3.5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 72.2 feet (to proposed building), side (south) setback of 5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 54 feet (to proposed building), a building height of 19.4 feet (to parapet wall) and 23.4 feet (to top of roof cap element), and 37 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the front perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, a reduction to the front perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, and a reduction to the side perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.5 feet, a reduction to foundation plantings from 5 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Morningside Meadows Neighborhood Association Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Exhibits: Staff Report: FLD2012-01001 2012-03-20 Revised Conditions: FLD2012-01001 2012-03-20 See page 3 for motion of approval. 2. Case: FLD2011-12044 - 505 Howard Court Level Two Application Owner: P W R W Holdings LLP Applicant: MainSafe Corporation Agent: E. Bette Hayes (418 Midway Island, Clearwater, FL 33767; Phone 727-460- 5051; email: bfhayes@att.net) Location: 0.78 acre property is located at the cul-de-sac end of Howard Court roughly 200 feet north of Belleair Road. Atlas Page: 313B Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 4,000 square-feet of existing warehousing/whole sale distribution, 3,317 square-feet of office, and 2,247 square-feet of light assembly in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 34,357 square-feet, a lot width of 168 feet, a front (east) setback of zero (to pavement) and 62 feet(to building), a side (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 62 feet(to building), a side (north) setback of 11.4 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 20.2 feet (to building), a rear(west) setback of 4 feet (to pavement) and 35 feet (to building), a building height of 22 feet (to flat roof), and 38 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-701.1 and 2-704.C., as well as reduction to the interior island landscaping from 10 percent of vehicular use are to 7.5 percent, a front(east) landscape buffer of zero feet, a side (east) landscape buffer of zero, a side(south) landscape buffer of 5 feet, a rear(west) landscape buffer of 4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Community Development Code 3/20/2012 2 Proposed Use: Office, Light Assembly, Wholesale/Distribution/ Warehouse Facility Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Lake Bellevue Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2011-12044 2012-03-20 Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2012-01001 and FLD2011-12044 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Pulled from Consent Agenda . Case: FLD2012-01003 - 1595 S. Missouri Avenue Level Two Application Owner: CNL APF Partners LP Applicant: Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. Agent: Dave Crites (4300 W. Cypress Street, Suite 600, Tampa, FL 33607; Phone: 813- 283-7133; Fax: 407-540-2523; email: critesd@checkers.com) Location: 0.363 acres is located at the north east corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Belleair Road Atlas Page: 314B Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 716 square-feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 15,802 square-feet, a lot width of 124.5 feet along Belleair Boulevard and 112.5 feet along Missouri Avenue, a front (south) setback of 4.5 feet (to existing pavement), and 81 feet (to existing building), a front (west) setback of 14 feet (to existing pavement and 33 feet (to existing building), a side (east) setback of 1.5 feet (to existing pavement and 40 feet(to building), a side (north) setback of 2.5 feet (to existing building), a building height of 15 feet (to flat roof), and 11 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. as well as reduction to the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 14 feet, the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 1.5 feet, a side(north) landscape buffer from 5 to 2.5 feet, and reductions to the required landscape island widths from 8 feet to 4 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Lake Bellevue Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2012-01003 2012-03-20 Chad Eshelman requested Party Status. Member Dame moved to grant Chad Eshelman Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development Code 3/20/2012 3 Member Barker 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. Planner II Ellen Crandall reviewed the staff report. George Padilla, representative, said the request conforms to all requirements. The restaurant looks forward to reopening; it closed more than a year ago. Party Status Holder Chad Eshelman requested that the application be reevaluated and a traffic pattern study done as the restaurant will exacerbate new traffic backup problems on Belleair Road. He said the parcel is too small for this noisy use and the fast-food restaurant attracts vehicles that play loud music late at night, accepts deliveries from idling semi-trailer trucks at 3:00 a.m., and its bright lights shine into his home. Mr. Padilla reviewed proposed site upgrades and said the plan meets City stacking requirements and will adhere to lighting control requirements. He said the restaurant cannot control customer audio system sound levels. In response to questions, he said the restaurant will close between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. and will accept deliveries between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. Member Barker moved to approve Case FLD2012-01003 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Case: TA2012-02003- Amendments to the Community Development Code Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code add one alternate member to the Building/Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeals and to provide that such member shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager for a four-year term. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney See Exhibit: Staff Report: TA2012-02003 2012-03-20 Member Carlough moved to recommend approval of Case TA2012-02003 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2011-12046 - 516-524 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner: TEMA Investments Applicant: Jacqueline Eash & Michael Galasso Agent: Mahshid Arasteh, PE, Principal/ American Quality Consultants, LLC (200 9TH Ave. N, Suite 200, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Phone: 727-725-2550; Fax: 727-725-2317; email: American quality consultants@gmail.com) Community Development Code 3/20/2012 4 Location: 0.19 acres is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 feet south of Rockaway Street Atlas Page: 258A Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 1,378 square-feet of nightclub with an accessory outdoor café and 2,607 square-feet of office in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 8,700 square-feet, a lot width of 87 feet along Mandalay Avenue and 100 feet along Ambler Street, a front (east) setback of zero feet(to building), a front(south) setback of 2.87 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 46.7 feet(to building), a side (north) setback of 0.78 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 13.4 feet (to flat roof), and 6 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. Proposed Use: Nightclub, Office Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Exhibits: Staff Report: FLD2011-12046 2012-03-20 Revised Conditions: FLD2011-12046 2012-03-20 Joe Zuravie requested Party Status. Member Dame moved to grant Joe Zuravie Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ed Armstrong, representative of the SandPearl, requested Party Status. Member Carlough moved to grant Party Status to SandPearl representative Ed Armstrong. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . Member Carlough 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. Ms. Crandall reviewed the staff report, the Code definition of nightclub, and revisions to conditions of approval. The business will serve beer and wine only. No amplified music will be permitted outside. Robert Pergolizzi, representative, said the request meets Beach by Design rules. He said the applicant worked to meet concerns of the SandPearl, which now supports the request. Party Status Holder Ed Armstrong, representative of the SandPearl, said based on revised conditions of approval, the SandPearl no longer objects to the request. Party Status Holder Joe Zuravie said he had initial concerns regarding a proposed “nightclub.” He said he spoke with the business’ owners and now feels the changes will improve the site. He requested requiring CDB (Community Development Board) approval of expansion of the Community Development Code 3/20/2012 5 business or application for a license to sell liquor. He expressed concern regarding a lack of parking and recommended sidewalk repairs. . In response to a question, Planning Manager Robert Tefft reviewed parking study requirements, noting it would be unfair to base beach business parking needs on Spring Break traffic, which lasts a short time each year. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case FLD2011-12046, including conditions as revised, 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. G. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2): 1. Case: LUP2012-01001- 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street (Related to REZ2012-01001) Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Florida a/k/a Calvary Baptist Representative: Howard Parker, Church Administrator (110 N. McMullen-Booth Road, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-441-1581; fax: 727-447-2983) Location: 0.41 acre located on the south side of Cleveland Street, approximately ¼ mile south of Drew Street and approximately 430 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road Atlas Page: 292A Request: Future Land Use Map amendment from Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I) Type of Amendment: Small scale Proposed Use: Place of Worship Neighborhood Association(s): Del Oro Groves Neighborhood Association, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager See Exhibit: Staff Report: LUP2012-01001 2012-03-20 Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. Long Range Planning Manager Lauren Matzke reviewed the staff report. Howard Parker, representative, said the Calvary Baptist Church has been a good neighbor to the City. Since moving to its current location seven years ago, he said the congregation has doubled in size and high school enrollment has increased substantially. He said the church has purchased many nearby properties to meet expansion needs. He said a baseball complex is planned and parking structures are being considered. He said the church is trying to protect nearby residents and will try to stop cut through traffic to Cleveland Street. Two people spoke in opposition to the request and one person spoke in support. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case LUP2012-01001 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was Community Development Code 3/20/2012 6 duly seconded. Members Dame, Hinrichs, Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Adelson voted “Nay.” Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. 2. Case: REZ2012-01001- 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street (Related to LUP2012-01001) Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater, Florida a/k/a Calvary Baptist Representative: Howard Parker, Church Administrator (110 N. McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-441-1581; fax: 727-447-2983) Location: 0.41 acres located on the south side of Cleveland Street, approximately ¼ mile south of Drew Street and approximately 430 feet west of McMullen Booth Road. Atlas Page: 292A Request: Zoning Atlas amendment from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Institutional (I) Type of Amendment: Small scale Proposed Use: Place of Worship Neighborhood Associations: Del Oro Groves Neighborhood Association, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager See Exhibit: Staff Report: REZ2012-01001 2012-03-20 Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. Member Dame moved to accept Lauren Matzke as an expert witness in the fields of historic preservation, annexations, land development codes and development code amendments, and comprehensive planning. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Adelson, Hinrichs, Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. Donnie Vick requested Party Status. Member Carlough moved to grant Donnie Vick Party Status. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Adelson, Hinrichs, Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. Nick Pone requested Party Status. Member Dame moved to grant Nick Pone Party Status. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Adelson, Hinrichs, Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. Ms. Matzke reviewed the staff report. She said the City will not permit access to Cleveland Street from the proposed parking lot; a site plan has not been submitted. Representative Howard Parker said the proposal is in keeping with surrounding land uses. He said the church will enhance the neighborhood and protect neighbors; the parking lot will meet City lighting and landscaping requirements and prevent traffic from accessing Cleveland Street. He said the church is willing to negotiate the purchase of nearby properties. Community Development Code 3/20/2012 7 Party Status Holder Donnie Vick opposed the request, expressing concern that his house soon will be surrounded by parking lots, replacing the trees and natural areas he once enjoyed. He said the parking lots are used for church and school sporting events. He expressed concern the church will raze nearby homes it owns and construct more parking lots, destroying his neighborhood. Party Status Holder Nick Pone said he has lived in his house since 2000. He opposed the request, stating the change will surround his house with parking lots and disrupt his privacy. He said the church and school's public address system drowns out his television and telephone. He said his wife has health problems, uses a wheelchair, and enjoys the privacy offered by Cleveland Street. He worried about the future expansion of church parking and its negative effect on his neighborhood. In response to questions, Mr. Parker said he did not know if additional church properties will be used for parking lots. He said these proposed lots will feature asphalt drives, grass parking, curb stops, and appropriate landscaping. He said he will address concerns regarding the public address system. He estimated each year the planned baseball complex will host 30 events plus Saturday morning ministry. It was noted the CDB cannot rule today on noise related issues. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case REZ2012-01001 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Hinrichs, Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye"; Member Adelson voted "Nay." Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting a.•=. ed at 2:23 p.m. i Ala■1/7�� Attes �/ Community Development Board 4111 A :.ard Rep.' er Community Development Code 3/20/2012 8 T FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE ISQ,r"i.PJ`✓ 1 j ( t L- -- Clearwater Community Development Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 5& j 6 . reJAI G 4-- CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY ///NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION (&4114W „ 1 FL , 3-576q City of Clearwater DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: p a p , l 7/ ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission,authority,or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143,Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county,municipal,or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss.Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained(including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre,one vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law,a"relative"includes only the officer's father,mother,son,daughter,husband,wife,brother,sister,father-in-law,mother-in- law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate"means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, co-owner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes(Continued on other side) PAGE 1 CE FORM 88-EFF 1/2000 T APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of-t�e fiorm musfbe provided immediately to the othei—rneT`Sbers ofithe-agency. -- -- ""--"-�- "----------" - - - • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. �_DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST b I, C 1 0. K- �QO.4 Vt.i,k / hereby disclose that on OA' c ' (9- , 201/2. (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, $ inured to the special gain or loss of First clAo t r wad- 7 L' ' ,by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: abia — 6100 1 d' awe""1L .�' C(LA-1L _ ...- CA e vvs vv. 'I'`- 4 C (A s E F2- �G L CCUA- ) �` 9 A- !Q t•. f reert 4-4r AQXsI 4-14A1-4- Akel,rr-L 0) � c Date Filed Signature NOTICE:UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES§112317,A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND,OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88-EFF 1/2000 PAGE 2 O } aater 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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-01001—1500 .Belcher Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011-12044—505 oward Court Yes No 3. Case: D2011-12046—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes No 4. Case:FLD2012-01003—1 S.Missouri Avenue Yes No S:(Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc T Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes No 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—304 nd 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No 3. Case: TA2012-02003—Amen ents to the Community Development Code Yes No I have condu e i erspnal i vesti:atio c the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: i Date: 3 ' a. QCoDç PRINT NAME S:1Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB 12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc V LL 0 atwater 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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-01001 —1500 S.Belcher Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2011- 044—505 Howard Court Yes No 3. Case:FLD2011-1 46—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes No 4. Case: FLD2012-0 03— 1595 S.Missouri Avenue Yes No S:IPlanningDepartment\CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2O12-010 1—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2O12-01001) Yes No 2. Case:REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes Li No 3. Case: TA2012-02003—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a personal inves gation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Date: l l2 Signature: � �_ S PRINT NAME S:(Planning Department1C D B\Agendas DRC&CDBI CDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc LL 0 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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-01001 —1500 S.Belcher Road Yes / No 2. Case: FLD201 1-12044—505 Howard Court Yes No 3. Case: FLD2011-12046—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes No 4. Case:FLD2012-01003—1595 S.Missouri Avenue Yes l// No S:(Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes No 2. Case:REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No 3. Case: TA2012-02003—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a personal 'nvestiiation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: 3 /1 7 I` 2�o I�r u w-e-e ? Pi PRINT NAME S:IPlanning Department1CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc s u- >_o cilia 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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-01001 —1500 S.Belcher Road Yes V\ No 2. Case:FLD22O1 1-12044—505 Howard Court Yes Y ` No 3. Case: FLD2011-12046—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes No 4. Case: FLD2012-01003— 1595 S.Missouri Avenue Yes No S:(Planning Department1CD BlAgendas DRC&CDB(CDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc Level Two Applications(Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2O12-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2O12-01001) Yes No I 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No ps 3. Case: TA2O12-02003—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a ,'r:nay; ._ation on the 'ersonal site visit to the ollowin- 'ro erties. Signature: _ �f'i Date: -� 8 PRINT NAME S:(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDB I CDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case:FLD2012-01001 — 1500 S.Belcher Road Yes ✓ No 2. Case: FLD2011-12044—505 Howard Court Yes No '✓ 3. Case: FLD2011-12046—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes ✓ No 4. Case: FLD2O122--01003— 1595 S.Missouri Avenue Yes V No S:(Planning DepartmentlC D BLAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes No 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No V 3. Case: TA2012-02003—Amendments to t Community Development Code Yes No 'v I have conduc.'d a erson 1); ti-atio i j c th.' t Jonal site visit to the i lowi !i,ro erties. r r Signature: �� rerfA LSI Date: � n4.97ofs PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDB I CDB 12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc LL mir } rwa er _ ....,....„.....„,.,.. 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 March 20,2012 DATE: March 15,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting February 21,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-01001 — 1500 S.Belcher Road Yes No 2. Case:FLD2011-12044—505 Howard Court Yes X No 3. Case:FLD201 1-12046—516-524 Mandalay Avenue Yes X No 4. Case:FLD2012-01003—1595 S.Missouri Avenue Yes 2( No S:I Planning Department\C D BAAgendas DRC&CDB I CDB 12012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc y Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes No 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No 3. Case: TA2012-02003—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a ersonal investi-ation on the 'ersonal site visit to the following properties. Signature: / Date: 3/ 1)//z Doric&n 1301r k-' PRINT NAME S:\PlanningDepartment\CD B1Agendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012103 March 20,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc CDB Meeting Date: March 20,2012 Case Number: FLD2012-01001 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owner: Circle K Stores Applicant: McDonalds Corporation Representative: Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering Address: 1500 S. Belcher Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a 3,906 square foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 36,313 square feet, a lot width of 171 feet along S. Belcher Road and 189 feet along Nursery Road, front (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 39.3 feet (to proposed building), front (north) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 81.1 feet (to proposed building), side (west) setback of 3.5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 72.2 feet (to proposed building), side (south) setback of 5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 54 feet (to proposed building), a building height of 23.4 feet, and 37 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the front (east) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, a reduction to the front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, a reduction to the side (south) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet, and a reduction to the side (west) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.5 feet, a reduction to the foundation plantings from 5 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Automobile Service Station (vacant) Proposed: Restaurant EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Retails Sales and Services ZONING AND USES: South: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District Attached Dwellings East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Services Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 1 of 10 West: Commercial (C) District Office ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.833 acre property is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Nursery Road and S. Belcher Road. The site currently consists of a vacant automobile service station and convenience store with eight fueling stations and 25 parking spaces. This parcel has a lot width of 171 feet along S. Belcher Road and 189 feet along Nursery Road with direct access to both streets. The subject property is bordered on its east side by a bank; and on the south by attached dwellings. To the north across Nursery Road is a produce stand, and to the east across Belcher Road is a Walgreens pharmacy. Development Proposal: On January 3, 2012, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to allow for the development of a 3,906 square foot restaurant with 37 off-street parking spaces and a side-by side ordering drive-thru lane. All structures on site will be demolished and cleared to allow for the redevelopment of the property. The project proposes to close the properties eastern most driveway on Nursery Road and northern most driveway on Belcher Road, as both driveways are too close to the intersection. The remaining driveways will be improved to current Code requirements for access. Due to the requested flexibility to the front and side setbacks to allow for a code compliant parking lot, the development proposal is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. 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 the CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR in the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category is 0.55. The proposed FAR is 0.108, which is far below what may be permitted based upon the above Code provision. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR in the CG future land use plan category is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.79, which is less then what may be permitted based upon the above Code provision. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for restaurants in the C District is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area for the subject property is 36,313 square feet (0.8333 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for restaurants in the C District is 100 feet. The lot widths along Nursery Road and Belcher Road are 171 feet and 189 feet, Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 2 of 10 respectively. The development proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for restaurants. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum front setback requirement for a restaurant can range between 15 and 25 feet; and the side setback can range between zero and 10 feet. With regards to building setbacks this proposal meets the above development standards with front setbacks of 81.1 feet along Nursery Road and 39.3 feet along Belcher Road, a side (south) setback of 54 feet, and a side (west) setback of 72.2 feet. As set forth in CDC Section 3-903.F, parking lots shall be setback from the front property lines a distance of 15 feet and shall be set back from all other property lines a distance that is consistent with the required perimeter landscape buffer width. In regards to this provision the proposal is deficient in a front (north) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) where 15 feet is required, a side (west) setback of 3.5 feet (to proposed pavement) where 5 feet is required, and a side setback of 5 feet (to proposed pavement) where 10 feet is required. The setbacks are requested to meet provisions set forth for the development of a code compliant parking lot. These setbacks can be supported based upon positive findings made with regard to CDC Section 2-704.C. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum building height for restaurants can range between 25 and 50 feet. The proposed building will have a height of 23.4 feet which is well below permitted height provisions based upon the above Code standards. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking requirement for restaurants is between 7 and 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for a 3,906 square foot restaurant would result in a requirement between 27 and 58 spaces. As previously noted, 37 parking spaces will be provided on site. For this reason, the applicant prepared a parking demand study which through on-site analysis of two existing McDonald restaurants located at 18584 US Highway 19 North and 1934 N. Hercules Ave that demonstrated that the proposed 37 off-street parking spaces (at a 9.47 ratio) will be adequate to meet the demand of the restaurant during all periods. As these 37 spaces are well within the acceptable range for restaurants, positive findings can be made with regard to the requested off-street parking reduction. In regards to the drive-thru facility, restaurants shall provide sufficient stacking distance to accommodate eight vehicles as measured from the first point of transaction as set forth in CDC Section 3-1406. As shown on the site plan, from the first point of transaction the side-by side ordering drive-thru lane provides enough stacking distance for eleven vehicles which exceeds the provision. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 3 of 10 Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, the request includes a reduction to the front (east) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet (along Belcher Road), a reduction to the front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet (along Nursery Road), a reduction to the side (west) perimeter landscape buffer from 5 feet to 3.5 feet, a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet through the Comprehensive Landscape Program. In regards to reductions to the front perimeter buffers, the requested reduction is to the front slope of the retention pond with a slope of 3:1. At this slope no portion of the retention pond can be counted towards the width of the buffer; although the width to setback is wider than the buffer. As such, for the applicants to provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site in a parking lot that meets the standards set forth for parking spaces and drive aisles in CDC Section 3-1402.A as well as adequate storm water retention ponds, then the requested reduction to perimeter buffers are necessary to achieve a functional site design. The requested reductions to perimeter buffers are acceptable to Staff. In addition to the above, the development proposal includes a reduction to the foundation plantings from 5 feet to zero feet for the front building façades facing Nursery Road and S. Belcher Road. Based upon the submitted site plan, it would be impractical to provide foundation plantings as providing such plantings would require the reduction of space necessary for building egress and ingress; it will necessitate an increase in the widths of the sidewalks adjacent to the building which will reduce the width of drive aisles that meet the minimum standards for drive aisle widths. Based upon the above, the requested reductions to foundation planting are acceptable to Staff. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 4 of 10 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 proposal provides a 10.8 foot by 30 foot double dumpster enclosure along 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. Site Lighting:Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1302, the lamp height of the cut-off fixtures shall not exceed 35 feet or 1 foot in height for each one foot the light fixture is setback from the setback in CDC Section 3-1202D., whichever is less. The applicant has submitted a photometric sheet that indicates proposed lamp heights of 25 feet that are within each setback; therefore, the proposed outdoor lighting fixtures do not comply with the provision. Based on the provision no free standing cut-off light fixture can be placed in any setback. The applicant will need to revise the lighting plan by providing ground level landscape type lighting within the setbacks and/or down- lights on the building that are no more than 18 feet in height or two-thirds the height of the structure. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located so that objects or lands which are located beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land are not illuminated to an extent of producing more than a diffuse shadow. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 5 of 10 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.108 X ISR 0.90 0.79 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 36,313 sq. ft. (.833 acres) X Minimum N/A Belcher: 171 feet X Lot Width Nursery: 189 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A Belcher: 15 feet (to pavement) X 39.3 feet (to building) Nursery: 10 feet (to pavement) X 81.1 feet (to building) Side: N/A West: 3.5 feet (to pavement) X 72.2 feet (to building) South: 5 feet (to pavement) X 54 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 23.4feet X Minimum 7-15 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 37 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (27-58 spaces) (9.47 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA) Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 6 of 10 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes;  Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,  pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures;  Distinctive fenestration patterns;  Building step backs; and  Distinctive roofs forms.  e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 7 of 10 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 February 2, 2012, 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.The0.833 acre property is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Nursery Road and S. Belcher 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 site presently is developed with an automobile service station, including an existing 1,972 square foot building, gas pumps and canopy; 4.The proposal is to completely redevelop this site by demolishing the existing structures to permit a 3,906 square foot restaurant with a side-by side ordering drive-thru lane and 37 off- street parking spaces; 5.The applicant proposes 37 off-street parking spaces at a ratio of 9.47 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area that is within the acceptable range for restaurants; 6.The proposal includes closing the eastern driveway on Nursery Road and northern drive-way on S. Belcher Road; 7.The maximum allowable FAR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. The proposed FAR is 0.108; 8.The maximum allowable ISR for the Commercial General (CG) is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.79; 9.The building addition will be a height of 19.4 feet (to parapet wall) and 23.4 feet (to top of roof cap element); 10. The proposal includes front setbacks of 81.1 feet (to proposed building) along Nursery Road and 39.3 feet (to proposed building) along Belcher Road, a side (south) setback of 54 feet (to proposed building), and a side (west) setback of 72.2 feet (to proposed building); Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 8 of 10 11.The request includes a reduction to the front (north) landscape perimeter buffer of 3 feet where 15 feet is required, a reduction to the front (east) landscape perimeter buffer of 3 feet where 15 feet is required, a side (west) landscape perimeter buffer of 3.5 feet (to proposed pavement) where 5 feet is required, and a side (south) landscape perimeter buffer of 5 feet (to proposed pavement) where 10 feet is required, through the Comprehensive Landscape Program; and 12.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 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 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 approval for a 3,906 square foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 36,313 square feet, a lot width of 171 feet along S. Belcher Road and 189 feet along Nursery Road, front (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 39.3 feet (to proposed building), front (north) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement) and 81.1 feet (to proposed building), side (west) setback of 3.5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 72.2 feet (to proposed building), side (south) setback of 5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 54 feet (to proposed building), a building height of 23.4 feet, and 37 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the front (east) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, a reduction to the front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet, a reduction to the side (south) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet, and a reduction to the side (west) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 3.5 feet, a reduction to the foundation plantings from 5 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That building permits be obtained for the demolition of existing structures, parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 2.That the final design and color of the building and dumpster enclosure must be consistent with the conceptual materials, colors and elevations approved by the CDB; 3.That the photometric plan shall be revised to show ground level landscape type lighting within the setbacks and/or down-lights on the building that are no more than 18 feet in height or two-thirds the height of the structure rather than the 25 foot in height free standing cut-off lighting fixtures; Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 9 of 10 4.That a photometric plan shall be submitted that shows all outdoor light fixtures shall be located so that objects or lands which are located beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land are not illuminated to an extent of producing more than a diffuse shadow; 5.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall comply with all engineering comments; 6.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County for any improvements in Nursery Road (C.R. 474) and Belcher Road (C.R. 501); and 7.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that adequate water supply is available and to determine is any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe, and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. 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 – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01001 – Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT: REVISED CONDITIONS FLD2012-01001 2012-03-20 To: Community Development Board Members From: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III Date: March 20, 2012 RE: FLD2012-01001 – 1500 Belcher Road The applicant’s representative has worked with Staff to create a photometric plan that is compliant with the Community Development Code. Therefore, conditions of approval #3 and #4 are no longer necessary and the following are the conditions of approval as presently recommended by staff: Conditions of Approval: 1.That building permits be obtained for the demolition of existing structures, parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 2.That the final design and color of the building and dumpster enclosure must be consistent with the conceptual materials, colors and elevations approved by the CDB; 3.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall comply with all engineering comments; 4.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County for any improvements in Nursery Road (C.R. 474) and Belcher Road (C.R. 501); and 5.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that adequate water supply is available and to determine is any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe, and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. CDB Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Case Number: FLD2011-12044 Agenda Item: E. 2. Owner/Applicant: P W R W Holdings LLLP/ MainSafe Corporation Agent E. Bette Hayes Address: 505 Howard Court CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 4,000 square feet of existing warehousing/wholesale distribution, 3,317 square feet of office, and 2,247 square feet of light assembly in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 34,357 square feet, a lot width of 168 feet, front (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 62 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 62 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 11.4 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 20.2 feet (to building), and rear (west) setbacks of 4 feet (to pavement) and 35 feet (to building), a building height of 22 feet (to flat roof), and 38 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-701.1 and 2-704.C., as well as a reduction to the interior island landscaping from 10 percent to 7.5 percent, a front (east) landscape buffer of zero feet, a side (east) landscape buffer of zero feet, a side (south) landscape buffer of 5 feet, and a rear (west) landscape buffer of 4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Office and Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse Proposed: Office, Wholesale/Distribution/ Warehouse, and Light Assembly EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Office ZONING AND USES: South: Unincorporated Pinellas Count Mobile Home Park East: Commercial (C) District Warehouse West: Commercial (C) District Pinellas Trail Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 1 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.78 acre property is located at the cul-de-sac end of Howard Court roughly 200 feet north of Belleair Road. The property currently consists of a 9,564 square foot multi-tenant building used for office (MainSafe Corporation Office), and Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse (I’ll Pump You Up, Vitamin distributor). However the existing Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse does not have a Business Tax Receipt (BTR) and the approval of their use is part of this application. The property has been developed to facilitate storage, warehousing and distribution as it currently has two loading docks and storage areas. The surrounding area consist of office, storage, and automotive uses as well as residential to the south. Development Proposal: The proposal is to permit 4,000 square feet of existing Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse, 3,317 square feet of office, and 2,247 square feet of light assembly in the existing building in the Commercial (C) District. The single-story building has a front (east) setback of 62 feet, a side (east) setback of 62 feet, a side (north) setback of 11.4 feet, a side (south) setback of 20.2 feet, and a rear (west) setback of 35 feet. A six-foot white PVC fence with groundcover landscaping is proposed on the south and west property lines to buffer the use from the adjacent mobile home park to the south and Pinellas Trail to the west. Pursuant to Article 2, Division 7, Community Development Code (CDC), Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse is not a use that is specifically authorized within the 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. A vitamin wholesale and distribution business (Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse) is currently occupying a portion of the existing building; however this is without a BTR or approval. The business is requesting the use of Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse to legally remain. The development proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the CDC is discussed below: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposed one- story building footprint produces a floor area ratio of 0.28, which is consistent with Code provisions. 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 0.9, 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 office in the C District is 10,000 square feet and 100 feet, the Flexible Development lot area and width for light assembly in the C District is 5,000-10,000 square feet and 50-100 feet, and the minimum lot area and lot Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 2 width requirements for Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse facility in the Industrial Research and Technology District (IRT) is 20,000 square feet and 200 feet. The subject property has a width of 168 feet and an area of 34,357 square feet (0.78 acres), which is consistent with the above development standards. 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 an office in the C District are 25 feet front, 10 feet side, and 20 feet rear, while the Flexible Development setback requirements for light assembly in the C District are 15-25 feet front, 0-10 feet side, and 10-20 feet rear, and the minimum setback requirements for wholesale/distribution/warehouse facility in the IRT District are 20 feet front, 15 feet side/rear. The subject property is presently developed with a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback of 62 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 62 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 11.4 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 20.2 feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 4 feet (to pavement),and a rear (west) setback of 35 feet (to building). To mitigate for the existing setbacks adjacent to residential use, a six-foot PVC fence will be constructed to screen the use. The fence will also screen the use from the Pinellas Trail to the west. The existing setbacks to the east do not allow for any additional landscaping and the adjacent property is developed with a building on the property line and a fence will not screen anything. The existing setbacks to the north are for driveways and do not allow for any additional landscaping or screening, however the building has ample foundation landscaping. 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 an office in the C District is 25 feet, maximum building height allowed through a Flexible Development for light assembly in the C District is 25 feet, while the maximum building height allowed as a minimum standard for Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse facility in the IRT District is 50 feet. The existing building height is 22 feet, which is 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 required for 4,000 square feet of Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse is 1.5 per thousand square feet of gross floor area or 6 parking stalls. The off-street parking requirement for 3,317 square feet of office is 4 per thousand square feet of gross floor area or 13.27 parking stalls. The off- street parking required for 2,247 square feet of light assembly is 5 per thousand square feet of gross floor area or 11.24 parking stalls. A total of 31 parking stalls are required for this site. The existing site has 40 parking spaces; however ten parking spaces on the west property line are non-compliant in regards to the required drive aisle and will be restriped to 8 parallel parking spaces meeting current code requirements. The site is proposed to have 38 parking stalls and is compliant with required off-street parking. Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 3 Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the existing dumpster. 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 F.A.R. 0.55 0.28 X I.S.R. 0.9 0.9 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 34,357 square feet (0.78 X acres) Minimum Lot Width N/A 168 feet X Maximum Height N/A 22 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: zero feet (to X pavement) East: 62 feet (to building) Side: N/A East: zero feet (to X pavement) East: 62 feet (to building) North: 11.4 feet (to building) South: 5 feet (to pavement) South: 20.2 feet (to building) Rear: N/A West: 4 feet (to pavement) X West: 35 feet (to building) Minimum Determined by the Community 38 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards (31 parking spaces) Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 4 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 – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 5 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 January 5, 2012, 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 0.788-acre (34,357 square foot) subject property is located at the cul-de-sac end of Howard Court roughly 200 feet north of Belleair Road; 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 currently has an office and Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse Facility use; 4.That the subject property has a width of 168 feet; 5.That the development proposal requests the approval of a use (Wholesale/Distribution/Warehouse) that is not specifically authorized by the Community Development Code for the C District; 6.That the development proposal includes existing setbacks; 7.That the development proposal includes a building height of 22 feet, and 38 off-street parking spaces; and 8.That there are no outstanding code enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1. and 2- 704, CDC; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in Section 2- 704.C.1 CDC; and Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 6 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Sections 3-914.A. CDC. Conditions of Approval: 1.That a building permit be obtained for the fencing, walkway, landscaping, and interior improvements; 2.That prior to the issuance or modification of a Business Tax Receipt for MainSafe Corp., the fencing, walkway, and landscaping improvements be completed; 3.That a Business Tax Receipt be obtained for the existing tenant, I’ll Pump You Up, vitamin warehousing and distribution; 4.That the existing Business Tax Receipt for MainSafe Corp. be amended to include the Light Assembly; warehousing/wholesale distribution 5. That this use () be limited to this tenant space only, and that any desired relocation within this shopping center or enlargement of floor area shall require a new application for re-review by the CDB; 6.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit 4,000 square feet of existing warehousing/wholesale distribution, 3,317 square feet of office, and 2,247 square feet of light assembly in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 34,357 square feet, a lot width of 168 feet, front (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 62 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 62 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 11.4 feet (to building) and 5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 20.2 feet (to building), and rear (west) setbacks of 4 feet (to pavement) and 35 feet (to building), a building height of 22 feet (to flat roof), and 38 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-701.1 and 2-704.C., as well as a reduction to the interior island landscaping from 10 percent to 7.5 percent, a front (east) landscape buffer of zero feet, a side (east) landscape buffer of zero feet, a side (south) landscape buffer of 5 feet, and a rear (west) landscape buffer of 4 feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Ellen Crandall, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – March 20, 2011 FLD2011-12044 – Page 7 CDB Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-01003 Agenda Item: E. 4. Owner: CNL APF Partners LP Applicant: Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. Representative: Dave Crites Address: 1595 S. Missouri Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit 716 square feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 15,802 square feet, a lot width of 124.5 feet along Belleair Boulevard and 112.5 feet along Missouri Avenue, front (south) setbacks of 4.5 feet (to existing pavement) and 81 feet (to existing building), front (west) setbacks of 14 feet (to existing pavement) and 33 feet (to existing building), side (east) setbacks of 1.5 feet (to existing pavement) and 40 feet (to existing building), and a side (north) setback of 2.5 feet (to existing building), a building height of 15 feet (to flat roof), and 11 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. as well as reduction to the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 14 feet, the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 1.5 feet, a side (north) landscape buffer from 5 to 2.5 feet, a reduction to the foundation planting area from five to zero feet, and reductions to the required landscape island widths from 8 feet to 4 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant, Restaurant Proposed: Restaurant EXISTING North: Unincorporated Pinellas County SURROUNDING Retail Sales and Service ZONING AND USES: South: Unincorporated Pinellas County Retail Sales and Service East: Unincorporated Pinellas County Residential West: Institutional (I) District Place of Worship Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 1 of 9 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.363 acres is located at the northeast corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Belleair Road. The subject property is currently developed with a 716 square-foot commercial building that was previous a Checkers Restaurant. The building has been vacant for two years. Development Proposal: The proposal is to establish a restaurant use in a building that has been vacant for two years. This site is nonconforming to current setback 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 modifies the width of the drive-thru aisles so that they function and comply with the parking standards of the Code. The existing parking will be restriped to accommodate a ADA compliant walkway from the ADA parking space to the building and to the public right-of-way. Asphalt will be removed to provide landscaping for the required interior landscaping and to comply with the ISR requirements. The landscaping will be improved with new material and irrigation. 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 refinishing the existing building façade in the Checkers design. Such improvements to the appearance of the building will be an improvement to the current 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 0.045, 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 0.81 and, after construction of the proposed improvements, the ISR will be 0.77, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum lot area for a restaurant uses can range between 3,500 – 10,000 square feet. The existing site is 15,681.6 square feet of lot area, which exceeds these Code provisions. Pursuant to this same Table, the minimum lot width for a restaurant uses can range between 35 – 100 feet. The site has a lot width of 124.5 feet along Belleair Boulevard and 112.5 feet along 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 Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 2 of 9 CDC Table 2-704, the minimum front setback for a restaurant use 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 (south) setback of 4.5 feet (to existing pavement), and 81 feet (to existing building), a front (west) setback of 14 feet (to existing pavement and 33 feet (to existing building), a side (east) setback of 1.5 feet (to existing pavement and 40 feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of 2.5 feet (to existing building). 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. As such, staff supports the requested flexibility and retention of the existing setbacks. 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, pursuant to CDC table 2-704, the maximum building height for restaurant can range between 25 and 50 feet. As proposed, the height of the flat roof will be at 15 feet which is well below that which may be permitted based upon the above Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parking: The applicant indicates there are 11 existing parking spaces that are larger than current Code requirements. This proposal restripes the parking to provide ADA complaint parking space and an ADA walkway to the public right-of-way. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, restaurants are required to provide 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The required parking is 15 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 11 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 site plan shows the sight visibility triangles outside of the property boundary. The sight visibility triangles will be correctly drawn and reviewed at time of permitting Landscaping: The applicant has proposed to restripe the parking spaces to the minimum required dimension. This will allow for a handicap accessible walkway as well as for an additional four foot wide landscaping area between the parking and the outside seating area. The plantings in this area will include dwarf Indian hawthorns and ligustrum trees. The parking island to the east will also be increased. The northern perimeter of the property will be planted with Walter’s viburnum, crape myrtles while the existing mature oaks will remain. The southern and western perimeters will be improved with pink hibiscus, Walter’s viburnum, coontie, as well as crape myrtles, ligustrum Trees, and sabal palms. 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. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 3 of 9 The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, the front (west) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 14 feet, the side (east) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 1.5 feet, the side (north) perimeter buffer from 5 feet to 2.5 feet, and reductions to the required landscape island width from 8 feet to 4 feet, a reduction to the foundation planting area from five to zero feet. 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 proposal includes the revision of an existing dumpster which is encroaching into to a utility easement. The dumpster will be modified to be out of the easement. 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. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 4 of 9 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 0.0456 X ISR 0.90 0.77 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 15,681 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 124.5 feet X Maximum Height N/A 15 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 4.5 feet (to existing pavement) X 81 feet (to existing building) West: 14 feet (to existing pavement) X 33 feet (to existing building) Side: N/A East 1.5 feet(to existing pavement) X 40 feet (to existing building) North 2.5 feet (to existing building) X Minimum Restaurant: 15 per 1,000 SF 11 total parking spaces (11 spaces X Off-Street Parking required) Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 5 of 9 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 – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 6 of 9 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per 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 February 2, 2012, 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 0.363-acre (15,681 square feet) property is located at the northeast corner of S. Missouri Avenue and Belleair Road; 2.The property has a lot width of 124.5 feet along Belleair Boulevard and 112.5 feet along Missouri Avenue; 3.The subject property is currently developed with a 716 square foot commercial building that was previously a Checkers Restaurant, but has been vacant for two years; 4.The proposal is to permit restaurant use in the building; 5.This site is nonconforming to current setback requirements, and the proposal requests flexibility to setback and landscaping requirements; 6.This proposal includes the provision of 11 parking spaces; 7.The maximum allowable FAR for the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category is 0.55, and the proposed FAR is 0.0456; 8.The maximum allowable ISR for the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category is 0.90, and the proposed ISR is 0.77; and 9.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 Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 7 of 9 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 permit 716 square feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 15,802 square feet, a lot width of 124.5 feet along Belleair Boulevard and 112.5 feet along Missouri Avenue, front (south) setbacks of 4.5 feet (to existing pavement) and 81 feet (to existing building), front (west) setbacks of 14 feet (to existing pavement) and 33 feet (to existing building), side (east) setbacks of 1.5 feet (to existing pavement) and 40 feet (to existing building), and a side (north) setback of 2.5 feet (to existing building), a building height of 15 feet (to flat roof), and 11 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 704.C. as well as reduction to the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 14 feet, the side (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to 1.5 feet, a side (north) landscape buffer from 5 to 2.5 feet, a reduction to the foundation planting area from five to zero feet, and reductions to the required landscape island widths from 8 feet to 4 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the 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, landscaping and building improvements; 2.That prior to the issuance of any Business Tax Receipt, that the parking lot, landscaping, and building improvements must be completed; 3.That prior to permitting the sight visibility triangles must be correctly shown; 4.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; 5.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; 6.That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the requirements of NFPA-17A Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition meeting the requirements of UL300 ; 7.That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the development must meet the requirements of NFPA-96 Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 2008 edition. The hood system will be required to be recertified; 8.That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the requirements of NFPA-10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2007 Edition all fire extinguishers shall have been recertified; 9.That prior to issuance of any building permit, the Clearwater Gas is contacted to meet gas company requirements; 10.That prior to issuance of any building permit, a fully functional test is passed prior to opening on hood system, fire suppression system and fire extinguishers being of proper type quantity and tagged by a licensed company; Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 8 of 9 11.That prior to issuance of any building permit, the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2010 edition, NFPA-101, 2009 edition,NFPA-1,2009 edition and clarify in your summary of code information NFPA-30 and NFPA-30A; and 12.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Ellen Crandall, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2012-01003 – Page 9 of 9 : CDB Meeting Date March 20, 2012 Case Number: TA2012-02003 Ordinance Number: 8318-12 Agenda Item: F-3 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance No. 8318-12 INITIATED BY: Official Records and Legislative Services/City Council BACKGROUND: The Building/Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which handles building and flood variances, appeals from Building Official interpretations, Unsafe Building cases, and Housing Code cases, consists of five members. Section 47.032(1) provides that the affirmative vote of four members is necessary in order to take action on cases involving modification of Building Official determinations. Because of daytime meeting times and conflicting obligations of members, it has at times been challenging to obtain the attendance of four or five members. It was suggested that the Board may benefit from the addition of an alternate member. This arrangement has worked well with the Community Development Board. The amendment will lead to more efficient operations of this important decision making Board. ANALYSIS: Proposed Ordinance No. 8318-12 includes the following amendment: Amends Section 47.031 to add one alternate member to the Building/Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeals and to provide that such member shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager for a four-year term. 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. 1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 TA2012-02003 – Page 1 The Comprehensive Plan provides in part as follows: COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOAL E.1.: Management of Clearwater’s coastal storm area shall provide for the long- term accessibility, safety, economic viability, neighborhood stability, and environmental integrity of these unique areas. GOAL E.2.: Management of Clearwater’s coastal resources shall prohibit activities that would damage or destroy the natural or built environment, or threaten human life due to hurricane hazards, and shall promote activities that enhance the natural and built environment. Objective E.3.1.: Clearwater shall administer land development regulations to protect public and private property and human life from the effects of hurricane winds and flooding. By providing for the more effective functioning of the Board which has oversight functions regarding the City’s building and flood damage prevention efforts, the Ordinance will further the above Goals. 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.]; protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and improvements upon the land [Subsection 3.]; 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 will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department APPROVAL recommends of Ordinance No. 8318-12 that amends the Community Development Code. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 TA2012-02003 – Page 2 Prepared by Legal Department Staff: ____________________________________ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 8318-12 Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 TA2012-02003 – Page 3 CDB Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Case Number: FLD2011-12046 Agenda Item: E. 3. Owner/Applicant: TEMA Investments Representative: Mahshid Arasteh, PE, Address: 516 – 524 Mandalay Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit 1,378 square feet of nightclub with an accessory outdoor café and 2,607 square feet of office in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 8,700 square feet, a lot width of 87 feet along Mandalay Avenue and 100 feet along Ambler Street, a front (east) setback of zero feet (to building), a front (south) setback of 2.87 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 46.7 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 0.78 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 13.4 feet (to flat roof), and 6 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER DISTRICT:Destination Resort District PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant, Office 3,800 square feet of floor area with un- striped parking spaces. Proposed: 1,378 square feet of nightclub and 2,607 square feet of office with seven parking spaces (including one handicapped space). EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Overnight Accommodations (La Sal Motel) ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations (Sand Pearl) East: Tourist (T) District Attached dwellings (Belle Harbor Condo) West: Tourist (T) District Overnight Accommodations (Tropic Isle Motel) Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 1 of 8 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.19 acres is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 feet south of Rockaway Street and the existing building is comprised of three tenant spaces. It is also within the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. The site, until recently, has been vacant. The tenant space to the south, 516, is currently occupied with an office; however they do not have a Business Tax Receipt. The surrounding neighborhood is a tourist area comprised of hotels/motels, retail sales establishments and restaurants. The Sand Pearl is located across Ambler Street from the subject property. There are adjacent hotels and motels to the north, south, and west. There are restaurants to the northwest of the property as well as office, restaurant, and nightclub uses along Mandalay Avenue between the roundabout and Rockaway Street. City parking lot #36 is less than 300 feet to the north of the subject parcel. Development Proposal: The proposal is to permit a nightclub specializing in craft beer and wine with a sidewalk cafe at this location through conversion of the existing 1,378 square foot northernmost tenant space, (524 Mandalay), and to request the use of office for the remaining 2,607 square feet in the two remaining tenant spaces. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback reductions to recognize the location of the existing building and parking at less than the required setbacks. There presently does not exist any foundation landscaping along Mandalay Avenue or Ambler Street. The application includes the reduction from five to zero feet of the required foundation landscape area along both fronts of the building, which is not possible to install due to the existing building’s location at a zero front setback. The proposal improves the architectural style from the existing tile façade to a tropical architecture, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property and complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. The building façade will be improved through the removal of tiles to expose stone work which will be refinished. Stucco will be applied below the windows of the 524 Mandalay tenant space. The stucco and the façade overhang will be repainted and an awning installed over the nightclub tenant space. The proposal meets the tropical vernacular architecture guidelines through the use of large expanses of windows, covered and uncovered outdoor seating, overhangs providing patrons protection from the sun, awnings providing the windows screening from the sun and finish treatments commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as stucco and stone . Due to the location of the existing building and the size and configuration of the subject property, this site has not previously been provided with adequate on-site parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the required parking for a nightclub and office from 24 spaces (based on 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to seven spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property, north of the roundabout. The nightclub is proposed to operate from 4:00 pm to the latest of 3:00 am, typical of many beach establishments. The office uses will operate from 9 am to 5 pm. The proposal will utilize a new dumpster located in the rear parking lot. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 2 of 8 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 2-801.1, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a Future Land Use designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH) is 1.0. The proposed one-story building footprint produces a floor area ratio of 0.45, which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable I.S.R. for properties with a Future Land Use designation of RFH is 0.95. The existing ISR is 0.99 and, after construction of the proposed improvements, the ISR will be 0.96, which while still nonconforming, will at least reduce the existing nonconformity. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum lot area or width requirement for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The subject property has a lot area 8,700 square feet and lot width along Mandalay Avenue of 87 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum setback requirement for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The development proposal includes a front (east) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a front (south) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of 0.78 feet (to building), and a side (west) setback of 0 feet (to parking) and 46.7 feet (to building). All of these setbacks are to existing improvements that cannot be altered without substantial ramifications to the functionality of the property. As such, and as the building placement is typical of other buildings in the area, staff supports the requested setback flexibility. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum allowable height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The proposed building is 13.4 feet (to top of flat roof). Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, 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. As stated previously, due to the location of the proposed building and the size and configuration of the subject property, only limited parking is available. The proposal includes a reduction to the required parking for nightclub from 13.78 spaces (based on 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet), and office from 10.4 spaces (based on 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet) for a total of 24 required parking spaces to seven spaces. Of these spaces, one will be dedicated for handicapped use. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The study concluded in accordance with a methodology established with the City of Clearwater staff that there are a total 220 available parking spaces within 1,000 feet including City lot #36. Therefore, the study concludes and staff supports the finding that adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, mechanical equipment shall be screened from any public right-of-way and adjacent properties. The screening of mechanical equipment will be addressed at time of permitting. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 3 of 8 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. 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 electric and communication lines are to remain as-is. If located exterior to the building, to ensure views are minimized, this electrical equipment should be painted the same color as the building. The location and potential views of such electrical equipment will be addressed at the building permit stage. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District; and pursuant to Section 3-1202.E, as the proposed vehicular use area is less than 4,000 square feet, no interior landscaping is required. Foundation plantings are not requested as the footprint of the proposed building matches the existing along Mandalay Avenue maintaining a cohesive development pattern along the property line not allowing appropriate area for foundation plantings. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize one roll out dumpster for trash removal. The dumpster will be located to the rear (west) of the building with the enclosure walls painted to match the building and gates meeting City of Clearwater specifications. On trash days, the dumpster will be rolled out by Solid Waste Department’s trash pick-up. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Signage: No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time. Due to site constraints freestanding signage is not possible; however any freestanding signage in the T District is restricted to a maximum height of four feet, or six feet through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any proposed attached signage not meeting minimum Code requirements must be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 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. As the proposed building footprint is approximately 3,988 square feet this requirement does not need to be met. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. As all facades of the building are less than 100 feet in length, this requirement does not need to be met. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The elevations along Mandalay Avenue and Ambler Street contain windows, stone columns, and overhangs along the entire building elevations. On the north and west elevations, where the visibility of the elevations is limited or hindered, less architectural decoration is practical and provided. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 4 of 8 Section C.4 requires that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45 feet be occupied by a building. As the maximum height of the development proposal is 13.4 feet to flat roof, this guideline is not applicable. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is a current office use operating without a business tax receipt, however as this use is requested through this FLD Code enforcement will not be initiated until the completion of this case. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and Tables 2-802 and 2-803: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.0 3,985 square feet (0.45) X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.96 X 1 Minimum Lot Area N/A 8,700 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 87 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to sidewalk) South: 2.87 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to sidewalk) Side: N/A North: 0.78 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) West: Zero feet (to parking) X 46.7 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 13.4 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum Off-Street Parking N/A 7 parking spaces X 1 1 XSee analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 5 of 8 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 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 – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 6 of 8 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 February 2, 2012, 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 0.19-acre subject property is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 150 south of Rockaway Street; 2.That the subject property is located in the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) future land use plan category; 3.That the subject property is located within the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design and is subject to all applicable requirements set forth therein; 4.That the tenant spaces were previously vacant and has been developed with office use; 5.That the proposal includes the conversion of 1,378 square feet of floor area for nightclub use, 2,607 square feet for office floor area, and redevelopment of the rear parking lot to accommodate seven parking spaces; 6.That the proposal includes a front (south along Mandalay Avenue) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a front (south along Ambler Street) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of 0.78 feet (to building), and side (west) setback of zero feet (to parking) and 46.7 feet (to building); 7.That the proposal includes large expanses of windows, covered and uncovered outdoor seating, overhangs, awnings, and finish treatments such as stucco and stone; and 8.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 Community Development Code Tables 2-801.1, and 2-803; Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 7 of 8 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community Development Code Section 2-803.C; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A; and 4.That the development proposal is consistent with the applicable Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit 1,378 square feet of nightclub with an accessory outdoor café and 2,607 square feet of office in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 8,700 square feet, a lot width of 87 feet along Mandalay Avenue and 100 feet along Ambler Street, a front (east) setback of zero feet (to building), a front (south) setback of 2.87 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 46.7 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 0.78 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a building height of 13.4 feet (to flat roof), and 6 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot, building façade, and interior improvements. 2.That the parking lot, building façade, and landscaping improvements be completed prior to issuance of a Business Tax Receipt; 3.That a Business Tax Receipt be obtained for the nightclub, and office establishments; 4.That an Outside Seating permit be obtained for the seating in the public right-of-way; 5.That the final design and color of the restaurant building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 6.That any new or existing mechanical equipment be screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties; 7.That the dumpster enclosure be constructed and painted to match the building; and 8.That the electrical equipment located on the outside of the building be painted the same color as the building; and 9. That this use (nightclub) be limited to this tenant space only, and that any desired relocation within this shopping center or enlargement of floor area shall require a new application for re-review by the CDB; 10. That on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages be limited to beer and wine (2-COP); 11. That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage outside; and. 12.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Ellen Crandall, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 8 of 8 Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 FLD2011-12046– Page 9 of 8 EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2011-12046 2012-03-20 To: Community Development Board Members From: Ellen Crandall, Planner II Date: March 20, 2012 RE: FLD2011-12046, 516-524 Mandalay The applicant has requested the following revised conditions based upon discussions with objecting neighbors and their representatives. Staff is in agreement with the revised conditions. If you have any questions, please contact me at 562-4836. Conditions of Approval: 5. That the final design and color of the restaurant building be consistent with the elevations and any increase in the number of seats outdoors in the plan attached approved by the CDB to this application shall require the approval of the Community Development Board ; .Any deletion, modification or amendment to these conditions shall require the approval 13 of the Community Development Board. CDB Meeting: April 20, 2012 Case Number: LUP2012-01001 Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church Address: 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street Agenda Item: E.1 (Related to E.2) STAFF REPORT LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT I.GENERAL INFORMATION Request: To amend the present Future Land Use Map designation from Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I) Location: 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street, located on the south side of Cleveland Street, approximately 430 feet west of McMullen Booth Road and ½ mile south of Drew Street. Site Area: 17,859 square feet or 0.41 acres MOL II.BACKGROUND This case involves a 0.41-acre property located on Cleveland Street south of Drew Street and west of McMullen Booth Road. The property is comprised of two parcels, which are currently vacant. The parcels are owned by Calvary Baptist Church, which is located on the corner of Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road. The church has been purchasing parcels adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property over the last several years in order to accommodate growth of the church, associated school campus and athletic facilities, including a recently constructed a football stadium located northwest of the subject property. The request is to change the property’s Future Land Use Map designation of Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I). A request for a rezoning of the property from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Institutional (I) is being processed concurrently with this case (see REZ2012-01001). Calvary Baptist Church has indicated that the intended future use of the property will be parking, integrated into a new parking lot, which will serve the church and football stadium, as well as a planned baseball stadium. A site plan has not been submitted at this time; however, the applicant provided a preliminary design as part of the application. Although not required at the time of review for a Future Land Use Map designation change, city staff has advised the applicant that the future design for the parking lot must be designed in such a way that patrons using the parking spaces do not use Cleveland Street as a cut through to McMullen Booth Road, in order to limit the impact to surrounding residential development. III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001-Page 1 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx A.Site Characteristics The property is currently vacant. Two single family residences (one on each parcel) have been removed. Adjacent to the property, to the east, are single family homes, to the west south, and north is Calvary Baptist Church and its facilities, and immediately adjacent to the north is a single family home. B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Conditions Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas Designation North: Single Family Home, Residential Urban (RU), R-2 (County) and Calvary Baptist Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) Owned Property East: Single Family Homes Residential Urban (RU) R-2 (County) and Institutional (I) South: Single Family Homes, Institutional (I), R-2 (County) and Calvary Baptist Church Residential Urban (RU) Institutional (I) Owned Property West: Calvary Baptist Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) Owned Property C.Uses and Intensities Allowed by Present and Requested Future Land Use Designations Present FLUM Designation Requested FLUM Designation Residential Urban (RU) Institutional (I) Primary Uses: Urban Low Density Residential Public/Private Schools; Churches; Public Offices; Institutional Maximum Density: 7.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre 12.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre Maximum FAR 0.40; ISR 0.65 FAR 0.65; ISR 0.85 Intensity: Consistent Zoning Low Medium Density Institutional (I) Districts: Residential (LMDR); Medium Density Residential (MDR) Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 2 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx IV.REVIEW CRITERIA No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or Future Land Use Map shall be recommended for approval or receive a final action of approval unless it complies with the standards contained in Section 4-603.F, Community Development Code. A.Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan [Sections 4-603.F.1 and 4- 603.F.2] Recommended Findings of Fact: Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which support the proposed amendment include: Goal A.2 A sufficient variety and amount of Future Land Use categories shall be provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development. Goal A.4 The City shall not permit development to occur unless an adequate level of service is available to accommodate the impacts of development. Areas in which the impact of existing development exceeds the desired levels of service will be upgraded consistent with the target dates for infrastructure improvements included in the applicable functional plan element. 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. Recommended Conclusions of Law The request does not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. The proposed integration of the property into the larger church campus is compatible with the mix of uses in the area. When a site plan is submitted, the Community Development Code will be used to ensure compatibility with the remaining surrounding residential properties. In addition, the proposal does not degrade the level of service for public facilities below the adopted standards (a detailed public facilities analysis follows in this report). B.Consistency with the Countywide Plan Rules Recommended Findings of Fact: Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Plan Rules states that the purpose of the Institutional (I) future land use classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now used, or appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize such areas consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource features. Section 2.3.3.7.3 also states that the Institutional (I) future land use classification is generally appropriate to those locations where educational, health, public safety, civic, religious and like institutional uses are required to serve the community; and to recognize the special needs of these uses relative to their relationship with surrounding uses and transportation access. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001-Page 3 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx The subject property is located adjacent to Institutional (I) property owned by the same institution (Calvary Baptist Church) which is on the southwest corner of Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road, both signalized arterial roads, in an area that contains a mix of residential, institutional, and office uses. Future use of the subject property as parking for the overall institutional (church) campus is consistent with the purposes of the Institutional (I) future land use category and compatible with surrounding properties and the neighborhood. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan Rules. C. Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood [Section 4-603.F.3 and Section 4-603.F.6] Recommended Findings of Fact: Existing surrounding uses consist of single family homes and institutional property owned by the applicant. The future land use designations of surrounding properties include Institutional (I) and Residential Urban (RU). The proposed integration of the subject property into the larger church campus for use of parking on the subject property is compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The proposed Institutional (I) future land use category permits 12.5 units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65. The future land use designations of surrounding properties include Residential Urban (RU) (7.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre; FAR 0.40), and Institutional (I). Recommended Conclusions of Law The Institutional (I) future land use classification requested is consistent with the surrounding future land use classifications that exist in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed future land use designation will allow the development of additional institutional facilities and parking at a density and scale that is consistent with existing institutional and residential uses in the vicinity of the subject property. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is in character with the surrounding area. The proposed Institutional (I) future land use designation is in character with the overall Future Land Use Map designations in the area. Further, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the surrounding properties and neighborhood. D. Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-603.F.4] Recommended Findings of Fact: To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and requested Future Land Use Map designations was analyzed (see Table 1). The request for amendment to the Institutional (I) Future Land Use Map category would increase the amount of development potential allowed on the site (see Table 1 below). Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 4 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx Table 1. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations Present FLUM Requested FLUM Net Change Designation Designation “RU” “I” 0.41 AC 0.41 AC Site Area (17,859 SF) (17,859 SF) 3 DUs 5 DUs 2 DUs Maximum Development 7,143 SF 11,608 SF 4,465 SF Potential 0.40 FAR 0.65 FAR 0.25 FAR Abbreviations: FLUM – Future Land Use Map DUs – Dwelling units AC – Acres FAR – Floor area ratio SF – Square feet As shown in Table 2 below, the proposed change will not degrade public facilities and services below acceptable levels. Table 2. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Maximum Potential Impact to Public Net Capacity Facilities/Services Change Available? Public Present FLUM Facility/Service Requested FLUM Designation Designation “I” “RU” Streets 28 Trips 1 43 Trips 1 15 Yes Potable Water 703 GPD 2 929 GPD 2 226 Yes Wastewater 781 GPD 2 1,161 GPD 2 380 Yes Solid Waste 7.6 Tons/Year 1.7 Ton/Year -5.9 Yes Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0 Yes Public School 3 Facilities Yes Elementary 1 Student 1 Student 0 Yes Middle 0 School 1 Student 1 Student Yes High School 1 Student 1 Student 0 Yes Notes: 1. Based on average daily trips per acreage figure, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules. - Residential Urban (RU) - Institutional (I) 2. GPD – Gallons per day. 3. Based on 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and 2.2 persons per unit. 4. Pinellas County School Board student generation rate per unit: - Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x # units - Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x # units - High School: 0.10 students per unit x # units Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 5 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx As shown in Table 3 below, the potential additional maximum daily trips associated with the request for amendment to the Institutional (I) Future Land Use designation would not lower the operating level of service for McMullen Booth Road. If an Institutional building were constructed on the site, it would have the potential to generate an additional 5 PM Peak Hour trips compared to the maximum number of residential units allowed in the current future land use category of Residential Urban (RU). The segment of McMullen Booth Road is currently operating at a Level of Service F, which is below the adopted roadway level of service standard, but the potential addition of 5 trips on this roadway is de minimis. Table 3: Maximum Potential Traffic Net McMullen Booth Road Existing Current Proposed New 12 (Gulf to Bay Blvd. to Sunset Point Rd) Conditions FLUM FLUM Trips Potential Additional Maximum Daily Trips N/A 28 79 51 Potential Additional Maximum PM Peak N/A 3 8 5 3 HourTrips Roadway Volume (Annual Average Daily) 55,446 4 55,474 55,525 51 Roadway Volume (PM Peak Hour)3 5,267 5,270 5,275 5 Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour F 4 F 5 F 5 Adopted Roadway Level of Service Standard D Peak Hour Abbreviations and Notes: N/A = Not Applicable. FLUM = Future Land Use Map, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. 1. Based on PPC calculations of 68 trips per day per acre in the Residential Urban (RU) future land use category. 2. Based on PPC calculations of 192 trips per day per acre in the Institutional (I) future land use category. 3. Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095. 4. Source: Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2011 Level of Service Report. 5. Based on a comparison between the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2011 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 McMullen Booth Road. There is an increase in demand for potable water and generation of wastewater, but there is adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the proposed amendment. Furthermore, solid waste, parkland, recreation facilities, and public school facilities will not be affected by the proposed amendment. E. Impact on Natural Resources [Section 4-603.F.5] Recommended Findings of Fact: No wetlands appear to be located on the subject property. The property is intended to be integrated into the overall church campus as parking. There are trees and landscaping on site. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 6 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx Recommended Conclusions of Law Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject property. The intent of the applicant is to use the property as parking, as part of a larger parking lot system for the church. The proposed redevelopment 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. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (Division of Community Planning) is not required. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested, including transportation concurrency provisions of the Concurrency Management System in Division 9, Community Development Code. VI.RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Planning and Development Department recommends the following action: Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Future Land Use Map amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) classification to the Institutional (I) classification. Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _______________________________ Lauren Matzke, AICP Long Range Planning Manager 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 – March 20, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 7 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312H.docx CDB Meeting: March 20, 2012 Case Number: REZ2012-01001 Applicant: First Baptist Church of Clearwater a/k/a Calvary Baptist Church Address: 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street Agenda Item: E.2 (Related to E.1) STAFF REPORT ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT I.GENERAL INFORMATION Request: To amend the Zoning Atlas designation from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District Location: 3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street, located on the south side of Cleveland Street, approximately 430 feet west of McMullen Booth Road and ½ mile south of Drew Street. Site Area: 17,859 square feet or 0.41 acres MOL II.BACKGROUND This case involves a 0.41-acre property located on Cleveland Street south of Drew Street and west of McMullen Booth Road. The property is comprised of two parcels, which are currently vacant. The parcels are owned by Calvary Baptist Church, which is located on the corner of Drew Street and McMullen Booth Road. The church has been purchasing parcels adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property over the last several years in order to accommodate growth of the church, associated school campus and athletic facilities, including a recently constructed a football stadium located northwest of the subject property. The request is to change the property’s Zoning Atlas designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Institutional (I). A request for a future land use amendment of the property from Residential Urban (RU) to Institutional (I) is being processed concurrently with this case (see LUP2012-01001). III.SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS A.Site Characteristics The property is currently vacant. Two single family residences (one on each parcel) have been removed. Adjacent to the property, to the east, are single family homes, to the west south, and north is Calvary Baptist Church and its facilities, and immediately adjacent to the north is a single family home. B.Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 1 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx Existing Conditions Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas Designation North: Single Family Home, Residential Urban (RU), R-2 (County) and Calvary Baptist Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) Owned Property East: Single Family Homes Residential Urban (RU) R-2 (County) and Institutional (I) South: Single Family Homes, Institutional (I), R-2 (County) and Calvary Baptist Church Residential Urban (RU) Institutional (I) Owned Property West: Calvary Baptist Church Institutional (I) Institutional (I) Owned Property 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] Recommended Findings of Fact: Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which support the proposed amendment include: Goal A.4 The City shall not permit development to occur unless an adequate level of service is available to accommodate the impacts of development. Areas in which the impact of existing development exceeds the desired levels of service will be upgraded consistent with the target dates for infrastructure improvements included in the applicable functional plan element. 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. Recommended Conclusions of Law The request does not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. The proposed integration of the property into the larger church campus is compatible with the mix of uses in the area. When a site plan is submitted, the Community Development Code will be used to ensure compatibility with the remaining surrounding residential properties. In addition, the proposal does not degrade the level of service for public facilities below the adopted standards (a detailed public facilities analysis follows in this report). Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 2 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx B.Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood [Sections 4-602.F.2, 4-602.F.3 and 4-602.F.4] Existing surrounding uses consist of single family homes and institutional property owned by the applicant. The future land use designations of surrounding properties include Institutional (I) and Residential Urban (RU). The proposed integration of the subject property into the larger church campus for use of parking on the subject property is compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The proposed Institutional (I) District primarily permits government uses, educational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, and schools. The intent of the Institutional (I) District is to establish areas where public and private organizations can establish and operate institutions with a public interest without adversely impacting the integrity of adjacent residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of City of Clearwater or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the city. The proposed Zoning Atlas designation will allow the property owned by Calvary Baptist Church to be incorporated into the larger church campus and to serve as additional parking for the expanded facilities. As such, the proposed amendment will allow development that is in character with the surrounding area. Recommended Conclusions of Law The proposed Zoning Atlas designation is in character with the overall Zoning Atlas designations in the area. Further, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the surrounding uses and character of the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The Institutional (I) zoning district requested is consistent with the surrounding zoning districts that exist in the vicinity of the subject property, and is therefore consistent with the surrounding area. 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 and Zoning designations were analyzed. The request for amendment to the Institutional (I) Future Land Use Map category would increase the amount of nonresidential floor area permitted by 4,465 square feet on the subject property. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 3 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx Table 1. Development Potential for Existing & Proposed FLUM Designations Present FLUM Requested FLUM Net Change Designation Designation “RU” “I” 0.41 AC 0.41 AC Site Area (17,859 SF) (17,859 SF) 3 DUs 5 DUs 2 DUs Maximum Development 7,143 SF 11,608 SF 4,465 SF Potential 0.40 FAR 0.65 FAR 0.25 FAR Abbreviations: FLUM – Future Land Use Map DUs – Dwelling units AC – Acres FAR – Floor area ratio SF – Square feet The proposed change in designation would allow an increase in the allowable Floor Area Ratio (thus an increase in square footage). The current Residential Urban (RU) District primarily permits residential uses. The proposed Institutional (I) District primarily permits school, church, government and hospital uses. As shown in Table 2 below, the proposed change will not degrade public facilities and services below acceptable levels. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 4 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx Table 2. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Maximum Potential Impact to Public Net Capacity Facilities/Services Change Available? Public Present FLUM Facility/Service Requested FLUM Designation Designation “I” “RU” Streets 28 Trips 1 43 Trips 1 15 Yes Potable Water 703 GPD 2 929 GPD 2 226 Yes Wastewater 781 GPD 2 1,161 GPD 2 380 Yes Solid Waste 7.6 Tons/Year 1.7 Ton/Year -5.9 Yes Parkland 0.0 Acres 3 0.0 Acres 3 0 Yes Public School 3 Facilities Yes Elementary 1 Student 1 Student 0 Yes Middle 0 School 1 Student 1 Student Yes High School 1 Student 1 Student 0 Yes Notes: 1. Based on average daily trips per acreage figure, Pinellas County Countywide Plan Rules. - Residential Urban (RU) - Institutional (I) 2. GPD – Gallons per day. 3. Based on 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and 2.2 persons per unit. 4. Pinellas County School Board student generation rate per unit: - Elementary School: 0.15 students per unit x # units - Middle School: 0.07 students per unit x # units - High School: 0.10 students per unit x # units The Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Atlas Designation in Table 3 below indicates the estimated trip generation for specific uses allowed in the current and proposed zoning districts based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip th Generation 8 Edition. The table shows that while the development of a church would generate an increase of 77 trips per day compared to the previously existing single family detached homes (already removed from the site). The proposed parking for the church will not involve construction of additional institutional square footage; therefore, it is unlikely any additional trips will be generated by a change to the Institutional (I) District on this property. Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 5 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison by Zoning Atlas Designation PM Net Net Avg. Peak PM Change Development Change Land Use Daily Trips Peak PM Potential Avg Daily Trips Avg Trips Peak Trips Rate Trips Existing Designation: Low Medium Density Residential District Single-Family 3 DUs 3 29 N/A 1.01 4 N/A 1 Detached Housing (9.57 trips/Dwelling unit) Proposed Designation: Institutional District Church 2 (9.11 11,608 SF 4 106 77 0.55 7 3 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 210. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation 8th Edition Land Use 560. 3. Total residential density permitted by the underlying Residential Urban (RU) category is 7.5 dwelling units per acre. 4. Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying Institutional (I) category is 0.65. 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 McMullen Booth Road. The segment of McMullen Booth Road is currently operating at a Level of Service F, which is below the adopted roadway level of service standard, but the potential addition of 3 trips on this roadway is de minimis. There is an increase in demand for potable water and generation of wastewater, but there is adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum demand generated by the proposed amendment. Furthermore, solid waste, parkland, recreation facilities, and public school facilities will not be affected by the proposed amendment. D.Location of District Boundaries [Section 4-602.F.6] Recommended Findings of Fact: The location of the proposed Institutional (I) District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of the subject property, and would consolidate the subject property into a single zoning district. The proposed Institutional (I) District is compatible with the single family residential uses to the east and north, and the church uses to the north, west and south. Recommended Conclusions of Law The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. V.REVIEW PROCEDURE Community Development Board – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 6 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx 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, including transportation concurrency provisions of the Concurrency Management System in Division 9, Community Development Code. VI.RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Planning and Development Department recommends the following action: Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Zoning Atlas amendment from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Institutional (I) District. Prepared by Planning & Development Department staff: _________________________ Lauren Matzke, AICP Long Range Planning Manager 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 – March 20, 2012 - Case REZ2012-01001 -Page 7 of 7 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0312I.docx