Loading...
04/17/2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARDMEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER April 17, 2012 Present: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch, Vice-Chair Thomas Coates, Member Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson, Member Brian A. Barker, Acting Member Donald van Weezel Absent: Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Planning Manager Robert Tefft, Board Reporter Patricia O. Sullivan A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 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: March 20, 2011 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of March 20, 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 Member Coates moved to reappoint Nicholas Fritsch as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Adelson moved to reappoint Thomas Coates as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 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 1-5): 1. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: TA2012-01001- Amendments to the Community Development Code Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater Community Development Board 4/17/2012 1 Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code providing density and parking incentives for affordable housing developments. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III See Exhibit: Staff Report: TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 Concern was expressed that a drawing on page 4 is out of scale and may distort the understanding of related language. Planner III Catherine Lee stated the City does not have graphics capability to create another drawing. Discussion ensued with comments that while the drawing is crude, it was felt it does illustrate Code language. In response to questions, Housing Manager Michael Holmes estimated the AMI (Area Medium Income) for a family of four is $42,000. Senior housing, as defined by HUD (Housing & Urban Development), is for people age 55 and older. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case TA2012-01001 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 and carried unanimously. 2. Case: FLD2012-02006 - 750 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application Owner/ Applicant: Brian and Stephanie Shay Agent: Steven L. Klar, Klar and Klar Architecture (28473 US Highway 19 N., Suite 602, Clearwater, FL 33761; Phone 727-799-5420; email: steve@klarklar.com) Location: 0.15 acres at the southwest corner of Bohenia Circle and Eldorado Avenue Atlas Page: 249A Existing Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable, and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowable for an in- ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Matt Jackson, Planner II Community Development Board 4/17/2012 2 See Exhibits: Staff Report: FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 Revised Conditions of Approval: FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 See page 5 for motion of approval 3. Case: FLD2012-02007 - 400 East Shore Drive Level Two Application Owner: Terry, Anna and Dimitrios Tsafatinos Applicant: Joseph Kokolakis Agent: Housh Ghovaee, CEO and Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner, Northside Engineering Services (300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33765 Phone: 727-443-2869; Fax: 727-446-8036; email: renee@northsideengineering.net) Location: 0.53 acres on the west side of East Shore Drive, approximately 120 feet of Causeway Boulevard Atlas Page: 267A Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 22,980 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 22,988 square feet, a lot width of 199.7 feet on East Shore Drive (east) and 199.9 on Poinsettia Avenue (west), a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and seven feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building ) and two feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 40 feet (to flat roof) and 21 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.; as well as a reduction in the required size of interior landscaped islands from 150 to 25 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Matt Jackson, Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 See page 5 for motion of approval 4. Case: FLD2012-02004 - 2017 Drew Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: LaRocca Chiropractic Center, LLC. Agent: Robert Pergolizzi, AICP/PTP, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 Icot Avenue, Suite 605, Clearwater, Florida 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; email: pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com) Community Development Board 4/17/2012 3 Location: 0.32 acres on the southwest corner of Drew Street and Cirus Street Atlas Page: 289B Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit 2,922 square feet of office in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 13,981 square feet, lot widths of 100 feet (Drew Street) and 138.65 feet (Cirus Avenue), front (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to pavement) and 60 feet (to building), front (east) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 21.2 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 29.1 feet (to building), side (west) setbacks of 6 feet (to pavement) and 9.8 feet (to building), a building height of 18 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and nine off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704.C, as well as a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (north) façade from five feet to zero feet, reductions of the front (north) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12 feet, the front (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet, and the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of interior island landscaping from 10 percent to zero percent, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Office Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Skycrest Neighborhood Association Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 See page 5 for motion of approval 5. Case: FLD2012-02005 - 454 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Devcor N.Y. Developments, Inc. Agent: The Sustainability Group, LLC (4124 Headsail Drive, New Port Richey, FL 34652; Phone: 727-488-1002; email: rick9660@gmail.com) Location: 0.11 acres on the west side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 150 feet north of Papaya Street Atlas Page: 267A Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 4,296 square feet of restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,012 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, front (east) setbacks of 2.6 feet (to building) and zero feet to pavement, a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 1.16 feet (to building), a building height of 18.6 feet (to top of flat roof), and zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803.C. Community Development Board 4/17/2012 4 Proposed Use: Restaurant Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report: FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2012-02006, FLD2012-02007, FLD2012-02004, and FLD2012-02005 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. F. 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 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: 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: Catherine Lee, Planner III See Exhibit: Staff Report: LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17 Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. Howard Parker, representative for the Applicant, agreed to proceed with the hearings even though a full board was not present. Planner III Cate Lee reviewed the staff report. The CDB (Community Development Board) approved Case: LUP2012-01001 on March 20, 2012, however a sign was not posted on the subject property in accordance with Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code. This item is resubmitted to the CDB, with no changes to report, to comply with all CDC requirements for proper notification. Community Development Board 4/17/2012 5 Howard Parker, representative for the Applicant, said the church has been a good neighbor in Clearwater for more than 160 years. He said the church, in its current location for seven years, purchased numerous nearby properties to meet future growth needs. He requested approval of the land use change to construct needed parking. He said the grass parking spaces, buffers, and landscaping will meet Code. One person requested the City verify that nearby residents will not be required to sell their homes for future church expansion. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said all property sales to the church have been voluntary. The City has no plans to condemn or take nearby properties. Mr. Parker said the church would not pressure neighbors to sell their homes. Member Coates 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 duly seconded. Members Dame, Coates, Adelson, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye.” 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) District to Institutional (I) District Type of Amendment: Small scale Proposed Use: Place of Worship Neighborhood Association(s): Del Oro Groves Neighborhood Association, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III See Exhibit: Staff Report: REZ2012-01001 2012-04-17 Member Barker declared a conflict of interest. Community Development Board 4/17/2012 6 Member Dame moved to accept Cate Lee as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Coates, Adelson, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye." Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. Ms. Lee reviewed the staff report. The CDB approved Case: REZ2012-01001 on March 20, 2012, however, a sign was not posted on the subject property in accordance with Section 4-206 of the CDC. This item is resubmitted to the CDB, with no changes to report, to comply with all CDC requirements for proper notification. Charles Hewison requested Party Status on behalf of Chinh Tran. Member Coates moved to grant Charles Hewison Party Status on behalf of Chinh Tran. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Coates, Adelson, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye." Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. Howard Parker, representative for the Applicant, said additional parking is necessary due to growth of the church and school. He said access to Cleveland Street from the proposed parking lot will be obstructed. He said the church is mindful of neighbors' needs. Member Coates 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, Coates, Adelson, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye." Member Barker abstained. Motion carried. G. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. 7 ' / ; ,' . % !�/� '� I air Attest Community Development Board / Ar Bard Repo - Community Development Board 4/17/2012 7 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 Baritgr >n a— Clearwater Community Development Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE � �/�� ��` Ste. a- , ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 4�2- CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CIT NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION 1(_. . 33 7(P 4 City of Clearwater DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCI5RRED MY POSITION IS: , " ) 901p- 0 ELECTIVE j75j 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 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy ofthe1rm niustbe provided immediately to other members of-the agency:— • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, 13r; a,rifref2Ar hereby disclose that on Arrl 1 , 2041' ao 1"a-- (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, Q /1 inured to the special gain or loss of �i r'sk �3a 4 +-CAA)rte`-o� `_ �^J''�� ,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: CQS� Ivm . I UP Q-0 —o 1001 �— � � 2o( 2. - ° tool , • ��•e, -Po uAl2- F ka6 �►f it 5 `i k CCc -c-L e - vJaifft, e Gt e Prs5 oc . KLA.- a C ra.et w t `- 4.1)` . ,r vv\ I ,ti.e e-r' t� 6 er v% e_e-6 - c - ,o � Date File ) 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 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: TA2012-01001 Ordinance Number: 8313-12 Agenda Item: F.1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance No. 8313-12 INITIATED BY: The City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department BACKGROUND: In the early and mid 2000s the Florida housing market experienced a significant boom cycle that increased housing costs. This particularly impacted affordable housing as land costs became too high in communities without an ample supply of vacant land, such as Clearwater. The City’s Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which was released in August 2006, indicated a need to create specific policies in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan to incentivize affordable housing, specifically calling for density bonuses and parking reductions. In December 2008 the Clearwater City Council approved amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that included an objective and policies relating to affordable housing incentives. This proposed amendment to the Community Development Code implements that objective and policies. ANALYSIS: Modern development practices have led to housing stratification by income. This is an important issue as certain neighborhoods and communities become burdened by a disproportionate share of lower income households. The proposed ordinance includes amendments that establish density bonuses for projects containing affordable housing and criteria for such bonuses and revises the existing parking reduction incentive for affordable housing developments. The proposed ordinance incentivizes mixed-income affordable housing, which are developments that contain a maximum of 25 percent affordable housing, the remainder being market rate units. Under the proposed ordinance, these mixed-income developments will receive a larger density bonus than affordable housing developments that contain more than 25 percent affordable housing units. Proposed Ordinance No. 8313-12 includes the following amendments: 1.Clarifies that the densities contained in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan can be exceeded under the new affordable housing density provisions (see page 2 of the proposed ordinance). Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 2.Sets forth the review and approval process for granting the affordable housing density bonus (see page 2 of the proposed ordinance). Approval will be a Level Two approval process, which means granting of the density bonus requires a hearing before the Community Development Board. Prior to submitting an application for development that requests the density bonus the applicant must meet with the Director of the City’s Economic Development and Housing Department to ensure the proposal meets the requisite definitions and thresholds. This early communication will benefit both the applicant and the City. 3.Establishes a density bonus and sets forth how it is calculated, differentiating between mixed-income affordable housing developments and other affordable housing developments (see pages 2-4 of proposed ordinance). Mixed-income affordable housing developments will be awarded a 25 percent density bonus if 15 percent of the dwelling units are reserved as affordable and a 50 percent density bonus if up to 25 percent of the dwelling units are affordable. Other affordable housing developments that contain more than 25 percent affordable housing units will be awarded a 20 percent density bonus, provided they meet the criteria of the section. 4.Sets forth standards that apply to all affordable housing developments that are granted the density bonus, including compatibility criteria, design criteria and green building criteria (see pages 4-7 of proposed ordinance). The compatibility criteria ensure developments are not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the proportionality and scale of buildings have to be consistent with those in the immediate area. The design criteria ensure a higher aesthetic level is achieved. For example, the number of contiguous townhouse or multiplex units is limited and vertical plane interruptions (e.g., awnings, balconies) every ten feet are required. The green building criteria ensure units remain affordable over time by reducing utility costs. 5.Sets forth criteria for the required covenant to maintain affordability, which address both owner-occupied units and rental units (see pages 7-8 of proposed ordinance). 6.Sets forth the standards for approval for the affordable housing parking incentive, which allows a reduction in required parking spaces provided the criteria are met (see page 8 of proposed ordinance). Required parking may be reduced if the site is located within 1,000 feet of a transit stop and if the affordable housing units are designated for senior citizens or disabled persons. Senior citizens and disabled persons have a decreased need for parking spaces, when compared with households that contain families, which typically have multiple eligible auto drivers. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 7.Clarifies that affordable housing developments receiving the density bonus will be reviewed as a Level Two application (see page 9 of proposed ordinance). 8.Sets forth definitions for: affordable housing unit; dwelling, affordable housing bonus density; and dwelling, reserved affordable housing (see page 9 of proposed ordinance). CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth 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 and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Objectives and Policies which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments: Objective A.6.9 Decrease energy consumption, use more renewable energy and reduce the impact of the built environment on the natural environment. The green building criteria in the proposed ordinance are designed to decrease energy consumption over the life of the project. Policy C.1.1.5 The City of Clearwater shall continue to provide information, incentives, and technical assistance to the private sector in order to achieve housing production that meets the needs of very low, low, and moderate households. Providing the density bonus incentive and reduced parking incentive will aid the private sector in making affordable housing developments economically feasible. Objective C.1.2 Objective for Affordable Housing - The City of Clearwater shall continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households, including those with special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income categories. Both the density bonus and parking reduction are incentives that the City is offering to affordable housing developments. Policy C.1.2.5 Define Affordable Housing as any residential dwelling unit leased or owned by a household with a household income of one hundred twenty percent (120%) or less of the adjusted area median family income for Pinellas County, Florida, as determined by the U.S. Department of Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The rental rates for leased Workforce Affordable Housing Units shall not exceed the rates published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for annual “Maximum Rents by Number of Bedroom Unit” for the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). For non-rental units, the sales price may not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the average area price for the Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA, as established by the annual revenue procedure which provides issuers of qualified mortgage bonds, as defined in Section 143(a) of the internal Revenue Code, and issuers of mortgage credit certificates, as defined in Section 25(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, with the nationwide average purchase price for the residences located in the United States. The definition for affordable housing unit in the proposed ordinance is consistent with this policy (see page 9 of the proposed ordinance). Objective C.1.9 The City of Clearwater shall be proactive in incentivizing the construction of affordable housing. Providing the density bonus and reduced parking will incentivize the construction of affordable housing, particularly units in mixed-income developments. Policy C.1.9.1 The City will provide density bonuses for affordable housing developments that demonstrate that a minimum of 15% of the total units are reserved as affordable housing units. Such bonuses shall not exceed 50% of the density permitted by the Future Land Use Map and shall not include properties located in the Coastal Storm Area. The density bonus shall be established by ordinance in the Community Development Code. The proposed ordinance implements this policy (see pages 2-4 of the proposed ordinance). Policy C.1.9.2 Allow flexibility with regard to setbacks and off-street parking to accommodate density bonuses associated with affordable housing developments provided the project design does not detract from the established or emerging character of the immediate vicinity. The proposed ordinance will provide flexibility to off-street parking, if the criteria are met (see page 8 of the proposed ordinance). Policy C.1.9.3 Allow flexibility with regard to off-street parking for projects containing affordable housing units located within 1000 feet of a transit stop. The proposed ordinance implements this policy (see page 8 of the proposed ordinance). Objective C.1.10 Recognizing that sustainable building techniques contribute to keeping housing units affordable over the long term by reducing energy Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 consumption, lowering utility bills and decreasing maintenance costs, the City of Clearwater will promote the use of green housing construction and renovation and rehabilitation techniques. The proposed ordinance contains green building criteria that must be met to receive the density bonus (see pages 6-7 of the proposed ordinance). These criteria reduce energy consumption and ensure that utility costs remain affordable over time. 2.The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the Community Development Code in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.  It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city. (CDC Section 1-103.A). The proposed amendment implements many objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the analysis above.  It is the purpose of this Community Development Code to create value for the citizens of the City of Clearwater by ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties (CDC Section 1-103.B.2).  It is further the purpose of this 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 (CDC Section 1-103.E.2). The compatibility criteria, design criteria and preference of mixed-income affordable housing developments aims to ensure high quality affordable housing that is located throughout the City and not concentrated in specific neighborhoods. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department APPROVAL recommends of Ordinance No. 8313-12 that amends the Community Development Code. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-01001 2012-04-17 Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: __________________________________________ Catherine Lee, Planner III ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 8313-12 S:\Planning Department\Community Development Code\2012 Code Amendments\TA2012-01001 - Housing\Staff Report\TA2012-01001 CDB Staff Report.doc Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 TA2012-01001 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-02006 Agenda Item: E. 2. Owner: Brian and Stephanie Shay Agent: Steven L. Klar, Klar and Klar Architecture Address: 750 Eldorado Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable, and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowable for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant Proposed: Detached Dwelling EXISTING North: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings ZONING AND USES: South: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings East: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings West: Preservation (P) District Water ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The vacant 0.15 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Bohenia Circle and Eldorado Avenue. The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Low Medium Density Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Land to the west is zoned Preservation (P) District and is the Gulf of Mexico. Development Proposal: The proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling. This request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested side (west) setback reduction to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool and decking. And as pursuant to Section 3-905.C.2 of the Community Development Code (CDC), any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is discussed below. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.41 is proposed. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance. Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no minimum lot area. The lot area of the subject property is 6,600 square feet which exceeds the detached dwelling minimum standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-202. Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no minimum lot width. The subject property lot width is 60 feet which exceeds the detached dwelling minimum standard of 50 feet found in Table 2-202. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.D, corner lots shall have two front and two side setbacks. As the subject property fronts Eldorado Avenue on the east and Bohenia Circle S on the north, the subject property has two front setbacks (north and east) and two side setbacks (south and west). However, as the portion of Bohenia South the subject property fronts on is undeveloped public beach access that staff does not foresee being developed; staff reviewed this setback as a side setback to be consistent with the existing and emerging surrounding development pattern. Furthermore, while the west setback is technically a side setback pursuant to the aforementioned Section, staff reviewed this setback as it has and will function, a rear setback to be consistent with the existing and emerging development pattern. Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill Projects may have a front setback between 10 to 25 feet but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria and a side setback between zero to five feet. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of five feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 10 feet (to building), and a side (west) setback of zero feet (to pool and decking). The building will also be set back 5 feet on both the north and south sides. The development is compliant with the above referenced requirements. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 The reduction in front and side setbacks allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and emerging development pattern. As previously discussed the front (north) setback was reviewed as a side setback and a five foot setback meets minimum side setback standards. The existing detached dwelling immediately adjacent to the subject property to the south is setback 10 feet or less from the east property lines. As such, the proposed front (east) setback is consistent with the existing development pattern. With regard to the side (west) setback reduction, the development pattern along Eldorado is moving from typical ranch style Florida homes toward larger homes occupying a greater portion of lot area than the existing homes. In addition, through review of previously approved development applications, a site visit and view of aerial photographs show that several existing waterfront detached dwellings in the vicinity of the subject property have the same or similar structural and building setbacks from the CCCL. Therefore, the side (west) setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the emerging development pattern. The proposal also includes the main structure maintaining a 20-foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with the homes immediately south (744, 740, 736 and 734 Eldorado) of the subject property. As previously discussed, the property immediately north of the subject property is a public beach access (Bohenia Circle S.). The properties north of the public access primarily have main structure setbacks from the CCCL of 20 feet or less. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects, the maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The building height of the detached dwelling will have a height of 29 feet as measured from the Base Flood Elevation to midpoint of pitched roof, which is consistent with the above. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects, two parking spaces are required. The proposal is to provide two parking spaces for the dwelling, which is consistent with the above. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar mechanical equipment is exempt from the side setback requirements, but such equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing units for air conditioners will be placed adjacent to the south side of the dwelling behind compliant screening. The pool deck equipment location and screening will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utility facilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is impractical. This proposal will comply with this requirement. Solid Waste: The dwelling unit will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal which will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires these black barrels to be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls, fences or other appropriate screening materials will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac (1 unit) 6.6 du/ac (1 unit) X ISR 0.65 0.41 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 6,600 square feet X Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet North: Five feet (to dwelling) X 1 East: 10 feet (to dwelling) X Side: 0 - 5 feet South: 5 feet (to dwelling) X West: Zero feet (to pool and deck) X Maximum Height 30 feet 29 feet X Minimum Off-Street 2 spaces per dwelling 2 spaces X Parking unit 1 A front setback of 10-25 feet is required but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria. See setback discussion above COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E (Residential Infill Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity or other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 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 3-14.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 01, 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 0.15 acres is located on the southwest corner of Bohenia Circle and Eldorado Avenue; 2.That the property is vacant; 3.That the proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling; 4.That the proposal includes a reduction of the side setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) of five feet to zero feet where zero feet is allowable; 5.That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.3, any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; 6.That the proposal includes a reduction of the front (north) setback from 25 to five feet where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria and a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 to 10 feet where 10 feet is allowable; 7.That the building height of the detached dwelling will have a height of 29 feet as measured from the Base Flood Elevation to midpoint of pitched roof; and 8.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2- 204 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E of the Community Development Code; and 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02006 2012-04-17 APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit the construction of a new single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to dwelling) where 10 feet is allowable, and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowable for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1.That the final design and colors of the detached dwelling be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles; 3.That pool and deck not be constructed higher than 12 inches above existing grade; 4.That vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway blocking the pedestrian access to the concrete sidewalk; 5.That black barrels stored exterior to the dwelling and outdoor mechanical equipment including pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; 6.That all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water, wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and transformers, shall be located underground, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 7.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: Matt Jackson, Planner II Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02006 – Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT: REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FLD2012-02006 2012-04-12 To: Community Development Board Members From: Matt Jackson, Planner II Date: April 16, 2012 RE: FLD2012-02006 – 750 Eldorado Avenue To address environmental and safety issue concerns of the proposed fire pit, the conditions of approval have been modified and following are the conditions of approval as presently recommended by staff: Conditions of Approval: 1.That the final design and colors of the detached dwelling be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles; 3.That pool and deck not be constructed higher than 12 inches above existing grade; 4.That vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway blocking the pedestrian access to the concrete sidewalk; 5.That black barrels stored exterior to the dwelling and outdoor mechanical equipment including pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; 6.That all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water, wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and transformers, shall be located underground, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 7.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; and 8.That the proposed fire pit meets Pinellas County Code of Ordinances Sections 58-216 and 58-217 governing open burning. EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-02007 Agenda Item: E. 3. Owner: Terry, Anna and Dimitrios Tsafatinos Applicant: Joseph Kokolakis Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner, Northside Engineering Address: 400 East Shore Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 22,980 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 22,988 square feet, a lot width of 199.7 feet on East Shore Drive (east) and 199.9 on Poinsettia Avenue (west), a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building ) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 40 feet (to flat roof) and 21 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.; as well as a reduction in the required size of interior landscaped islands from 150 to 25 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER DISTRICT:Marina District PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached dwellings and a Parking lot Proposed: Retail Sales and Services EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Overnight Accommodations ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District and Institutional (I) District Off-Street Parking and Clearwater Marina East: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings West: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.53-acre subject property is located on the west side of East Shore Drive approximately 120 feet north of Causeway Boulevard which is within the Marina District of Beach by Design. The site is currently developed with a one-story building comprised of five attached dwellings and an off-street parking lot with 35 off-street parking spaces. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to demolish the existing building and off-street parking to construct 22,988 square feet of retail sales and services floor area in a two-story building. It is proposed that one owner occupy the entire building and a national chain is expected. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback reductions to provide for the proposed building to have setbacks consistent with the Marina District standards found in Beach by Design. A sidewalk on the west side of the building connecting to existing City sidewalk will provide required building access. The proposal also includes a sidewalk on the east side of the building providing building access and connectivity to future development. The proposal includes a building design consistent with a tropical modern architecture, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property and complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. The proposal meets the tropical vernacular architecture guidelines through the use of large expanses of windows, sunshades providing the windows screening from the sun, and finishes commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as glass mosaic tile, limestone tile and horizontal siding. 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 retail sales and services from 115 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to 21 spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. 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 FAR for properties with a future land use plan designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The proposal is for a total of 22,980 square feet of floor area at a FAR of 0.99, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.88, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for retail sales and services in the Tourist (T) District may range from 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 22,988 square feet (0.52 acres), Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and services in the T District may range from 50 – 100 feet. The lot width along East Shore Drive is 199.7 feet, while the lot width along Poinsettia Avenue is 199.9 feet which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum setback requirements for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setbacks for retail sales and services in the T District may be within 10 – 15 feet (front) and zero – 10 feet (side) setbacks. It is noted that lots with double frontage have front setback requirements on both street frontages and side setback requirements from the remaining lot lines. The development proposal includes a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement). This proposal includes the construction of 22,988 square feet of retail sales and services use in a two-story building and 21 off-street parking spaces. The proposed building meets or exceeds setback standards pursuant to the Marina District guidelines of Beach by Design. Staff is supportive of the front setback reductions for the proposed off-street parking area, as due to the site dimensional constraints, it is anticipated that any proposed use will need setback reductions for this vehicular use area. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum allowable height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for retail sales and services in the T District may range from 25 – 50 feet. The proposed building height is 40 feet (to flat roof), which is within the allowable limits of this comparative Code provision. 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 retail sales and services from 115 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to 21 spaces. Of these spaces, two 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 1,040 available parking spaces within the study area. A maximum of 348 of these spaces were occupied at one time during the study period leaving 692 spaces available. As such, and as the study determined that the parking demand would generate a maximum of 70 spaces, adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 3 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 proposal includes all mechanical equipment to be roof mounted and screened from view pursuant to the aforementioned Code Section. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. There are two proposed points of public ingress/ egress one along East Shore Drive and one along Poinsettia Avenue. Along East Shore Drive there is one additional point of ingress/ egress for deliveries and trash staging area. 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. Electric and communication lines for this development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. An electrical room is proposed on the second floor of the building and will contain the proposed electric panels, boxes and meters for this development. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E, interior landscaping is required for vehicular use areas greater than or equal to 4,000 square feet. As the proposal includes 6,399 square feet of vehicular use area, at least 639 square feet of interior landscaping is required. The proposal includes 1,217 square feet of Code compliant interior landscaping including palm and other trees as well as shrubs and groundcover. The proposed building is being designed with a zero-foot setback along East Shore Drive and Poinsettia Street which is consistent with the setback standards of the Marina District guidelines of Beach by Design. As such foundation plantings are not requested. Solid Waste: The proposal includes an interior trash storage area containing dumpsters for trash removal. On trash days, the dumpsters will be staged to meet the Solid Waste Department’s trash pick-up requirements. Signage: No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time. And while due to site constraints freestanding signage is not expected, freestanding signage in the Tourist District is restricted to a maximum height of four feet, or six feet through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any approval of this application should include a condition allowing for freestanding signage, where such future freestanding signage must be a monument-style sign meeting Code requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Any proposed attached signage not meeting minimum Code requirements will be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. 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. The proposed building Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 4 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 footprint is approximately 11,490 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 115 feet along East Shore Drive (east), 105 feet along Poinsettia Avenue (west), 116 feet on north side of the building and 114 feet along the south side of the building, while the vertical plane is 40 feet from ground level to flat roof. To comply with this provision the proposal includes architectural designs to change the building massing such as vertical stepbacks, reducing uninterrupted wall planes, varying the parapet heights and changes in the building materials and colors on the south, east and west building facades. However, further attention to the design of the north building facade is needed to meet this provision and a condition of approval is included in this report. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. All facades of the building are greater than 100 feet in length and include at a minimum of one vertical stepback per facade to be consistent with this provision. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The elevations along East Shore Drive (east), Poinsettia Street (west) and south building facade contain windows, sunshades, column projections and changes in materials and colors, covering the entire building elevations. As such, these elevations are consistent with the aforementioned provision. The design of the north building facade does not meet this provision and a condition of approval is included in this staff report. 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 40 feet to flat roof, this guideline is not applicable. Section E.1 requires that at least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will be transparent. The street-level windows along the west building facade fronting Poinsettia Avenue meet this provision. The street level non-transparent windows on the east building facade fronting East Shore Drive do not meet this provision and as such, a condition of approval is included in this staff report that the windows be transparent for consistency with the provision. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 22,980 square feet (0.99) X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.88 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 22.988 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 199.7 feet East Shore Drive X 199.9 feet Poinsettia Street Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) West: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) Side: N/A North: 14.3 feet (to building) X Five feet (to pavement South: 71.2 feet (to building) X Five feet (to pavement) Maximum Height N/A 40 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum Off-Street Parking N/A 21 parking spaces X Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 March 01, 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 0.53-acre subject property is located on the west side of East Shore Drive approximately 120 feet north of Causeway Boulevard; 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 Marina District of Beach by Design and is subject to all applicable requirements set forth therein; 4.That the properties are developed with five attached dwelling units and an off-street parking lot with a total of 35 parking spaces. The building containing the attached dwelling use is to be demolished; 5.That the proposal includes the construction of 22,980 square feet of retail sales and services floor area and 21 parking spaces; 6.That the proposal includes a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement); 7.That the proposal includes large expanses of windows, sunshades providing the windows screening from the sun and finishes commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as glass mosaic tile, limestone tile and horizontal siding; 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: Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code Tables 2-801.1, 2-802 and 2-803; 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 Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 22,980 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 22,988 square feet, a lot width of 199.7 feet on East Shore Drive (east) and 199.9 on Poinsettia Avenue (west), a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building ) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 40 feet (to flat roof) and 21 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.; as well as a reduction in the required size of interior landscaped islands from 150 to 25 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the design of the north building facade is revised to meet the intent of Beach by Design Section C.1 that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the horizontal plane be equal in length; 2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the design of the north building facade is revised to meet the intent of Beach by Design Section C.3 guideline that at least 60 percent of building elevations must be covered with windows or architectural decoration; 3.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the street-level windows on the east building facade are revised to meet Beach by Design Section E.1 that at least sixty percent of the street level facades of buildings used for non-residential purposes which abut a public street will be transparent; 4.That prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title combining parcels 08-29-15-02592-002-0110 and 08-29-15-02592-002-0120 be recorded in the public records and a copy of said recorded document be provided to the Planning and Development Department; 5.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 6.That all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless undergrounding is not practicable; 7.That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; and 8.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 Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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: ______________________________ Matt Jackson, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-02007 Agenda Item: E. 3. Owner: Terry, Anna and Dimitrios Tsafatinos Applicant: Joseph Kokolakis Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner, Northside Engineering Address: 400 East Shore Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 22,980 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 22,988 square feet, a lot width of 199.7 feet on East Shore Drive (east) and 199.9 on Poinsettia Avenue (west), a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building ) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 40 feet (to flat roof) and 21 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.; as well as a reduction in the required size of interior landscaped islands from 150 to 25 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist (T) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER DISTRICT:Marina District PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached dwellings and a Parking lot Proposed: Retail Sales and Services EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Overnight Accommodations ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District and Institutional (I) District Off-Street Parking and Clearwater Marina East: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings West: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Services Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.53-acre subject property is located on the west side of East Shore Drive approximately 120 feet north of Causeway Boulevard which is within the Marina District of Beach by Design. The site is currently developed with a one-story building comprised of five attached dwellings and an off-street parking lot with 35 off-street parking spaces. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to demolish the existing building and off-street parking to construct 22,988 square feet of retail sales and services floor area in a two-story building. It is proposed that one owner occupy the entire building and a national chain is expected. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback reductions to provide for the proposed building to have setbacks consistent with the Marina District standards found in Beach by Design. A sidewalk on the west side of the building connecting to existing City sidewalk will provide required building access. The proposal also includes a sidewalk on the east side of the building providing building access and connectivity to future development. The proposal includes a building design consistent with a tropical modern architecture, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property and complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. The proposal meets the tropical vernacular architecture guidelines through the use of large expanses of windows, sunshades providing the windows screening from the sun, and finishes commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as glass mosaic tile, limestone tile and horizontal siding. 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 retail sales and services from 115 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to 21 spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. 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 FAR for properties with a future land use plan designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The proposal is for a total of 22,980 square feet of floor area at a FAR of 0.99, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.88, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for retail sales and services in the Tourist (T) District may range from 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 22,988 square feet (0.52 acres), Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and services in the T District may range from 50 – 100 feet. The lot width along East Shore Drive is 199.7 feet, while the lot width along Poinsettia Avenue is 199.9 feet which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum setback requirements for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setbacks for retail sales and services in the T District may be within 10 – 15 feet (front) and zero – 10 feet (side) setbacks. It is noted that lots with double frontage have front setback requirements on both street frontages and side setback requirements from the remaining lot lines. The development proposal includes a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement). This proposal includes the construction of 22,988 square feet of retail sales and services use in a two-story building and 21 off-street parking spaces. The proposed building meets or exceeds setback standards pursuant to the Marina District guidelines of Beach by Design. Staff is supportive of the front setback reductions for the proposed off-street parking area, as due to the site dimensional constraints, it is anticipated that any proposed use will need setback reductions for this vehicular use area. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum allowable height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for retail sales and services in the T District may range from 25 – 50 feet. The proposed building height is 40 feet (to flat roof), which is within the allowable limits of this comparative Code provision. 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 retail sales and services from 115 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to 21 spaces. Of these spaces, two 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 1,040 available parking spaces within the study area. A maximum of 348 of these spaces were occupied at one time during the study period leaving 692 spaces available. As such, and as the study determined that the parking demand would generate a maximum of 70 spaces, adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 3 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 proposal includes all mechanical equipment to be roof mounted and screened from view pursuant to the aforementioned Code Section. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. There are two proposed points of public ingress/ egress one along East Shore Drive and one along Poinsettia Avenue. Along East Shore Drive there is one additional point of ingress/ egress for deliveries and trash staging area. 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. Electric and communication lines for this development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. An electrical room is proposed on the second floor of the building and will contain the proposed electric panels, boxes and meters for this development. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E, interior landscaping is required for vehicular use areas greater than or equal to 4,000 square feet. As the proposal includes 6,399 square feet of vehicular use area, at least 639 square feet of interior landscaping is required. The proposal includes 1,217 square feet of Code compliant interior landscaping including palm and other trees as well as shrubs and groundcover. The proposed building is being designed with a zero-foot setback along East Shore Drive and Poinsettia Street which is consistent with the setback standards of the Marina District guidelines of Beach by Design. As such foundation plantings are not requested. Solid Waste: The proposal includes an interior trash storage area containing dumpsters for trash removal. On trash days, the dumpsters will be staged to meet the Solid Waste Department’s trash pick-up requirements. Signage: No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time. And while due to site constraints freestanding signage is not expected, freestanding signage in the Tourist District is restricted to a maximum height of four feet, or six feet through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any approval of this application should include a condition allowing for freestanding signage, where such future freestanding signage must be a monument-style sign meeting Code requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Any proposed attached signage not meeting minimum Code requirements will be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. 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. The proposed building Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 4 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 footprint is approximately 11,490 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 115 feet along East Shore Drive (east), 105 feet along Poinsettia Avenue (west), 116 feet on north side of the building and 114 feet along the south side of the building, while the vertical plane is 40 feet from ground level to flat roof. To comply with this provision the proposal includes architectural designs to change the building massing such as vertical stepbacks, reducing uninterrupted wall planes, varying the parapet heights and changes in the building materials and colors on the south, east and west building facades. However, further attention to the design of the north building facade is needed to meet this provision and a condition of approval is included in this report. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. All facades of the building are greater than 100 feet in length and include at a minimum of one vertical stepback per facade to be consistent with this provision. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The elevations along East Shore Drive (east), Poinsettia Street (west) and south building facade contain windows, sunshades, column projections and changes in materials and colors, covering the entire building elevations. As such, these elevations are consistent with the aforementioned provision. The design of the north building facade does not meet this provision and a condition of approval is included in this staff report. 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 40 feet to flat roof, this guideline is not applicable. Section E.1 requires that at least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will be transparent. The street-level windows along the west building facade fronting Poinsettia Avenue meet this provision. The street level non-transparent windows on the east building facade fronting East Shore Drive do not meet this provision and as such, a condition of approval is included in this staff report that the windows be transparent for consistency with the provision. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 22,980 square feet (0.99) X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.88 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 22.988 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 199.7 feet East Shore Drive X 199.9 feet Poinsettia Street Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) West: Zero feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) Side: N/A North: 14.3 feet (to building) X Five feet (to pavement South: 71.2 feet (to building) X Five feet (to pavement) Maximum Height N/A 40 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum Off-Street Parking N/A 21 parking spaces X Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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 March 01, 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 0.53-acre subject property is located on the west side of East Shore Drive approximately 120 feet north of Causeway Boulevard; 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 Marina District of Beach by Design and is subject to all applicable requirements set forth therein; 4.That the properties are developed with five attached dwelling units and an off-street parking lot with a total of 35 parking spaces. The building containing the attached dwelling use is to be demolished; 5.That the proposal includes the construction of 22,980 square feet of retail sales and services floor area and 21 parking spaces; 6.That the proposal includes a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement); 7.That the proposal includes large expanses of windows, sunshades providing the windows screening from the sun and finishes commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as glass mosaic tile, limestone tile and horizontal siding; 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: Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code Tables 2-801.1, 2-802 and 2-803; 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 Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of 22,980 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 22,988 square feet, a lot width of 199.7 feet on East Shore Drive (east) and 199.9 on Poinsettia Avenue (west), a front (east) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of 0.2 feet (to proposed building and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of 14.3 feet (to proposed building ) and five feet (to pavement for transformer pad), a side (south) setback of 71.1 feet (to proposed building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 40 feet (to flat roof) and 21 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.; as well as a reduction in the required size of interior landscaped islands from 150 to 25 square feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the design of the north building facade is revised to meet the intent of Beach by Design Section C.1 that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the horizontal plane be equal in length; 2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the design of the north building facade is revised to meet the intent of Beach by Design Section C.3 guideline that at least 60 percent of building elevations must be covered with windows or architectural decoration; 3.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the street-level windows on the east building facade are revised to meet Beach by Design Section E.1 that at least sixty percent of the street level facades of buildings used for non-residential purposes which abut a public street will be transparent; 4.That prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title combining parcels 08-29-15-02592-002-0110 and 08-29-15-02592-002-0120 be recorded in the public records and a copy of said recorded document be provided to the Planning and Development Department; 5.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 6.That all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless undergrounding is not practicable; 7.That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; and 8.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 Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02007 2012-04-17 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: ______________________________ Matt Jackson, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02007 – Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-02004 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owner/Applicant: LaRocca Chiropractic Center, LLC Agent: Mr. Robert Pergolizzi, AICP/PTP Address: 2017 Drew Street CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 2,922 square feet of office in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 13,981 square feet, lot widths of 100 feet (Drew Street) and 138.65 feet (Cirus Avenue), front (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to pavement) and 60 feet (to building), front (east) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 21.2 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 29.1 feet (to building), side (west) setbacks of 6 feet (to pavement) and 9.8 feet (to building), a building height of 18 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and nine off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704.C, as well as a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (north) façade from five feet to zero feet, reductions of the front (north) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12 feet, the front (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet, and the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of interior island landscaping from 10 percent to zero percent, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY:Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Office EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Restaurant ZONING AND USES: South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Single Family Detached Dwelling East: Institutional (I) District Place of Worship West: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales and Service Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.32 acre subject property is located on the southwest corner of Drew and Cirus Streets. It is a corner lot with ingress/egress onto Drew Street and Cirus Street. The site consists of an existing 2,922 square foot building with nine off-street parking spaces to the north of the building. The rear of the property is not accessible by any drive and is largely an open green area with several mature oak trees. The building is set back 60 feet from the front property line along Drew Street, 21.2 feet from Cirus Avenue, and 29.1 feet from the southern property line. An unimproved alley right-of-way abuts the south property line and runs from Cirus Avenue to Hercules Avenue. To the south, on the opposite side of the alley are single family detached dwellings. To the north and west are more commercial uses ranging from retail sales and service, restaurant to automobile service station. To the east is a place of worship. Development Proposal: The application proposes to establish an office use (LaRocca Chiropractic Center) in the existing 2,922 commercial building. This office will only have one doctor and will not be a medical clinic. Previously this location was occupied by an retail sales and service use (Clearwater Schwinn Cycling, whom closed in December of 2007). Since then the subject property, which is non-conforming with regard to setbacks, has been vacant. This non-conformity has required the applicant to file an application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The site conforms to current standards for minimum lot area, lot width, impervious surface ratio (I.S.R.) and floor area ratio (F.A.R.). Some of the existing building and pavement setbacks are nonconforming to current Code requirements. Improvements to the existing pavement setbacks will occur as a widened and enhanced landscape buffers to the north, south, and east are proposed. These improvements will not bring the site into full compliance with the landscape code; however they are compliant to the maximum extent practicable. The existing building height for this tenant space is less than the maximum height for the minimum standard Code requirement. The applicant proposes to make improvement to the building’s façade by repainting the facade. Such a change should enhance the view of the building from the street. Other site improvements will include restriping the parking lot, ensuring handicap accessible routes comply with ADA requirements, adding landscaping, the addition of a sidewalk along Cirus, and modifying the drive access on Cirus to be one-way-in-only. The site has nine off-street parking spaces. The dimensions of the parking spaces are compliant with current standards for parking lot design. No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements. The proposal’s compliance with the applicable development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55. The overall proposed FAR is 0.21, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.586, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for office is 10,000 square feet. The subject property has a lot area of 13,981 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement for office is 100 feet. The width of the subject property is 100 feet along Drew and 138.65 feet along Cirus Avenue. 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 office can range between 15 and 25 feet and the side setback for office can range between zero and 10 feet. With regard to setbacks to the existing building, no changes are proposed to the building; however the setbacks to pavement are proposed to be improved. An increase in landscape buffer will improve the setback along Drew Street from 2 feet to 12 feet; along Cirus Avenue from 2 feet to 5 feet; and portions of the west property line from zero feet to 6 feet and 11 feet. The proposal improves the site to the maximum extent practicable and as such, the setbacks to pavement and building are acceptable to Staff. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum building height for office can range between 25 and 50 feet and the existing building height is 18 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof). 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 office uses is between 3 and 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which for a 2,992 square foot building would result in a requirement between 9 and 12 spaces. The site has 9 parking spaces; which is consistent with the Code provisions. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a fifteen-foot wide landscape buffer along Drew Street, a ten-foot wide landscape buffer along Cirus Avenue, a five- foot landscape buffer on the west, and a twelve-foot wide buffer on the south. An increase to the currnet landscape buffer is proposed along Drew Street from 2 feet to 12 feet, and along Cirus from 2 feet to 5 feet, and on a portion of the west property line from zero to 6 feet and from zero to 11 feet. The request is for flexibility for a reduction to the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12 feet (along Drew Street), a reduction in the front landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet (along Cirus Avenue), and a reduction in the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet. Although the side setback is requested to zero feet, this does not accurately reflect the proposed conditions. A 6 foot wide and an 11 foot wide landscape area are proposed along the west side; however it does not run the entire length due to the need for a parking back-out area. Due to the existing site conditions the front and side perimeter buffers cannot be increased any Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 more without altering the parking lot dimensions resulting in a reduction to the number of parking spaces. To mitigate for the deviations to the landscape buffer requirements along the front, side, and rear setbacks, the applicant has proposed adding trees and groundcover. The proposal of retaining the existing trees will be revised as the existing ear tree, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, to the south of the building, is a weak species and the tree exhibits girdling roots, rot and cavities, dead branches and co-dominate branches. Removal is recommended. The existing oak tree is not located on the subject property but is in the adjacent alley. Further to the west of the building, the existing tree is shown to be retained; however there is no tree on the west side of the property. All existing trees to remain are recommended to be removed, have been removed, or not on the subject property. A revised landscape plan shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. Additional accent trees to comply with the requirements of the landscape buffers will be required. As the oak in the alley has a large canopy and overhead wires pass through the alley, additional shade trees on the rear property line would be inappropriate and are not required. The rear property line, adjacent to residential, will comply with all landscape buffer requirements. Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-1202.E.1 and 3-1202.E.2, ten percent of the gross vehicular use area shall be provided as landscape islands a minimum of eight feet wide and 150 square feet in size and foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building façade with frontage along a street right-of-way. The foundation plantings must be within an area that is a minimum of five feet wide and consist of at least two accent trees or three palm trees for every 40 linear feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. As built, green space on site is scarce to provide the required plantings around the building. Due to the site constraints staff supports the requested landscape reductions. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Solid Waste: The applicant has proposed to use black barrels for service due to limited space and type of business. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles. Signage: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. It is noted that pursuant to Section 6-104 of the Community Development Code, in the event a building permit is required for the redevelopment of a principal use/structure nonconforming signs on the parcel proposed for development shall be brought into compliance. The most recent submittal does not include this information. Without a sign inventory of existing signs located on the subject property it cannot be determined whether this Code is met. It has been attached as a condition of approval that all existing and future signage must meet the requirements of Code. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the Commercial General (CG) land use category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.21 X ISR 0.90 0.586 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 13,981 sq. ft. (0.32 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A Drew: 100 feet X Cirus: 138.65 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 12 feet (to pavement) X 60 feet (to building) East: 5 feet (to pavement) X 21.2 feet (to building) Side: N/A South: 29.1 feet (to building) X West: Zero feet (to pavement) X 10.5 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 18 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) X Minimum 3-4 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 9 parking spaces X Off-Street Parking (9 and 12 spaces) Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes;  Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,  pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures;  Distinctive fenestration patterns;  Building step backs; and  Distinctive roofs forms.  e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 7 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 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 March 1, 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 0.32 acre subject property is located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and Cirus Street; 2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.The site is currently improved with an approximate 2,992 square foot commercial building; 4.The application proposes to utilize the existing 2,992 square-foot commercial building previously retail sales and service as an office (LaRocca Chiropractic Center); 5.The subject property is presently non-conforming with respect to the existing building and off-street parking area not meeting the minimum required setbacks; 6.The applicant proposes to improve pavement setbacks and landscape buffers; 7.The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program will provide additional landscaping within green spaces and create additional green space; 8.The proposal meets the development standards: F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size and maximum building height; 9.No additional off-street parking is proposed as part of this application and the addition of any further off-street parking would not be possible given the existing on-site improvements; 10.Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed use is compatible and consistent with this character of the immediate area; and 11.There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02004 2012-04-17 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Sections 2-701.1 and Table 2-703 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.C of the Community Development Code; 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and 4.That the development proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of Flexible Development application to permit 2,922 square feet of office in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 13,981 square feet, lot widths of 100 feet (Drew Street) and 138.65 feet (Cirus Avenue), front (north) setbacks of 12 feet (to pavement) and 60 feet (to building), front (east) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 21.2 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 29.1 feet (to building), side (west) setbacks of 6 feet (to pavement) and 9.8 feet (to building), a building height of 18 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof), and nine off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704.C, as well as a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (north) façade from five feet to zero feet, reductions of the front (north) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 12 feet, the front (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet, and the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of interior island landscaping from 10 percent to zero percent, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 2.That all existing and any future signage must meet the requirements of Code; 3.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion or business tax receipt, whichever occurs first, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; 4.That prior to the issuance of building permits the landscape plan be revised to be accurate and to comply with the landscape buffer requirements; and 5.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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02004 – Page 9 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-02005 Agenda Item: E. 4. Owner/Applicant: Devcor N.Y. Developments, Inc. Representative: The Sustainability Group, LLC Address: 454 Mandalay Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit 4,296 square feet of restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,012 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, front (east) setbacks of 2.6 feet (to building) and zero feet to pavement, a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 1.16 feet (to building), a building height of 18.6 feet (to top of flat roof), and zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-801.1 and 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: Nightclub Proposed: Restaurant EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District SURROUNDING Retail Sales and Service ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District Retail Sales and Service East: Tourist (T) District Restaurant West: Tourist (T) District Attached dwellings ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.11 acres subject property is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue roughly 150 feet north of Papaya Street. It is within the Destination Resort District of Beach by Design. The site, until recently, has been a nightclub. The existing building is 4,316 square feet no off-street parking is provided. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 The surrounding neighborhood is a tourist area comprised of retail sales and service, restaurant, and attached dwellings (condos). The surrounding uses along Mandalay Avenue are restaurant and retail sales and service while the attached dwellings (condos) are to the west of Mandalay Avenue mostly fronting on side streets and facing the Gulf of Mexico. City parking lot #36 is less than 300 feet to the north of the subject parcel. Development Proposal: The proposal is to convert the existing nightclub into a restaurant with a sidewalk café. The proposed restaurant will be a combination of Union Burger and Coffee Culture with two distinct façade elements; however there will be one common entrance and the interior will be open as one tenant space. The existing 4,316 square foot of building space will be reduced to 4,296 square feet. The site currently has zero parking spaces and cannot accommodate any new parking spaces. The proposal includes front, side and rear setback flexibility to recognize the location of the existing building at less than the required setbacks. The application includes the reduction from five to zero feet of the required foundation landscape area along the majority of Mandalay; where no presently exists. However they will provide two new foundation planting areas, one to the north of the building and one to the very south of the building. The proposal improves the architectural style to a revitalized tropical architecture, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property and complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. The existing building façade will be completely renovated with a brand new building façade. The pedestrian level will be enhanced by providing canopies, operable storefront windows, and outdoor dining. Visual interest will be achieved through building materials with different textures, such as a water table with a smooth stone finish and pilasters with a rock face finish. The building will have step backs in both the vertical and horizontal planes, as well as pilasters, open penetrations to the courtyard, stepped parapet heights, sconces, molded copings, and canopies. In addition to the architectural improvements there will be in-ground as well as above ground planters with small ornamental palms. The proposed building elevations will be white, light tan, light brown and light pastel colors, which are sensitive to the Florida vernacular for the beach. 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 stone and corrugated metal. The location of the existing building occupies the majority of the property frontage on Mandalay Avenue the building does not allow for any vehicular access from Mandalay Avenue. As such this site does not include any on-site parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the required parking for a restaurant from 64 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to zero 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 development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 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 0.85, 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 0.974 and, after construction of the proposed improvements, the ISR will be reduced by 9.6 square feet, which while still resulting in a 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 5,012 square feet and lot width along Mandalay Avenue of 50 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 2.6 feet (to building) and zero feet to pavement, a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 1.16 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 22 feet (to top of parapet). 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 restaurant from 64 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet), to zero spaces. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The study found, in accordance with a methodology established with the City of Clearwater staff, that there are a total 171 available parking spaces within 1,000 feet including City lot #34, 35, and 43. Therefore, the study finds and staff supports the finding that adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project. The proposed use will not be a destination use and will focus on serving patrons already on the beach for other attractions. 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. 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 Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 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 full foundation plantings, however the proposal includes the addition of two small planting areas to the north and south of the property, along Mandalay Avenue. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize one roll out dumpster for trash removal. The dumpster will be located on the south side of the building. Three sides of the dumpster enclosure will be existing walls of the open air courtyard and the gate to screen the dumpster will be a 6 foot high vinyl fence. 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 4,296 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 elevation along Mandalay Avenue contains windows, stone columns, and overhangs along the entire building elevations. On the north and west elevations will abut directly to the adjacent building or where the visibility of the elevations is limited or hindered, less architectural decoration is practical and provided. 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 22 feet to top of parapet, this guideline is not applicable. Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and Tables 2-802 and 2-803: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.0 4,296 square feet (0.85) X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.974 X 1 Minimum Lot Area N/A 5,012 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 50 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: 2.6 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to sidewalk) Side: N\A South: Zero feet (to building) X North: Zero feet (to building) X Rear: N\A West: 1.6 feet (to building) X Zero feet (to pavement) Maximum Height N/A 14 feet (to flat roof) X Minimum Off-Street Parking N/A zero parking spaces X 1 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 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 March 1, 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 0.11-acre subject property is located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue roughly 150 feet north of Papaya 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 building is presently vacant but had been previously operated with a nightclub use; 5.That the proposal includes the conversion of 4,296 square feet of floor area from nightclub to restaurant use; 6.That the proposal includes a front (east) setback of 2.6 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 1.16 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement); 7.That the proposal includes large expanses of windows, covered and uncovered outdoor seating, overhangs, awnings, and finish treatments such as stone and corrugated metal; 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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-02005 2012-04-17 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 and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit 4,296 square feet of restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 5,012 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, front (east) setbacks of 2.6 feet (to building) and zero feet to pavement, a side (south) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building), a rear (west) setback of 1.16 feet (to building), a building height of 18.6 feet (to top of flat roof), and zero off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803.C., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1.That a building permit be obtained for the building façade and interior improvements; 2.That the 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 restaurant establishment; 4.That an Outdoor Cafe 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 electrical equipment located on the outside of the building be painted the same color as the building; 8.That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage outside; and 9.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 – April 17, 2012 FLD2012-02005– Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17 CDB Meeting: April 17, 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.2 (Related to E.3) STAFF REPORT LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT This item was heard by the Community Development Board on March 20, 2012, but was not properly noticed as a sign was not posted on the subject property in accordance with Section 4- 206 of the Community Development Code. The item is being resubmitted to the Community Development Board, with no changes to report, in order to comply with all CDC requirements for proper notification. 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 Community Development Board – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001-Page 1 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.docx 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 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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 2 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.docx EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17 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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001-Page 3 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 4 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 5 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 6 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.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 – April 17, 2012 - Case LUP2012-01001 - Page 7 of 8 S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\0412 Exhibit Staff Report LUP2012-01001 2012-04-17.docx LL ° ckarwater 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 April 17,2012 DATE: April 12,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 20,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-02004—2017 Drew Street Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-02006—750 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-02007—400 East Shore Drive Yes No 4. Case: FLD2012-02005—454 Mandalay Avenue Yes No Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes X No S:\Planning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc 2. Case: REZ2O12-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes x No 3. Case: Case: TA2O12-01001—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a •ersonal investi!ation on, e •ersonal site visit to the ollowin! s ro•erties. Signature: / Date: PRINT NAl r1 % •Afr'" S:(Planning Department1CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc O > 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 April 17,2012 DATE: April 12,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 20,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case:FLD2012-02004—2017 Drew Street Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-02006—750 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-02007—400 East Shore Drive Yes No 4. Case: FLD2012-02005—454 Mandalay Avenue Yes No Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes No �X S:(Planning DepartmentlCD B1Agendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc 2. Case: REZ2O12-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2O12-01001) Yes No X. 3. Case: Case: TA2O12-01001—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No Y--- I have conducte' a pers s nal i„• • leation on the personal site visit to the following pros erties. Signature: P 7r Date: . ----- -2____/� , - • rre___fr_/..6e /.... .. ,4/00-is- PRINT NAME S:IPlanningDeparnnentlCD B1Agendas DEC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc J LL çaater 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 April 17,2012 DATE: April 12,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 20,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-02004—2017 Drew Street Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-02006—750 Eldorado Avenue Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-02007—400 East Shore Drive Yes (7 No 4. Case: FLD2012-02005—454 Mandalay Avenue Yes No Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes 1'V\o4r4_l. No 612- S:(Planning Departtnent1CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes / No 2C►Z 3. Case: Case: TA2012-01001—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes h No I have conducted a ersonal 'nvestiQ Lion on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: / Date: 'i/ 1 b ? 4.3 0.1 c` l C.ti.l ij'eY Z t PRINT NAME S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012104 April 17.201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc r LL Uearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 17,2012 DATE: April 12,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 20,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case:FLD2012-02004—2017 Drew Street Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-02006—750 Eldgrado Avenue Yes No K 3. Case: FLD2012-02007—400 East Shore Drive Yes )G No 4. Case:FLD20012-02005—454 Mandalay Avenue Yes X No Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes >( No S:IPlanning Deparbnent\CD BlAgendas DRC&CDBI CDB12012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc 2. Case: REZ2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2012-01001) Yes No 3. Case: Case: TA2012-01001—Amendments to the Community Development Code Yes No I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the followinj properties. Signature: Date: 4/7 Jz/ gicAurpy 1-90 PRINT NAME S:(Planning Department1C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc LL ° clearw.ater 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 April 17,2012 DATE: April 12,2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 20,2012 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-02004—2017 Drew Street Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-02006—750 Eldorado enue Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-02007—400 East Shore Drive Yes ✓ No 4. Case: FLD2012-02005—454 Mandalay Avenue Yes No Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: LUP2012-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to REZ2012-01001) Yes Y No S:IPlanning Departrnent\CD BL9gendas DRC&CDBICDB12012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc 2. Case: REZ2O12-01001—3043 and 3047 Cleveland Street(Related to LUP2O12-01001) Yes r/ No 3. Case: Case: TA2O12-01001—Amendments to the Com unity Dev lopment Code Yes No 11 Q I have conclude, , ' ' al investigation o the personal site visit to the followinj properties. /� i /////l Signature: ��l�ii��I�� Date: / / y Ali Cl/o7.2-s F.r,--(LS PRINT NAME S.(Planning DeparhnentlCD BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012104 April 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc