07/17/2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 17, 2012
Present: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch, Vice-Chair Thomas Coates, Member Frank L.
Dame, Member Richard Adelson, Member Brian A. Barker, Member Kurt B. Hinrichs,
Member Norma R. Carlough, Alternate Member Donald van Weezel
Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie
Dougall-Sides, Planning & Development Director Michael L. Delk, Planning &
Development Assistant Director Gina Clayton, 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.
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: June 19, 2012
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of June 19, 2012, as recorded and submitted in written summation to
each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Alternate Board Member van Weezel did not vote.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1) (Continue to August 21, 2012):
1. Case: FLD2012-06014 - 407 South Arcturas Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Arcturas 407, LLC
Agent: Anthony Saravanos, The Boardwalk Company (31640 US 19 N, Suite 1,
Palm Harbor, FL 34684; phone: 727-784-1007 x206; email:
asaravanos@boardwalkcompany.com)
Location: 0.39 acres located on the east side of South Arcturas Avenue
approximately 260 feet north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Atlas Page: 289A
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Retail Sales and Service
use (child daycare) of 5,200 square feet in the Commercial (C) District with a lot
area of 16,988 square feet; a lot width of 100 feet; with 21 parking spaces; a
front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement); a side (north) setback of
two feet (to existing pavement) and eight feet (to existing building); a side (south)
setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and two feet (to an existing concrete
Community Development 7/17/2012 1
pad); and four parking spaces located within required sight visibility triangles as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-704.C and reduce the required front
(west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to zero feet adjacent to existing parking;
reduce the required side (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to zero feet
adjacent to existing parking and two feet to an existing walkway; reduce the
required side (south) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet to existing
parking and two feet to an existing concrete pad; reduce the required foundation
landscape area from five feet to zero feet; and reduce the required interior
landscaped area from 10 percent of the vehicular use area (404 square feet) to
zero percent (zero square feet) as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and service (child daycare)
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Skycrest
Neighborhood Association
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
See Exhibit: Memorandum FLD2012-06014 2012-07-17
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2012-06014 to August 21, 2012. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member van
Weezel did not vote.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the
applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by
a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1 - 4):
1. Case: FLD2012-05010 - 385 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
Owners/ Applicant: 387 - 391 Mandalay Ave, LLC.
Agent: Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering (300 S Belcher Road,
Clearwater, FL 33765); phone: (727) 443-2869; fax: (727) 446-8036; email:
renee@northsideengineering.net)
Location: 0.185 acres located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue just north of
the Memorial Causeway roundabout
Atlas Page: 267A
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of
1,899 square feet of floor area and Restaurants of 6,589 square feet of floor area
in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 8,557 square feet, a lot width of 74.95
feet on Mandalay Avenue (west), a front (south) setback of zero feet (to building
and sidewalk), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a
side (north) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (east) setback
of 13.6 feet (to dumpster pad), a building height of 32.47 feet (to flat roof) and 3
parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
Community Development 7/17/2012 2
provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: 1,899 square feet of retail sales and service use and 6,589
square feet of restaurant use
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
See page 6 for motion of approval.
2. Case: FLD2012-04009/ PLT2012-04001 - 2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Level Two Application Owner: Goodkids Village Inc.
Agent: Robert Pierro, Avid Group (2300 Curlew Road, Suite 201, Palm Harbor,
FL 34683; phone: 727-789-9500; fax: 727-784-76662; email:
bob.pierro@avidgroup.com)
Location: 0.83 acre located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
approximately 215 feet west of Thornton Road
Atlas Page: 300B
Existing Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for setbacks (five feet for a
front (north) setback (to existing parking) where a minimum of 15 feet is required,
six feet for a side (east) setback (to existing parking) where a minimum of 10 feet
is required and six feet for a side (west) setback (to existing pavement) where a
minimum of 10 feet would be required under current Code), and loading space
(where one loading space would be required under current Code) under the
provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-109; (2) a
reduction to the front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet
and a reduction to number of required shade trees in the perimeter landscape
buffers from 13 to eight, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.; and (3) Preliminary Plat approval for a
2-lot subdivision for retail sales and services.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See page 6 for motion of approval.
PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
3. Case: FLD2012-05011 - 425/441 East Shore Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust
Agent: Roberta Klar; Klar and Klar Architects, Inc. (28473 US 19 N Suite 602,
Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-799-6420; email: roberta@klarklar.com )
Location: 0.31 acre site (uplands only; 0.515 acre total) located at the southeast
Community Development 7/17/2012 3
corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street
Atlas Page: 267A
Existing Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 10,749
square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 13,557 square feet
(uplands only); lot width of 100 feet; zero parking spaces; and to permit a 28-slip,
7,420 square-foot Commercial Dock with an increase to the permitted width of a
dock from 75 percent of the waterfront lot width (75 feet) to 79 percent (79 feet)
and an increase from the permitted length of a dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of
the waterfront lot width to 300 percent (300 feet) by utilizing the lot widths the
two adjacent properties along with the subject property in determining the
permitted width of the subject dock as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Restaurant
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and
Clearwater Beach Association
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Member Coates moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development general planning code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member van Weezel did not vote.
The rendering and concept were complimented but concern was expressed that parking
already is difficult on north beach, especially on weekends, and the new Ron Jon and
Hooters already have exacerbated the situation. It was suggested that people would
not walk to this restaurant from South Beach parking garages, especially in the rain, and
concern was expressed that patrons who park at the Marina would be tempted to cross
the road at the roundabout. It was felt this project, which doubles the restaurant’s size,
will increase parking shortages on North Beach.
Planner III Mark Parry said Beach by Design, the governing document for beach
redevelopment, identifies the Marina District as pedestrian friendly with an active street
life and strongly suggests that Marina District uses and activities preclude onsite
parking. The beach in considered to be a densely developed urban area that needs to
depend on centralized parking. Fifteen years of parking studies indicate that beach
parking never will be sufficient during certain times of the year. Beach businesses also
depend on captured traffic already in the vicinity.
Community Development 7/17/2012 4
Comments were made that no one would want to go to a beach with excess parking
garages, parking problems are a sign of success, and the project would increase
needed dock space in the area.
Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said this project meets Beach by Design
direction to provide public access to an open harbor. At some point, a parking garage
on North Beach will be necessary. Historically, the City has considered investing in a
parking garage and has shown a willingness and ability to construct one if the need
arises. The City gained 700 parking spaces on South Beach without cost to the City.
Roberta Klar, representing the applicant, said no changes are proposed for the seafood
company. She said Frenchy’s owner does not own the current Saltwater Café property
but does own the 14-space parking lot to the south and has 8 additional spaces at the
seafood company. She said available parking is sufficient for restaurant staff; many ride
bicycles to work. She said the restaurant and docks depend on each other. She said it
would be difficult to renovate the current structure on the two parcels. She said the
boardwalk will extend beyond the seafood company, increasing public access to the
waterfront.
In response to a concern that parking spaces are double and triple counted, Mr. Parry
said patrons often park their vehicles and visit more than one business. It was felt the
project should have at least 85 parking spaces. It was noted vehicles currently use
seafood company parking spaces. It was felt it would be imprudent to support the
project unless parking is provided and it was recommended that the City commit to
constructing a North Beach parking garage before approving this type of development.
Mr. Parry said operational hours at the seafood company and restaurant will not
coincide. He said requiring onsite parking would be a missed opportunity to meet
Beach by Design guidelines, which require the consolidation of properties. The process
to redevelop the beach is messy; the beach will take a while to mature. A future North
Beach parking garage must meet Beach by Design guidelines.
Ms. Klar said the seafood company closes at noon. She reviewed the difficulty of
adding parking to the project due to narrow parcels and prohibition of back-out parking.
She said the proposal meets Beach by Design guidelines. Parking spaces will not be
reserved for employees; however staff arrives before the restaurant opens.
Support was expressed for the project. It was commented that City residents need to
choose the times they go to beach restaurants or be creative in finding a place to park.
It was suggested that patrons could park elsewhere and ride the Jolley Trolley to the
restaurant. It was felt that inconvenience is secondary to the type of development
envisioned in Beach by Design and that a new Frenchie’s restaurant is preferable to an
abandoned motel.
Community Development 7/17/2012 5
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2012-05011 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report
with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Coates, Adelson, Barker, Carlough, and Hinrichs voted “Aye”; Member Dame and Chair
Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Alternate Board Member van Weezel did not vote.
4. Case: CPA2012-04001 - Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan removing
provisions and maps associated with implementing school concurrency,
amending certain provisions of the Capital Improvements Element for
consistency with Florida State Statutes and updating several maps.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III
See Exhibit: Staff Report CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2012-05010 and FLD2012-
04009/PLT2012-04001 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record,
including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed
and to recommend approval of Case CPA2012-04001 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member van
Weezel did not vote.
F. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: TA2012-06007 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding
numerous provisions including: the establishment of Bar, Nightclub, and Retail
Plaza uses; modification of various off-street parking requirements; modification
of various development standards and flexibility criteria; modification,
establishment or deletion of various footnotes; clarification as to the number of
dock structures that may be located at a single-family or two-family dwelling;
modification or establishment of various regulations pertaining to fences;
establishment of an expiration date for tree removal permits; allowance for the
use of temporary buildings during construction, and establishment of appropriate
regulations thereto; allowance for changes of use when conformance with
applicable requirements may not be possible or practicable; modification of the
Community Development 7/17/2012 6
definitions for Animal Grooming or Boarding uses, Retail Sales and Services,
and Limited Vehicle Service; deletion of the Nightclubs, Taverns and Bars
definition; and addition of definitions for Bars, Nightclubs, Retail Plazas, and
Temporary Buildings During Construction.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Clearwater
Beach Association
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the staff report.
In response to questions, he said corner lot fences adjacent to arterial or collector
rights-of-way will be permitted to be six-feet high. A catwalk is considered to be
separate from a dock. Density has been removed from this section as it is addressed
elsewhere in the Code. Amendments address retail and restaurant properties on
Mandalay and Poinsettia avenues where most businesses cannot accommodate
parking.
It was recommended that the City consider a creative solution to accommodate parking
needs on North Beach within the next three years, before it becomes a severe problem.
Mr. Delk said staff has discussed locations for a parking garage. The City hopes the
private sector will step up and construct a North Beach parking garage.
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case TA2012-06007 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the
Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member van Weezel did not vote.
2. Case: TA2012-04005 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: Revisions to the Community Development Code repealing and
replacing Article 3, Division 18 (Signs) in its entirety and amending definitions
relating to signage in Article 8, Section 102.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Clearwater
Beach Association
Presenter: Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning and Development Director
See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Planning & Development Assistant Director Gina Clayton reviewed the staff report.
Community Development 7/17/2012 7
In response to questions, Ms. Clayton said the Dimmitt letter supported the proposal to
modify the measurement of sign heights along corridors with barrier walls. The slide
related to acceptable sidewalk signs will be updated. Staff opposes the use of
sandwich signs made of plastic as they do not present the proper image for the City nor
convey an appearance of high quality and design. Staff recommends limiting sandwich
signs to urban corridors.
It was recommended that sandwich signs also be permitted at shopping centers where
they would not hinder pedestrians or vehicular traffic. Concern was expressed that
some acceptable sandwich signs would require anchoring as they appear to be too
lightweight.
In response to a concern regarding awning graphics, Ms. Clayton said the
comprehensive sign plan would permit larger signage with additional staff review.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said signage is not allowed on umbrellas
due to concerns that the City could be accused of regulating content by allowing
umbrellas that feature products at a restaurant while disallowing umbrella signage
declaring “Save the Whale.”
It was felt that explanation is unacceptable as disallowing umbrella signage does
regulate content and limiting the size of awning graphics inhibits creativity. It was stated
that several sections of proposed changes should be reviewed as they appear to restrict
creativity in a resort city where color is important to attract tourists.
In response to questions, Ms. Clayton said the “Complete Angler” mural would be legal
under proposed changes. She reviewed the new Code definition of artwork. Signage
will not be permitted over rear entrances at the Shoppes at Sand Key as there is no
parking lot in the rear.
Staff was complimented on their efforts to resolve sign related problems and producing
a better Code that makes sense. It was stated that the City’s sign Code makes
Clearwater much more attractive than nearby municipalities that allow a proliferation of
sandwich signs, which makes retail areas appear unstable. It was agreed that sign
regulations make the City more attractive. It was hoped that the City Council would
view this discussion and consider board member comments.
Brian Aungst, Business Task Force Executive Committee Chair, thanked staff for
updating the Code and addressing Task Force concerns. He said the committee
recommends that all businesses be allowed to have sandwich signs and opposes the
sign Code introduction and proposed definition of artwork. He said the Code needs to
be as clear as possible and not rely on staff interpretation.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City’s expert outside counsel had provided the artwork
definition.
Community Development 7/17/2012 8
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case TA2012-04005 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the
Staff Report with proposed modifications: 1) sandwich board signs that meet aesthetic
criteria in the ordinance not be limited to the tourist and downtown districts but be
allowed wherever business occurs; 2) the Council take note of any arguments regarding
the constitutionality of the definition of"artwork," given that Clearwater is a resort town
and creativity and color are inherent to the City's lifestyle; and 3) that Sections 3-1801,
3-1802, and 3-1803 be reconsidered from a legal point of view to remove any possibility
of constitutional argument and that the ordinance be written as clearly as possible to
remove any question regarding the law's intent. The motion was duly seconded.
It was commented that the Clearwater Marine Aquarium should have the ability to paint
a dolphin on an exterior wall.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member
van Weezel did not vote.
Items not on the Agenda
In response to questions, Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said multiple owners of a
property can each be granted Party Status. If a property owner or business has a
representative claiming Party Status, only one party qualifies for Party Status.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m. .
/ ^/ .- � 10"
C air
Attest Community Development Board
,1/
./i
:oard Report:
Community Development 7/17/2012 9
EXHIBIT: MEMORANDUM FLD2012-06014 2012-07-17
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Community Development Board
FROM:
Mark T. Parry, Planner III
RE:
Request for Continuance to the August 21, 2012 meeting
DATE:
July 17, 2012
The Planning and Development Department requests a continuance of cases FLD2012-06014 to
st
the August 21 meeting.
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: FLD2012-05010
Agenda Item: E. 3.
Owner/Applicant: 385 Mandalay Avenue, LLC
Representative: Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner, Northside Engineering
Address: 387 - 391 Mandalay Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit Retail Sales and Services of
1,899 square feet of floor area and Restaurants of 6,589 square feet of
floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 8,557 square feet,
a lot width of 74.95 feet on Mandalay Avenue (west), a front (south)
setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a front (west) setback of
zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of zero feet
(to building and sidewalk), a side (east) setback of 13.6 feet (to
dumpster pad), a building height of 32.47 feet (to flat roof) and 3
parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC)
Section 2-803.C.
ZONING: Tourist (T)
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:Retail and Restaurant District
PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales and Services of 1,899 square feet of floor area,
Restaurants of 6,075 square feet of floor area and three
parking spaces (including one handicapped space) with a
0.987 Floor Area ratio at a height of 32.47 feet (to flat roof).
Proposed: Retail Sales and Services of 1,899 square feet of floor area,
Restaurants of 6,589 square feet of floor area and three
parking spaces (including one handicapped space) with a
0.991 Floor Area Ratio at a height of 32.47 feet (to flat
roof).
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING Retail Sales and Services and Restaurants
ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District
Clearwater Marina
East: Tourist (T) District
Retail Sales and Services
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Clearwater Beach
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.19-acre subject property is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 85
feet north of Causeway Boulevard which is within the “Retail/ Restaurant” District of Beach by
Design. The site is currently developed with a three-story building comprised of 1,899 square
feet of retail (Ron Jon Surf Shop) on the first floor and a total of 6,075 square feet of restaurant
(Hooters) divided between the second and third floor with a total of three off-street parking
spaces.
The subject property has been before the Community Development Board (CDB) on one
previous occasion with request to establish the aforementioned retail and restaurant uses. At its
meeting of August 16, 2011, the CDB approved case FLD2011-06022.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal is to enclose a portion of the third level (Hooters) adding 514 square
feet of floor area. The existing floor area of the restaurant is 6,075 and the additional 514 square
feet will increase the floor area to 6,589. And the additional 514 square feet of floor area will
increase the gross floor area of the subject property from 8,074 to 8,557 square feet.
The existing subject property lot area is 8,074 square feet. As the existing gross floor area is
7,974 square feet, the floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.987 which is consistent with the Countywide
Plan Rules. However, the addition of 514 square feet of floor area will increase the floor area
ratio to 1.05 which exceeds the maximum FAR of 1.0. As such, the development proposal also
includes the addition of 483 square feet of land from the property immediately north of the
subject property. This property is under the same ownership as the subject property and the
additional land will be added to the subject property through a minor lot line adjustment.
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 10 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet),
and restaurant from 99 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to three 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 8,488 square feet of floor area at a FAR of 0.991, 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 0.94, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum lot area or
width requirement for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The subject property has a
lot area 8,557 square feet and lot width along Mandalay Avenue of 74.95 feet.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum setback requirements
for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The development proposal includes a front
(south) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to
building and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk) and a side
(east) setback of 13.6 feet (to dumpster pad).
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The proposed building is 34.51 feet (to top of
building 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 retail sales and services from 10 spaces (based on 5 spaces per 1,000
square feet), and restaurant from 99 spaces (based on 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet) for a total
of 109 required parking spaces to three spaces. Of these spaces, one will be dedicated for
handicapped use. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available
parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The study concluded in accordance with a
methodology established with the City of Clearwater staff that there are a total 1,040 available
parking spaces within the study area. A maximum of 744 of these spaces were occupied at one
time during the study period leaving 296 spaces available. As such, and as the study determined
that the parking demand would generate a maximum of 109 spaces, adequate parking is available
within reasonable walking distance of the project. It should be noted that Beach by Design does
not envision the parking would be provided on the individual properties of the Retail and
restaurant District, but instead within a parking garage that would provide convenient parking to
the District. The public parking available within the Hyatt and Surfside parking garages should
help to meet the needs of this District.
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 an open-
air mechanical well area on the rooftop for mechanical equipment including HVAC. As the well
is located on the rooftop, the interior of the well will not be able to be viewed from adjacent
rights-of-way. The mechanical equipment will be screened from view from adjacent property
owners by walls on all four sides of the well.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at street or
driveway intersections, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views
at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight
visibility triangles. There is only one existing driveway on this property accessing S.R. 60 that is
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
not to be changed. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering
Department and been found to be acceptable.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development have
been installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. The exterior electric
panels, boxes and meters for this development have been painted the same color as the building.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District; and pursuant to Section 3-1202.E, as the proposed vehicular use area is less than
4,000 square feet, no interior landscaping is required. Foundation plantings are not requested as
the footprint of the proposed building matches the existing along Mandalay Avenue maintaining
a cohesive development pattern along the property line not allowing appropriate area for
foundation plantings. The south building façade facing S.R. 60 is not receiving foundation
landscaping as existing is a large area of landscaping between the proposed building and right-
of-way. This landscaped area contains multiple palm trees, hedging and shrubs which meets the
intent of the required foundation landscaping. A condition of approval will be included in the
development order for the applicant to landscape and provide irrigation for the open areas.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize three roll out dumpster for trash removal. Dumpsters will
be located along the south building facade with walls matching the proposed building and gates
meeting City of Clearwater specifications. On trash days, the dumpsters will be staged to meet
the Solid Waste Department’s trash pick-up requirements.
Signage: No freestanding 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.
There exists attached signage on the south and west building facades approved through
Comprehensive Sign Program case CSP2012-03003.
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
footprint is approximately 3,988 square feet. And while the footprint is less than 5,000 square
feet, the proposal still meets the requirement. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions
are approximately 68 feet along Mandalay Avenue (west), 58 feet along Causeway Boulevard
(south), 58 feet on north side of the building and 72 feet along the east side of the building,
while the vertical plane is 36.84 feet from ground level to flat roof. Except for the north and
south building dimensions, no other dimensions are equal; thus the proposal complies with this
provision.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
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. However, the proposal does include step-backs
which would suffice this requirement if necessary.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The elevations along Mandalay Avenue and Causeway Boulevard
contain windows, railings, columns overhangs and faux wood treatments covering the entire
building elevations. On the north and south elevations, where the visibility of the elevations is
limited or hindered, less architectural decoration is practical and provided. This Beach by
Design provision is a guideline that does not require relief.
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 36.84 feet to flat roof, this guideline is not applicable. However, the building
envelope is tapered and would meet this requirement if necessary.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and
Table 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio 1.0 8,488 square feet (0.991) X
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.94 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 8,557 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 74.95 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: Zero feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to sidewalk)
West: Zero feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to sidewalk)
Side: N/A North: Zero feet (to building) X
Zero feet (to sidewalk)
East: 13.6 feet (to dumpster pad) X
Maximum Height N/A 32.47 feet (to flat roof) X
Minimum Off-Street Parking N/A 3 parking spaces X
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
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 – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
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 June 07, 2012, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 0.19-acre subject property is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue
approximately 85 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 Retail/ Restaurant District of Beach by Design
and is subject to all applicable requirements set forth therein;
4.That the properties were previously developed with retail sales and service and six attached
dwelling units. All of the building containing these uses is being demolished;
5.That the proposal includes the construction of 1,899 square feet of retail sales and services
floor area, 6,589 square feet of restaurant (Ron Jon’s and Hooters) floor area, and three
parking spaces;
6.That the proposal includes a front (south) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a
front (west) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of zero feet
(to building and sidewalk), a side (east) setback of 13.6 feet (to dumpster pad);
7.That the proposal includes large expanses of windows, covered and uncovered balconies,
overhangs, awnings, sunshades, and finish treatments such as stucco, wood (faux) 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 – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05010 2012-07-17
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 1,899 square feet of
floor area and Restaurants of 6,589 square feet of floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot
area of 8,557 square feet, a lot width of 74.95 feet on Mandalay Avenue (west), a front (south)
setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building
and sidewalk), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building and sidewalk), a side (east) setback
of 13.6 feet (to dumpster pad), a building height of 32.47 feet (to flat roof) and 3 parking spaces,
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of the Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.C., subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Stormwater conditions be met;
2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the site plan site data table be revised to
reflect the existing retail (Ron Jon) and restaurant (Hooters) uses;
3.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the parking demand study be revised to
reflect the correct floor areas of the retail (Ron Jon) and restaurant (Hooters) uses;
4.That prior to the issuance of any permanent Certificate of Occupancy, all Traffic conditions
be met;
5.That all open spaces will be landscaped with Florida Grade #1 plant material with an
automatic irrigation system; and
6.That any future freestanding signage must be monument-style meeting Code requirements
and be designed to match exterior materials and color of the building.
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 – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05010 – Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-04009/PLT2012/04001 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: FLD2012-04009/ PLT2012-04001
Agenda Item: D. 2.
Owner: Goodkids Village Inc.
Agent: Robert Pierro, Avid Group
Address: 2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for setbacks (five feet
for a front (north) setback (to existing parking) where a minimum
of 15 feet is required, six feet for a side (east) setback (to existing
parking) where a minimum of 10 feet is required and six feet for a
side (west) setback (to existing pavement) where a minimum of 10
feet would be required under current Code) under the provisions of
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-109; (2) a
reduction to the front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15
feet to five feet and a reduction to number of required shade trees
in the perimeter landscape buffers from 13 to eight, as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC
Section 3-1202.G.; and (3) Preliminary Plat approval for a 2-lot
subdivision for retail sales and services.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales and Services
Proposed: Retail Sales and Services
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District
SURROUNDING
Mobile Home Park
ZONING AND USES:
South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density
Residential (HDR) Districts
Detached Dwelling
East: Institutional (I) District
Place of Worship
West: Commercial (C) District
Restaurant
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-04009 / PLT2012-04001 – Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-04009/PLT2012/04001 2012-07-17
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.83 acre subject property is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
approximately 215 feet west of Thornton Road and has 250.11 feet of street frontage along Gulf
to Bay Boulevard. A 9,134 square foot building (Hope Thrift Store) presently exists on the site,
as well as its associated off-street parking. The site has one ingress/egress area on Gulf to Bay
Boulevard.
Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a commercial corridor that runs east to west from Tampa to Clearwater
with predominately retail sales and services, office and restaurant uses. The surrounding land use
is mobile home park (Glen Ellen) to the north, detached dwelling) to the south, restaurant
(Village Inn) to the west and place of worship (Bethel Presbyterian) to the east.
Development Proposal:
On April 2, 2012, a Flexible Development application was submitted to request termination of
status of non-conformity for setbacks, width of perimeter (north) landscape buffer, and the
required number of shade trees in perimeter landscape buffers. The existing 9,134 square foot
building is to remain unchanged and the only site development proposed consists of additional
landscaping and minor vehicular use area modifications for handicapped accessibility from the
handicapped parking space fronting Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the building entrance.
The existing retail sales and services building and off-street parking area will remain unchanged
except for the previously mentioned minor vehicular use area modifications. The modifications
will not result in the F.A.R., I.S.R., minimum lot area/size, maximum building height or off-
street parking requirements to be rendered nonconforming with minimum development
standards. The development proposal’s compliance with those remaining applicable
development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-702, retails sales and services uses must have at a
minimum a 25-foot front, 10-foot side and 20-foot rear setback. The existing building complies
with current setback requirements. The setbacks for the existing parking/paved areas are a front
(north) setback of five feet, a rear (south) setback of five feet, a side (east) setback of six feet and
a side (west) setback of five feet. These existing setbacks are non-conforming with this Code
requirement.
The parcel associated with the request for termination of status of nonconformity is the
northernmost parcel as depicted on the site plan. This parcel was originally developed in
conjunction with the southernmost parcel and are being subdivided via the plat application
(PLT2012-04001) associated with this case. Setbacks for the subject property have been viewed
based upon the whole of the original development; therefore the required south building setback
would be measured from the original south property line as these two parcels are still considered
to be a single development despite having separate ownership.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, a 15-foot wide landscape buffer required
along Gulf to Bay Boulevard; however the existing landscape buffer is five feet. Also pursuant
to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, perimeter landscape buffers are required one shade tree for every 35
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-04009 / PLT2012-04001 – Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-04009/PLT2012/04001 2012-07-17
feet, which for the subject property would result in 13 shade trees being required in the perimeter
buffers. The subject property consists of a total of eight shade trees. As such, the subject
property is non-conforming with respect to these Code requirements.
Termination of Status of Nonconformity: As noted above, the development proposal includes a
request for termination of status of nonconformity for setbacks, width of perimeter (north)
landscape buffer, and the required number of shade trees in perimeter landscape buffers. The
criteria for termination of status of nonconformity, as per CDC Section 6-109 and outlined in the
table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required
landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory
uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal.
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3-1202.D shall be X
installed.
2. Off-street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established X
in Section 3-1202.E.
3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory X
use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with
this development code.
4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to X
satisfy the requirements of this section.
As part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program application the applicant is requesting approval
for the width of the front landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard to be reduced from 15
feet to five feet as well as a reduction in the total number of shade trees required in the perimeter
landscape buffers from 13 to eight. The buffer will be planted with crepe myrtle, cabbage palm,
and hibiscus trees with a variety of underplantings. Along the east and west property lines there
exists a large quantity of oak trees and the proposal includes the addition of crepe myrtle and
hibiscus trees and underplantings.
In the interior (off-street parking lot) landscape area there are two existing large oak trees. A
variety of underplantings are proposed to bring the interior landscaped area into Code
compliance.
Signs: Pursuant to the Termination of Status of Non-Conformity provisions found in CDC
Section 6-109, any nonconforming sign shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity
with this development code. There exists one freestanding sign at the northeast corner of the
subject property 20 feet in height that exceeds the allowable height maximum height of 14 feet.
A condition of approval is being included in this staff report that the freestanding sign be brought
into compliance with CDC Section 6-104.A. prior to issuance of any building permits.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-04009 / PLT2012-04001 – Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-04009/PLT2012/04001 2012-07-17
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 2-702:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
F.A.R. 0.55 0.25 X
I.S.R. 0.90 0.75 X
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 36,286 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 250.11 feet X
Maximum Height 25 feet 23 feet (midpoint of pitched roof) X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 25 feet North: 5 feet (to pavement) X 1
27 feet (to building)
Side: 10 feet East: 6 feet (to pavement) X
158 feet (to building)
West: 6 feet (to pavement) X
10 feet (to building)
1
20 feet
Rear: South: 5 feet (to pavement) X
140 feet (to building)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 5 / 1,000 SF GFA 78 parking spaces X
(78 parking spaces)
1
See above discussion with regard to Setbacks.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of May 3, 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 0.83 acre subject property is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard
approximately 215 feet west of Thornton Road;
2.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) future land use plan category;
3.The subject property has 250.11 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard;
4.That the site is currently developed with a 9,134 square foot building, 25 feet in height, that
is occupied as a retail sales and services use, as well as 78 off-street parking spaces;
5.That the proposal includes terminating status of non-conformity for setbacks, the north
landscape buffer width and the required number of shade trees in perimeter landscape
buffers; and
6.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 General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as set forth in CDC Section 3-914.A;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive
Landscape Program as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.G; and
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-04009 / PLT2012-04001 – Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-04009/PLT2012/04001 2012-07-17
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the Termination of Status of
Nonconformity criteria as set forth in CDC Section 6-109.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
(1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for setbacks (five feet for a front (north) setback (to
existing parking) where a minimum of 15 feet is required, six feet for a side (east) setback (to
existing parking) where a minimum of 10 feet is required and six feet for a side (west) setback
(to existing pavement) where a minimum of 10 feet would be required under current Code) under
the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 6-109; (2) a reduction to the
front (north) perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet and a reduction to number of
required shade trees in the perimeter landscape buffers from 13 to eight, as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G.; and (3)
Preliminary Plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision for retail sales and services, subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Land Resource conditions are met; and
2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the existing non-conforming (height)
freestanding sign be brought into compliance through a comprehensive sign program.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Matthew Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-04009 / PLT2012-04001 – Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: FLD2012-05011
Agenda Item: E. 1.
Owner/Applicant: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust
Representative: Roberta Klar; Klar and Klar Architects, Inc.
Address: 425 & 441 East Shore Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 10,749
square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 13,557 square
feet (uplands only); lot width of 100 feet; zero parking spaces; and to
permit a 28-slip, 7,420 square-foot Commercial Dock with an increase
to the permitted width of a dock from 75 percent of the waterfront lot
width (75 feet) to 79 percent (79 feet) and an increase from the
permitted length of a dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the waterfront
lot width to 300 percent (300 feet) by utilizing the lot widths the two
adjacent properties along with the subject property in determining the
permitted width of the subject dock as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-803.C.
ZONING: Tourist (T) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:Marina District
PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached dwelling (17 units)
Proposed: Restaurant (10,749 square feet) with a 28-slip Commercial
Dock 300 feet in length and 79 feet in width and publicly-
accessible Boardwalk 15 feet in width and approximately
309 feet in length.
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Vacant commercial land
SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
ZONING AND USES: East: Preservation (P)District Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District Attached Dwellings, Office
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.31 acre site (upland only; 0.515 acres total) is located at the southeast corner of East Shore
Drive and Papaya Street. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with a combined
frontage of approximately 100 feet along East Shore Drive and frontage along Clearwater
Harbor. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District and is located within the Marina
District of Beach by Design. The Marina District envisions the redevelopment of East Shore
Drive as a pedestrian- and boater-friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels, commercial,
restaurant, residential and mixed-use developments. East Shore Drive is characterized by older
overnight accommodation, retail and attached dwelling uses. Many lots are vacant. A majority
of the properties along East Shore Drive include parking spaces at least partially in the right-of-
way and which back out into the right-of-way. Redevelopment in this district has mostly been
though the refurbishing of a few modest properties with the notable exception of Belle Harbor at
the northeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. The properties to the north, south
and west are presently developed with attached dwellings, non-chain overnight accommodations
(motels and inns) and office and retail uses. The property across Papaya Street to the north is
currently vacant however, a site plan recently approved by the Community Development Board
at its June 2012 meeting includes a seven-story, 134-unit mid-priced hotel including a 6,500
square foot restaurant. This hotel project includes a 15 foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk
along the intracoastal. Clearwater Harbor is located to the east access to which is generally
private and restricted to the occupants/users of the existing uses along East Shore Drive.
The site is developed with 17 apartment units located in two, two-story buildings. The site
includes two docks approximately 120 feet in length. Parking is provided via nine parking
spaces partially located on and backing into East Shore Drive.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct 10,749 square foot restaurant with a 28-slip commercial dock 300
feet in length. In addition, a 4,635 square foot publicly-accessible boardwalk is proposed to
extend along the subject site as well as the two commonly-owned properties to the south (boat
tie-ups are not proposed as part of the boardwalk). All existing structures will be removed
including the two existing docks. The proposed restaurant will replace the existing Frenchy’s
Saltwater located at 419 Poinsettia Avenue approximately a half block to the south. The
proposed restaurant, at 10,749 square feet, more than double the approximately 3,700 square feet
of the Frenchy’s Saltwater restaurant. The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach
by Design and subsequent amendments to the plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian- and
boater-friendly development in order to create a vibrant active waterfront serving tourists and
locals alike. It is understood that a broad range of uses including retail sales and service, hotels
and motels and restaurants contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere that
is Clearwater Beach. The vision of the Marina District of Beach by Design provides for a broad
range of uses with the caveat that they be pedestrian- and boater- friendly. While the document
acknowledges that development within the District may be inhibited by existing parcel size and
depths it does recognize that the Marina District’s location “in the heart of the tourist district
presents prime opportunities for tourist-oriented” development. The document also expresses the
requirement of developments utilizing a height bonus to provide a publicly-accessible boardwalk
15 feet in width along Clearwater Harbor. This is the first non-residential redevelopment project
providing extensive boater access and a publicly-accessible boardwalk within the Marina District
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 2 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
since the adoption of Beach by Design. It is important to note that a height bonus is not
requested. Generally, the request of a height bonus would otherwise be the impetus for requiring
the provision of such a boardwalk provided by the Marina District in Beach by Design. In fact
the height of the proposed building is two feet less than the otherwise permitted (Flexible
Standard Development) maximum height of 35 feet. The applicant is requesting that the parking
reduction and dock dimension deviations be considered as the triggers for the provision of the
boardwalk.
The two-story restaurant, as mentioned, is proposed at a height of 33 feet from Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) to the mid-point of the highest roof structure. The first floor will contain the
kitchen, restrooms and customer-use areas including two bars and indoor and outdoor dining
areas. The second floor will include storage and mechanical equipment. No customer-use areas
are proposed on the second floor. The restaurant will operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. seven days a week with employees being on site one hour prior to opening and
one hour after closing. The applicant anticipates there being two shifts of employees daily with
the first shift (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consisting of 10 employees and second shift (4:00 p.m. to
midnight). The two shifts overlap between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. resulting in up to 18
employees on site at the same time. Employee parking will be provided via 22 spaces with 14
spaces located at the current site of Frenchy’s Saltwater Café (419 Poinsettia Avenue) and eight
spaces at the Frenchy’s Seafood Company site located approximately 100 feet to the south.
The proposed building can be characterized as a modern interpretation of the traditional Key
West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof, extensive decking along the
east, north and west elevations and finish treatments commonly found in tropical vernacular
architecture such as stucco, wood (faux) and horizontal siding, large projecting overhangs and
deep porches/decks. The building has been design to be open on three sides (north, east and
west) and accessible from the west, northwest and east. Five exterior colors are proposed
including black, white and three earth-tones (see color samples included in the submittal packet).
Five accent colors are proposed including light green, red, orange, yellow and blue (see color
samples included in the submittal packet).
The site is designed to be pedestrian-friendly with the provision of a generous building entrance
angled at the corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street, tropically-themed landscaping along
the north (Papaya Street), west (East Shore Drive) and south sides of the site, a ten-foot sidewalk
along the north (Papaya Street) and west (East Shore Drive) sides of the site and a publicly-
accessible boardwalk 15 feet in width. Half of the sidewalk will be located on the subject
property. The boardwalk will span the width of the subject site as well as the two adjacent
properties to the south, 423 and 419 East Shore Drive (all in common ownership with the subject
site) for a total of almost 310 linear feet. The proposal will also include benches, street lighting
and a bike rack placed on the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and/or Papaya Street (location(s)
to be determined/agreed upon by the City). Due to the size of the site and the desire of the owner
to meet the letter as well as the spirit of the Marina District with regard to a pedestrian-friendly
site layout parking is not provided on site. The proposal includes a request to reduce the required
number of parking spaces for restaurants from between 75 and 161 spaces (based on seven to 15
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as otherwise required as a Flexible Standard
Development) to zero spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Narrative that
discusses the opportunities for public parking in the area and the parking needs of the proposed
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 3 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
restaurant. With the exception of two requests specific to the proposed commercial dock there
are no other requested exceptions to the Code.
As mentioned above, the applicant is also requesting flexibility from Section 3-601 with regard
to the permitted length and width of a proposed commercial dock. The first request for
flexibility is to increase the width of the dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the
property to 79 percent (79 feet). The second request for flexibility is to base the length of the
dock on the combined property widths of the subject property and the two properties to the south
(419 and 423 East Shore Drive) thereby increasing the length of the dock from 75 percent (75
feet) of the width of the subject property to 300 percent (300 feet) as based on the width of the
subject property. This is discussed further in this analysis.
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 (FLUP) designation of Resort
Facilities High is 1.0. The proposal is for a total of 10,749 square feet of floor area which yields
an FAR of 0.79, which is consistent with the Code provisions and less than the existing FAR of
0.95.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.81, which is consistent with the Code provisions and less
than the existing ISR of 0.94.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, Flexible Standard Development Standards, the
minimum lot area for restaurants can range between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. The lot area
is 13,557 square feet. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can
range between 50 and 100 feet. The lot width along East Shore Drive is approximately 100 feet.
The proposal meets this Code provision.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum required setbacks for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
CDC Table 2-802 (Flexible Standard Development Standards), the minimum front setback for
restaurant uses can range between 10 and 15 feet and minimum side setback between zero and 10
feet. Rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two
side setbacks under the provisions of 3-903.D. The proposal includes front (north and west)
setbacks of 10 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to building) and a side (east)
setback of 89 feet (to building). The east (side) property line is located approximately 90 feet
offshore. The proposed setbacks meet or exceed the requirements of Code.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
the aforementioned CDC Table 2-802, the maximum allowable height for restaurant uses can
range between 25 and 35 feet. The proposed building height of 33 feet from Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) to the mid-point of the highest roof structure is below the Code maximum. This
site is located within the Marina District of Beach by Design which envisions East Shore Drive
to be developed with hotels, commercial establishments, restaurants and mixed-use
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 4 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
developments two stories above parking (for parcels located on the east side of East Shore
Drive).
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum off-street
parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the minimum required parking for restaurants ranges
between seven and 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This results in a
requirement of between 75 and 161 parking spaces for a 10,749 square foot restaurant. The
proposal does not provide any off-street parking.
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 methodology
established with the City of Clearwater staff, that there are a total 186 available parking spaces
within the study area. Due to the size and configuration of the site the most reasonable way to
provide dedicated onsite parking and enough dining area to warrant the redevelopment of the site
as a restaurant would be to provide parking as a first floor feature with the restaurant located on
top. However, that would negate the pedestrian-friendly feel outlined by Beach by Design and
desired by the property owner. It should be noted that the Marina District is adjacent to the
Retail and restaurant District immediately to the west. Beach by Design does not envision that
parking would be provided on the individual properties of the Retail and Restaurant District, but
instead within a parking garage that would provide convenient parking to that District. It is
reasonable to predict that those using the services provided in the Marina District would also use
such a parking garage. The applicant anticipates that a significant number of the restaurant’s
customers will stem from nearby hotels, motels and inns and multi-family residential
developments contributing to a relatively low demand for dedicated on-site parking spaces.
Based on experience with his other restaurants, the proposed commercial dock is anticipated to
be heavily used by boat going customers further reducing the need for dedicated parking spaces.
Employee parking will be provided via 22 spaces with 14 spaces located at the current site of
Frenchy’s Saltwater Café and eight spaces at the Frenchy’s Seafood Company site two properties
to the south. Furthermore, many customers represent captured vehicle trips in that they are
already at the beach for other activities (i.e. beach use) and dining is simply another amenity of
which to be taken advantage. Finally, while outside the 1,000 foot radius of the restaurant there
are 764 publicly-accessible parking spaces at the Hyatt Aqualea parking garage and 139 spaces
at the Pier 60 parking lot. As a point of reference a complete roundtrip within the Countryside
Mall is approximately 3,000 (between JcPenny and Sears) not including any distance traveled
from the parking lot. The roundtrip walking distance between the Pier 60 parking lot and the
subject is also approximately 3,000 feet. A one-way walking trip between the Hyatt Aqualea and
the subject property is approximately 2,700 feet. Therefore, adequate parking is available within
reasonable walking distance of the project to serve the subject property and proposed use.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will
be mechanical equipment located on top of roof of the building. The location of the mechanical
equipment and the building parapets surrounding the roof appear to be sufficient to screen the
mechanical equipment. This screening of the mechanical equipment will also be reviewed at time
of the building permit submission.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 5 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on East Shore Drive, no structures or landscaping may be installed which
will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within
20-foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic
Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight
visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Pursuant to CDC
Section 3-904.B, to enhance views of the water, no structures or landscaping may be installed
within 20-foot waterfront sight visibility triangles. This proposal does not propose any structures
within the waterfront sight visibility triangles and landscaping within them will be limited to
groundcovers and low shrubs, complying with this provision.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development will
be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There are existing
overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the right-of-way along the east side of
East Shore Drive and the south side of Papaya Street that will need to be undergrounded. The
applicant has been in contact with Progress Energy regarding power line along the south side of
Papaya Street. There are some known challenges with regard to undergrounding these power
lines including a gas line, a four- and 12-inch water main, sewer lines and a possible fiber optic
line. Should Progress Energy believe that undergrounding this power line is practicable then this
utility will also need to be relocated underground.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this site. This proposal meets the required minimum five-foot wide building
foundation landscape area along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The applicant has provided
foundation plantings five feet in width along the south as well. The site will be planted with palm
trees (Sabal and specimen Chinese Fan Palms), accent trees (wax myrtle), shrubs (bird of paradise,
duranta, and viburnum) and ground covers (desert candles and lilies).
Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. The dumpster area will
be screened by a solid wall with a stucco finish to match the primary exterior color of the
restaurant. The access gate to the dumpster will match the architectural style of the railings of
the restaurant. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste and Fire
Departments.
Signage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future
freestanding sign should be designed as a monument-style sign, match the exterior materials and
color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six-foot height
through a Comprehensive Sign Program and maintain a setback of five feet. Attached signage is
not proposed at this time but must also meet Code requirements. It should be noted that the
decorative fish element attached to the front façade of the building near the main entry is
considered signage and will require a separate permit and review.
Beach by Design: Section VII. Design Guidelines:
Section C.1 of Beach by Design requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square
feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or
horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is approximately 10,749
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 6 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 60 feet along
East Shore Drive and 100 feet along Papaya Street. The building is angled to present a formal
entryway at the corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. This façade is approximately 25
feet long. The vertical plane varies from 24 feet to the top of the lowest roof structure to 39 feet
from grade to the top of the highest (18 to 33 feet from BFE). None of these dimensions are
equal. Modulation of the building massing both vertically and horizontally also provides
considerable dimensional variation. It should be noted that extensive decking along the west,
north and east facades contribute greatly to a vibrant street life and support a pedestrian-friendly
feel to the project.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. No façade is greater than 100 feet in length however, all
façades of the building have been designed in compliance with this requirement through the use
of windows, entryways and decking.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation (with elevation being defined as that
portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for
development) to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The application indicates
compliance with this requirement through the use of windows, architectural decoration and decks
incorporated into the north, east and west elevations. While the south elevation will not be
generally visible from any street right-of-way windows are provided on the second floor
providing architectural relief and interest. In the interest of maintaining privacy for the adjacent
motel, the proposal does not provide for windows on the first floor.
Section D.1 suggests that the area between the building and edge of the right-of-way should be
12 feet in width. In addition, this section also provides that a 10-foot wide pedestrian path is an
essential element in establishing a pedestrian-friendly place in the nonresidential environment.
The proposal includes a 10-foot setback from the property line to the building and a sidewalk 10
feet in width (five feet of the sidewalk will be in the right-of-way and five feet will be located on
the subject site); thus largely in compliance with the intent of this section. It should be noted that
the goal is to bring the activity of the restaurant as close as possible to the right-of-way and, if
FEMA regulations were not applicable, it would be desirous to locate the building directly down
and along the north and west property lines. As it stands, the building is required to incorporate
a Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) which raises the usable portion of the building to
approximately six feet above grade. Aesthetically, the main reason the building is setback from
the property line is simply for the provision of landscaping to soften the impact between the
sidewalk and the foundation of the building and to provide for a 10-foot sidewalk.
Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features
into the facades of buildings. The proposed building provides a modern take on the classic Key
West-style architecture through the provision of a variety of building materials and a generally
low-slung building with a metal standing seam roof. The building includes a generous entrance
angled directly at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and an extensive use of
outdoor covered decking for use by restaurant patrons. These features are intended to blur the
line between the private space within the restaurant and the public space on the sidewalks
abutting the property on the north and west while meeting Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) regulations with regard to required base flood elevations (BFE).
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 7 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Element
Objective A.6.7 – Redevelopment activities shall be sensitive to the city’s waterfront and promote
appropriate public access to the city’s waterfront resources.
The proposal addresses this Objective through the provision of a publicly-accessible boardwalk
along Clearwater Harbor which spans not only the subject site but the two parcels immediately to
the south resulting is a boardwalk 15 feet in width and nearly 310 feet in length.
Policy A.6.7.1 - Encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts
and marinas and other water-dependent facilities.
The proposal showcases an existing working waterfront by providing direct public access to
docks utilized by the Frenchy’s restaurant fishing fleet through a boardwalk. It also provides a
large dock for use by patrons of the proposed restaurant.
Policy A.6.8.9 Promote a variety of transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, ride
sharing and mass transit to increase transportation choices and decrease dependence on the
single-occupancy automobile.
The proposal encourages the use of boats, bicycles and walking as modes of transportation for
potential customers through the provision of bike racks and a large dock. By not providing on-
site parking customers will need to use centralized public parking lots or on-street metered
parking. This will result in getting cars off the street more quickly, encouraging walking and
helping to reduce traffic congestion.
Coastal Management Element
Policy E.5.2.1 Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses,
water- enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All priorities shall be encouraged in
redevelopment programming, land use planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
The proposal supports this Policy with the redevelopment of a parcel with a waterfront
restaurant, boardwalk and dock.
Policy E.5.3.1 The City will review and modify the Tourist District standards within the
Community Development Code and modify Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines where necessary to provide incentives for water-
dependent and water-enhanced uses.
The City has acknowledged the importance of appropriate redevelopment on Clearwater Beach
and specifically for waterfront parcels through the adoption of and subsequent amendments to
Beach by Design. The proposal meets the intent if not letter of the Marina District and the
Design Guidelines provided within Beach by Design. The Marina District provides that
additional height may be granted should a publicly-accessible boardwalk along the intercoastal
waterway. The incentive to provide a boardwalk in exchange for additional height through a
building with two stories above parking is not requested nor desired given the applicant’s goal of
incorporating a pedestrian-friendly environment along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The
applicant is requesting a reduction in parking to zero spaces and the ability to utilize the lot
widths of the two properties to the south along with the subject site in determining the maximum
permitted length of a proposed dock. The applicant recognizes that the creation of a pedestrian-
and boater-friendly environment and the provision of a publicly-accessible boardwalk are good
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 8 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
for the City of Clearwater as a whole, Clearwater Beach and the Marina District and for his
business.
Community Development Code: The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and
basic planning objectives of this Code as follows:
Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through
innovative and creative redevelopment.
The property owner will remove an unattractive, outdated and inefficient motel/apartment
improving the site with a new attractive building, a vibrant use (restaurant) and contribute to the
public space with sidewalks 10 feet in width along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and a
public boardwalk 15 feet wide and approximately 300 feet in length.
Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative
impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development
and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties.
Surrounding properties are generally retail sales and services, offices, restaurants, attached
dwellings and overnight accommodations. The proposed restaurant will constitute an
appropriate use for the neighborhood and is a targeted desired use within the Marina District of
Beach by Design. Surrounding properties will be enhanced through the addition of a use which
will contribute to an active and vibrant street life as well as through the provision of a publicly-
accessible boardwalk stretching over 300 feet in length.
Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
The proposal includes the removal of an outdated motel/apartment use and replacing it with a
new restaurant and publicly-accessible boardwalk. While the proposed restaurant will replace
the existing Frenchy’s Saltwater located approximately a half block to the south it will be
approximately 7,300 square feet larger thereby positively contributing to the City’s economy and
its tax base.
Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of
the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures
in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law.
The proposal includes a new attractive building characterized by a modern interpretation of the
traditional Key West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof, extensive
decking along the east, north and west elevations and finish treatments commonly found in
tropical vernacular architecture such as stucco, wood (faux) and horizontal siding, large
projecting overhangs and deep porches/decks. The building has been design to be open and
accessible on three sides (north, east and west). This proposal meets the required minimum five-
foot wide building foundation landscape area along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The
applicant has provided foundation plantings five feet in width along the south as well. The site will
be planted with palm trees (Sabal and specimen Chinese Fan Palms), accent trees (wax myrtle),
shrubs (bird of paradise, duranta, and viburnum) and ground covers (desert candles and lilies).
Section 1-103.E.5.Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for
both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings.
The development includes the provision of a new dock and the removal of two docks which are
in poor condition. The new dock will be designed to preserve existing beds of sea grass and will
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 9 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
have no negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem. The proposal will increase the aesthetics
of the immediate area through the demolition of two outdated buildings and the construction of a
new attractive building. The proposal will support both the resident and tourist populations with
a new restaurant, 10-foot wide sidewalks along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and a 15-foot
wide, 300-foot long boardwalk along the intercoastal waterway. The proposal will be consistent
with regard to the form and function of the existing working waterfront anchored by the
Frenchy’s Seafood Company commercial docks to the south.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as
per CDC Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30 dwelling units/acre N/A X
50 rooms/acre
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.81 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area N/A 13,557 square feet (0.31 acres) X
(upland)
Minimum Lot Width N/A 100 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 10 feet (to building) X
West: 10 feet (to building) X
Side: N/A East: 10 feet (to building) X
South: 10 feet (to building) X
Maximum Height N/A 33 feet (from BFE to midpoint of X
the highest roof structure)
Minimum N/A Zero parking spaces X 1
Off-Street Parking
1
See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 10 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
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
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or
preservation of a working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
Building stepbacks; and
Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 11 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Development Proposal (Dock):
The development proposal also includes one commercial dock totaling 7,420 square-feet with 28
wet slips. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, a commercial
dock is defined as any dock, pier, or wharf, including boatlifts, that is used in connection with a
hotel, motel or restaurant where the slips are not rented, leased or sold. The dock is proposed to
be constructed in one phase in conjunction with the upland development.
The applicant is requesting flexibility from Section 3-601. The first request for flexibility is to
permit the width of the dock to increase from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the width of the
property to 79 percent (79 feet). The second request for flexibility is to increase the length of the
dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the property to 300 percent (300 feet) of the width
of the property by considering the total width of the subject property along with the two
properties immediately to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive).
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS
(SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for commercial
docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are
included with their application. The individual criteria for commercial docks are set forth in the
following table
:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, X
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the
property.
2. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent X
properties and the neighborhood in general.
3. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. X
4. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock X
shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using
the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it
shall not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses
including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
5. Impacts on Navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
6. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine X
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas.
7. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats X
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which
has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be
approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
8. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated X
with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that
a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a
vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at mean or
ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 12 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Consistent Inconsistent
9. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling X
of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or
limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in
which the dock is proposed to be located.
10. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of X
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as
to be contrary to the public interest.
11. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, X
or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of
the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding
grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve
to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated preservation areas
such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife
refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird
sanctuaries.
12. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse X
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
The dimensional standards criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be
located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to
ten percent of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property
line on the subject property is 100 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from both
the north and south property line a minimum of 10 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back
from each property line a distance of 10 feet.
With regard to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 75 feet. As
proposed, the dock has a length of 300 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also
applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock should not exceed 75 feet. The total
width of the dock is proposed to be 79 feet.
Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3.i of the Community Development Code, a commercial dock may
be extended an additional 50 percent of the allowable length or to project into the navigable
portion of the waterway by no more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less.
The width of the subject property is 100 feet which yields 75 feet. An additional 50 percent will
provide for a dock width of 112.5 feet. The width of the navigable waterway in this area of
Clearwater Harbor is approximately 1,385 feet 25 percent of which is 346 feet. The proposed
dock is 300 feet; greater than the otherwise maximum permitted by lot width but less than the
maximum permitted by the width of the adjacent waterway.
The applicant is requesting that the widths of the two properties adjacent to the south (423 and
419 East Shore Drive) be used in determining the permitted length of the proposed dock. These
two properties are also owned by the applicant and currently include two docks with one
approximately 55 feet in length (423 East Shore Drive) and the other approximately 270 feet in
length (419 East Shore Drive). The total width of all properties (including the subject site) is 300
feet and can yield dock with a maximum of 337.5 feet in length has yielded by the sum of 75
percent of the total property width (225 feet) and 50 percent of that figure (112.5 feet). The
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 13 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
reasoning behind parlaying the width of the two adjacent properties with the subject property is
that the applicant will effectively tie all three properties together through the construction of the
15 foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk (discussed earlier in this analysis). From an
environmental standpoint the extended length will allow for the preservation of existing sea grass
beds located within 45 feet of the seawall and provide adequate room for enough boats further
reducing the need for vehicular parking.
The applicant will be required file a deed restriction prohibiting the addition of any other docks
at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive and submit evidence of the same prior to the issuance of any
building permits (see conditions of approval). The deed restriction will allow the maintenance
and repair of the existing docks but prohibit the expansion of them. The deed restriction will
also provide that in the event one or the other or both of the existing two docks are removed that
any replacement docks may not exceed the maximum length and width permitted for each
respective property per Code Section 3-601.C.3.h (75 percent of the width of the subject
property) nor encroach into any required setbacks. In other words, a replacement dock at 423
East Shore Drive may not exceed under any circumstances 92 feet in length and width and a
replacement dock at 419 East Shore Drive may not exceed under any circumstances 57 feet in
length and width. This will preclude the ability to request any deviation from the minimum
standards of Article 3, Division 6, Docks.
The applicant is also requesting a four percent variation from the maximum width of the dock
from 75 feet to 79 feet. Using the total width of all properties involved with the request for the
increase in the length of the dock the resulting permitted dock width would be 225 feet.
Regardless, the applicant asserts that the minor increase (as based only on the subject site’s lot
width of 100 feet) will allow the practical use of the interior mooring areas while still
maintaining the required side setbacks.
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject property (10 feet) North: 10 feet X
(Minimum)
10% of the width of the subject property (78 feet) South: 10 feet X
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject property including 300 feet X 1
(Maximum) 419 and 423 East Shore Drive plus an additional 50%
(337.5 feet)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject property including 79 feet X 1
(Maximum) 419 and 423 East Shore Drive (225 feet)
1
See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Consistent Inconsistent
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 June 7, 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 and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.The 0.31 acre subject property (upland) is located at the southeast corner of East Shore Drive
and Papaya Street;
2.That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the subject property is located in the Marina District of Beach by Design;
4.The proposal is to construct 10,749 square foot restaurant;
5.The proposed building height is 33 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to mid-point of
the highest roof structure;
6.The proposal includes zero parking spaces;
7.The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 100 feet of frontage
along East Shore Drive and frontage along Clearwater Harbor and 138 feet along Papaya
Street;
8.The parcel contains 17 attached dwellings within two, two-story buildings;
9.The proposal includes front (west and north) setbacks of 10 feet (to building), a side (south)
setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 89 feet (to building) (zero feet to
seawall);
10.The proposal includes 10 foot sidewalks along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street consistent
with the Design Guidelines provided by Beach by Design;
11.The proposal includes lighting, benches and a bike rack located within the portion of the
sidewalks on the subject property adjacent to the rights-of-way along East Shore Drive
and/or Papaya Street (specific location(s) to be coordinated with and determined by the City);
12.The proposal includes a 4,635 square foot, 15-foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk
approximately 310 feet in length along the subject site and the two adjacent properties to the
south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive) consistent with the Marina District of Beach by
Design;
13.The proposal also consists of a 7,420 square foot commercial dock with 28 slips;
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 15 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
14.The proposal includes a deviation to increase the length of the dock from 75 percent of the
subject site’s waterfront lot width to 300 percent and requests permission to incorporate and
consider the width of the two properties adjacent to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive)
which are held in common ownership with the subject site in determining the permitted
length of the dock;
15.The proposal includes a deviation to increase the width of the dock from 75 percent of the
subject site’s waterfront lot width to 79 percent and requests permission to incorporate and
consider the width of the two properties adjacent to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive)
which are held in common ownership with the subject site in determining the permitted width
of the dock; and
16.There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.C of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per
Section 3-601 of the Community Development Code;
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code;
5.That the development proposal is consistent with the Marina District of Beach by Design;
and
6.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 10,749 square feet in the
Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 13,557 square feet (uplands only); lot width of 100 feet;
zero parking spaces; and to permit a 28-slip, 7,420 square-foot Commercial Dock with an
increase to the permitted width of a dock from 75 percent of the waterfront lot width (75 feet) to
79 percent (79 feet) and an increase from the permitted length of a dock from 75 percent (75
feet) of the waterfront lot width to 300 percent (300 feet) by utilizing the lot widths the two
adjacent properties along with the subject property in determining the permitted width of the
subject dock as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-803.C., subject to the following conditions:
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 16 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
Conditions of Approval:
General/Miscellaneous Conditions
1.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
2.That no freestanding signs be permitted on the site;
3.That use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by patrons of the
restaurant and that the docks are not permitted to be rented, leased or sold separately;
4.That boatlifts, fueling capabilities and dry storage facilities or any like structures and/or uses
of any kind are prohibited;
5.That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the
vicinity;
6.That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create
any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and
does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal
agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law;
7.That all irrigation systems connected to the public potable water supply system shall include
a backflow preventer at the service connection per Section 3-1202 General Landscaping
Standards; and
8.That all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the
development.
Timing Conditions
9.That application for a building permit to construct the restaurant be submitted no later than
July 17, 2013, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
10.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, the sidewalk and
any associated sidewalk amenities be installed to the satisfaction of City Staff along East
Shore Drive and Papaya Street;
11.That prior to the issuance of any permits evidence of filing and recording in the public
records of deed restrictions for properties located at 423 and 419 East Shore Drive (Parcel
Identification Numbers 08-29-15-02592-003-0030 and 0050, respectively) be furnished to
the City for review and approval. The deed restrictions shall, at a minimum, provide for the
following:
(a)That no additional docks, piers, boat lifts or similar devices may be located on the
properties located at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive;
(b)The existing docks may be maintained and/or repaired as necessary to ensure their
functionality, appearance and provide for the safety of their users;
(c)The existing docks may not be enlarged in any way;
(d)Should either or both of the existing docks be destroyed outright or damaged to an
extent where 50 percent or more of the existing square footage of the respective dock is
rendered unusable or unsafe by the City, County or any other regulatory body that the
dock(s) be fully removed;
(e)The existing docks may be replaced however any such replacement may not exceed the
maximum dimensional requirements of Section 3-601C.3.h without any deviations as
otherwise provided by Section 3-601.C.3.i.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 17 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
12.That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities including individual
distribution lines serving this development within the right-of-way along the east side of East
Shore Drive and/or the south side of Papaya Street, shall be installed underground as
applicable and/or practicable. Specifically, the power lines along the south side of Papaya
Street adjacent to the subject property shall be placed underground if such action is found to
be practicable by Progress Energy;
13.That prior to the issuance of the building permit for the restaurant, the location and visibility
of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior
to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color
as the portion of the building to which such features are attached;
14.That prior to the issuance of a Certification of Occupancy for the dock, vertical construction
of the restaurant commences to the satisfaction of Staff;
15.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, a Certificate of
Occupancy of the publicly-accessible boardwalk is granted OR that meaningful (as
determined by the Community Development Coordinator) progress has been made with
regard to securing the appropriate and needed permits from State and/or Federal agencies;
16.That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, a Certificate of
Occupancy for the dock is granted OR that meaningful (as determined by the Community
Development Coordinator) progress has been made with regard to securing the appropriate
and needed permits from State and/or Federal agencies;
17.That prior to commencement of construction, a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit
and any other applicable environmental permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of
permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department;
18.That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation and/or Public
Art and Design Impact Fees be paid;
19.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 percent of its rated capacity; and
20.That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic
Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed.
Boardwalk Conditions
21.That the applicant finance, coordinate and oversee the construction of a publicly-accessible
boardwalk (including an access point from Papaya Street the design specifics of which shall
be coordinated with and approved by City Staff) extending from Papaya Street to the
southern edge of property located at 419 East Shore Drive as portrayed in the submitted
application and that such boardwalk and access point be constructed in its entirety to the
satisfaction of City Staff;
22.That an easement be granted (to be coordinated with City Staff) permitting free and clear
access by the public of the proposed boardwalk for the entire length of the boardwalk
including a well-marked access point at the northern termini of the proposed length of
boardwalk;
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 18 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05011 2012-07-17
23.That the location of the boardwalk be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as
otherwise determined/required by City Staff; and
24.That the fit, finish, materials and installation methodology of the proposed boardwalk
(including built-in lighting, benches and trash receptacles) and the access point at Papaya
Street be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
Sidewalk Conditions
25.That an easement be granted for the portion of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street which extends onto the subject site;
26.That the final location of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street be
consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise determined/required by City
Staff;
27.That the fit, finish, materials, installation methodology of the sidewalk and associated
sidewalk amenities (such as benches, trash receptacles, trees, lighting) be coordinated with
and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; and
28.That the location of sidewalk amenities be located solely on the portion of the sidewalk
located on the subject property and outside of the right-of-way and be coordinated with and
approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
FLD2012-05011 – Page 19 of 19
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: CPA2012-04001
Ordinance No.: 8334-12
Agenda Item: F.1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Amendments Removing Provisions
and Maps Associated with Implementing School Concurrency,
Amending Certain Provisions of the Capital Improvements Element
for Consistency with State Statutes and Updating the Future Land
Use, Citywide Design Structure and Coastal Storm Area Maps
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department
BACKGROUND:
In 2011 the Florida Legislature passed the Community Planning Act, which removed state-
mandated concurrency requirements for schools for all local governments. The School Planning
Workgroup, which consists of staff from each of the local governments previously required to
implement school concurrency, the School District, and the Pinellas Planning Council, met in
July 2011 to review the legislative changes and options, and subsequently recommended to the
Pinellas Schools Collaborative that school concurrency be discontinued. The Collaborative,
which consists of elected officials from Pinellas County, twelve municipalities, and the School
Board, agreed with the Workgroup’s recommendation and voted to approve amendments to the
Public Schools Interlocal Agreement in April 2012 that eliminated the sections related to the
implementation of school concurrency. At their June 20, 2012 meeting the Clearwater City
Council approved these amendments to the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement. Amendments
to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are needed to remove references to school concurrency in
several Elements of the Plan.
The Community Planning Act (2011) also revised statutory requirements related to the Capital
Improvements Element. The Act maintained the requirement that the Capital Improvements
Element be reviewed annually, but updates to the schedule of capital improvements may now be
processed by ordinance and will not be considered amendments to the Plan, thereby eliminating
the need to submit the annual update for state review. The Act also eliminated the requirement
for the element to demonstrate “financial feasibility.” Therefore, this amendment revises the
Capital Improvements Element by modifying policies related to these provisions.
Several miscellaneous map items are also included within this proposed amendment. In 2008,
when the Comprehensive Plan was updated, Map #A-3 Future Land Use: 2018 contained
inconsistent nomenclature by including a special designation called “Pinellas Planning Council
Water Feature Overlay” on the map legend, whereas the table of Plan classifications found after
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
CPA2012-04001 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
Policy A.2.2.1 classified these same areas “Water/Drainage Feature(s)” and “Drainage Feature
Overlay”. Map #A-14 Citywide Design Structure showed a Multi-Neighborhood Shopping
Center extending from Belleair Road north to Nursery Road along Highland Avenue, whereas
the accompanying Attachment to Map A-14 indicates the map was only supposed to designate
La Belle Plaza. This amendment corrects these map items. Finally, in 2010, the Florida
Department of Community Affairs officially recognized the most recent update of the Sea, Lake,
and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, prepared by
FEMA in 2009, which is used in determining the location of the Coastal High Hazard Area
(CHHA) and the City’s Coastal Storm Area (CSA). With the release of the updated model, new
maps must be adopted into local comprehensive plans. This amendment includes updated
Coastal Storm Area maps reflecting the updated SLOSH model.
ANALYSIS:
The recently amended Public Schools Interlocal Agreement maintains the process for school
planning coordination and collaboration, and requires that information on aspects of new
development be shared between the county, municipalities and the School Board. Recent local
government budget cuts have resulted in less staff to maintain and administer the details and
requirements for implementing school concurrency. In addition, there has been continued decline
in student enrollment resulting in a surplus of student capacity countywide making school
concurrency unnecessary as there are no projected capacity deficits. For these reasons, this
amendment removes provisions related to school concurrency contained in several
Comprehensive Plan elements (Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital
Improvements and Public School Facilities). The amendment also “unadopts” the maps
contained within the Public School Facilities Element. These maps will be moved to the
Comprehensive Plan’s data and analysis section, thereby eliminating the need to amend the plan
when this map series is updated.
The fundamental purpose of the Capital Improvements Element is to ensure that the City is able
to fund the public facilities supported in the Comprehensive Plan Elements. Removal of the
requirements that an update to the schedule of capital improvements necessitates an amendment
to the comprehensive plan and that this schedule of improvements be financially feasible will not
prevent this goal, but instead streamlines adoption of the annual update of the schedule, reducing
required staff time, and maintaining consistency with Florida Statutes. Based on the updated
Statutes, a provision has been added to Policy I.1.1.1 that states that projects necessary to ensure
that any adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period
must be listed and identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for
funding.
When the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2008, Map #A-3 Future Land Use: 2018
contained inconsistent nomenclature by including a special designation called “Pinellas Planning
Council Water Feature Overlay”. The nomenclature outlined in the table associated with Policy
A.2.2.1 of the Plan contains two designations: “Water/Drainage Feature” and “Drainage Feature
Overlay.” Map #A-3 has been updated to show these two categories as “Water – Water/Drainage
Feature” and “Drainage Feature Overlay”. In addition, the 13 future land use map amendments
that have occurred from June 2008 to June 2012 are also reflected in the updated map.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
CPA2012-04001 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
The 2008 update included the creation of Map #A-14 Citywide Design Structure, which showed
La Belle Plaza, a Multi-Neighborhood Shopping Center located on the east side of Highland
Avenue north of Belleair Road, as extending all the way to Nursery Road. However, La Belle
Plaza, a parcel with Commercial zoning, lies approximately 315 feet south of Nursery Road. The
proposed map adjusts the Multi-Neighborhood Shopping Center boundaries to include the
Commercial zoned La Belle Plaza, and to exclude the Office zoned land to the north of La Belle
Plaza abutting Nursery Road.
As indicated above, an update to the Coastal Storm Area maps reflecting updated SLOSH model
data was completed earlier this year (E-1A and E-1B). The maps are generated by Pinellas
County, which provided two maps at a larger scale, one showing the east side (Tampa Bay) of
the City and one showing the west side (Gulf of Mexico) of the City.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1.The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the
goals, policies and objectives contained in the Plan.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are consistent with
existing goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan. The proposed amendments, related to
school concurrency and to the schedule of capital improvements, comply with statutory
requirements and are consistent with a Countywide approach to school planning and
collaboration. Since all references to school concurrency and its implementation are being
removed from the Plan, the document will be internally consistent. Map #A-3 Future Land
Use: 2018 is being amended to bring consistency between the map legend and the
nomenclature outlined in the table associated with Policy A.2.2.1. Map #A-14 Citywide
Design Structure is being amended for consistency with the Attachment to Map #A-14,
which indicates that La Belle Plaza is a Multi-Neighborhood Shopping Center. Map #E-1,
Coastal Storm Area (Including Coastal High Hazard Area), is being replaced by Maps #E-1A
and E1-B, which are updated versions of the map reflecting new data, and remain consistent
with Objective E.1.2 and Policy E.1.2.1 which reference them. That objective and policy are
being updated to reflect that there are two Coastal Storm Area maps, one depicting the east
side of the City and one depicting the west side of the City.
2.The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments are not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan and bring further consistency between the goals, objectives and policies and the map
series.
3.The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the
property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
CPA2012-04001 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
This is not applicable to the majority of the proposed amendments as they do not relate to a
specific property or properties. The Coastal Storm Area maps do relate to specific properties
and, based on scientific modeling, place designations that may limit the use of certain
properties (e.g., per Policy E.1.2.5, new hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities
are prohibited from locating in the Coastal Storm Area). The limitation of certain uses on
certain properties by the Coastal Storm Area map is based on data and a matter of public
safety.
4.Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
This is not applicable to the proposed amendments as they do not relate to a specific property
or properties; therefore, the adequacy of available public facilities will need to be assessed on
a case-by-case basis as development proposals are received.
5.The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment.
This is not applicable to the majority of the proposed amendments. The Coastal Storm Area
maps are related to Objective E.1.2 and its Policies in the Coastal Management Element
which aims to protect the natural environment and public safety in the case of hurricane
events. The updated maps will not adversely affect the natural environment.
6.The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area.
This is not applicable to the majority of the proposed amendments. As stated previously, the
Coastal Storm Area maps do show specific properties that would not allow new hospitals,
nursing homes and assisted living facilities per Policy E.1.2.5. However, this would not be an
adverse impact but rather is a matter of public safety.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
:
Florida State Statutes no longer mandate school concurrency and the Pinellas County Public
Schools Interlocal Agreement has been amended to remove provisions associated with school
concurrency; therefore, these amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are the next step in this
process. Changes to state statutes relating to the schedule of capital improvements in the Capital
Improvement Element streamline the annual update adoption process. Several maps required
amendments to achieve consistency with language used elsewhere in the Plan or to reflect
updated data. The proposed amendment is consistent with and will further the goals, objectives
and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, will not result in inappropriate or
incompatible uses, will not adversely affect the natural environment or impact the use of
property in the immediate area, and sufficient public facilities exist to implement the proposed
amendment. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends
APPROVAL
of Ordinance No. 8334-12 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
CPA2012-04001 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT CPA2012-04001 2012-07-17
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Catherine Lee, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 8334-12
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 8334-12
S:\Planning Department\COMPREHENSIVE PLAN\2012 Comp Plan Amendments\CPA2012-04001 - PSFE and Misc. Maps\Staff
Report\CPA2012-04001 CDB Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
CPA2012-04001 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: TA2012-06007
Ordinance No.: 8349-12
Agenda Item: F. 2.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance Number
8349-12
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
The Clearwater Business Task Force (BTF) was established on April 7, 2011 by the City Council
to provide feedback on the current rules and regulations affecting businesses and business
development. The BTF submitted its final report to City Council on August 29, 2011. The
report consisted of 71 recommendations to change public perceptions about being “business
friendly”, streamline development application processes and enable greater signage flexibility.
City staff reviewed each of the recommendations and presented to City Council ideas as to how
some of them may be adopted as well as a prospective timeframe for these adoptions to occur.
At the direction of the City Council, staff prepared a text amendment to the Community
Development Code (CDC) addressing the more straightforward recommendations of the BTF as
well as a few amendments proposed by staff. These changes were reviewed by the Community
Development Board (CDB) at its meeting of December 20, 2011, at which time the Board
recommended the approval of the amendment. City Council passed and adopted the Ordinance
on second reading on February 2, 2012.
Staff is now proposing a second text amendment to address further recommendations of the BTF
or that would otherwise assist in fulfilling their goals, as well as additional items proposed by
staff.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 8349-12 includes amendments addressing a variety of different sections
of the CDC. As noted above, some of the amendments were recommended by the BTF while
others are being initiated by staff. The following is a discussion of the proposed amendments
based upon the recommendations of the BTF:
Opportunity #2
18. Accessory use for overnight accommodations for mid-priced hotels (not destination resorts):
Allow 20% of gross floor area as accessory use before additional parking is required or
amend definition of "accessory use" to exclude required floor area pursuant to hotel
franchise agreements such as gift shops, business centers, fitness centers, supporting
restaurants and meeting space.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
Presently, accessory uses to an overnight accommodations use are permitted to occupy a
maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area of the development when the application is
processed as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS). This ordinance proposes to increase this
maximum to 15 percent [page 16 of Ordinance]. When the application is processed as a
Flexible Development (FLD), accessory uses are currently permitted to occupy between ten and
15 percent of the gross floor area, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion
exceeding ten percent. This ordinance would increase these figures from ten percent to 15
percent, and from 15 percent to 20 percent [page 21 of Ordinance]. While the proposed changes
are not exactly what was recommended by the BTF in their final report and referenced above,
this is consistent with the direction given to staff by City Council.
Opportunity #3
4. When a tenant of a multi-tenant property requires a Level 2 approval, do not require that the
entire multi-tenant property be brought through the development review process as a result
of the tenant.
Staff has taken two different approaches to address this recommendation. The first approach is
to establish the use of Retail Plazas [pages 4, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22-24, and 41 of
Ordinance] in the Commercial (C), Tourist (T), and Downtown (D) Districts. Retail Plazas
specifically address the multi-tenant building/property aspect of the recommendation and will
provide for flexibility or “interchangeability” between specific uses of multi-tenant
buildings/properties. This interchangeability would not require the submittal of any Level One
or Level Two application in order to change the use of a tenant space from/to any of the
following uses: Governmental, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment, Office, Restaurant, Retail Sales
and Service, and Social/Community Center. Other uses, such as: Bars, Medical Clinics,
Nightclubs, and Places of Worship may also be incorporated into Retail Plazas subject to their
approval through the applicable Level One or Level Two approval process and meeting their
respective flexibility criteria. Retail Plazas will be permissible through the Minimum Standard,
FLS, and FLD tiers in the C District; the FLS and FLD tiers in the T District; and the FLS tier in
the D District.
The second approach taken by staff is based upon the acknowledgement that changes of use may
be proposed whereby conformance with all of the applicable general and specific requirements
set forth in Article 2 may not be applicable or appropriate. In such a situation, staff has proposed
parameters based upon the differences in development standards between the existing and
proposed uses whereby the change of use may be permitted as a Level One (minimum standard)
provided that the site is brought into compliance to the greatest extent practicable with the
parking and landscape standard set forth in Article 3 [pages 39-41 of Ordinance].
The following amendments, while not specifically recommended by the BTF, are in keeping
with the goals of the BTF to provide for a more streamlined and efficient process, and are being
initiated by staff:
Accessory Dwellings
1. [pages 15, 27 and 28 of Ordinance]
In the O District, Accessory Dwellings are presently allowed in the FLS and FLD tiers;
however the development standards and flexibility criteria do not differ between the two
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
tiers. Therefore, this Ordinance will delete Accessory Dwellings from the FLD tier. In
addition, this use is also permitted in the T District in the FLS tier. However, while the CDC
sets forth development standards for the use, it does not set forth flexibility criteria. This
Ordinance will establish those flexibility criteria.
Mixed Use
2. [pages 7-9, 11, 14, 19, 23-24 and 28 of Ordinance]
In an effort to encourage the development of mixed use projects, the proposed Ordinance
expands Mixed Use into the Minimum Standard and FLS tiers of the C District. In the FLS
tier of the T District, flexibility is provided for the minimum lot area development standard
consistent with what is already allowed in the FLD tier. These changes may also have the
effect of enabling some applications to be processed administratively and therefore allow
new development or changes of use to occur quicker than at present. The off-street parking
requirement for the use is also changed to be consistent across each of the Districts in which
the use is permissible (C, T, D and O).
Nightclubs, Taverns and Bars
3. [pages 3-4, 7, 9, 11-15, 19-20, 23-24, 33-34 and 41 of
Ordinance]
The Bars aspect of this use will be split off into its own use type, but will retain the same
development standards and application processes as the use would currently have in the
CDC. The purpose of this split is to make required advertisements of these uses easier to
understand as Nightclubs and Bars can have diverse impacts on a surrounding area. The
proposed Ordinance adopts a definition for the Bars use, as well as adopting a revised
definition for Nightclubs.
Offices, Restaurants, and Retail Sales and Services
4. [pages 8, 14-15, and 26 of Ordinance]
In an effort to process more applications administratively and thereby allow new
development or changes of use to occur more expeditiously than at present, the Ordinance
will reduce the minimum lot area and lot width requirements within the FLS tiers for the
Office, Restaurant, and Retail Sales and Services uses within the C and T Districts to
resemble their FLD counterparts. In addition, the maximum height allowance will be
increased in the C District, and the front setback reduced in the T District in the same
manner. In the O District, the minimum lot area, lot width, front and rear setbacks will be
reduced and the maximum height increased for the Offices use to resemble its FLD
counterpart.
Residential Shelters
5. [pages 4, 6 and 29-30 of Ordinance]
Residential Shelters are presently permissible in the FLD tier of the MHDR District; however
this use will be deleted from the district as the use has been determined to be inconsistent and
inappropriate for the district. Residential Shelters are also permissible in the FLS tier of the
Institutional (I) District. The use will be retained in this appropriate district; however the
flexibility criteria for the use will be amended to correct a scrivener’s error and to add a
criterion that the parcel not be located within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
area.
Self Storage
6. [pages 34 and 35 of Ordinance]
The Self Storage use is presently permissible within the FLS and FLD tiers of the IRT
District. While the development standards are different between the two tiers (minimum lot
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
area and maximum height), the FLD tier is more stringent and therefore any request for this
use would never elevate to this tier. As such, this Ordinance will delete the use from the
FLD tier.
Veterinary Offices / Animal Grooming / Animal Boarding
7. [pages 3, 8, 10-13, 24-25, 31-
33 and 41-42 of Ordinance]
The Veterinary Offices aspect of this use will remain without any changes. However,
Animal Grooming will be removed from this use type and relocated into the Retail Sales and
Services use, and Animal Boarding will be established by itself. Animal Boarding will
continue to be a permissible use in the C (FLD), D (FLD) and IRT (FLS) Districts.
8.Off-Street Parking
[pages 5, 7-8, 11, 14-15, 19, 23-24, 30, 32 and 34 of Ordinance]
The proposed Ordinance will make several changes to the off-street parking requirements
throughout the Code. In the MHDR District, the off-street parking requirements for Assisted
Living, Community Residential Homes, Detached Dwellings, and Nursing Homes will be
changed to be consistent with the requirements found in other districts.
In the C and T Districts the off-street parking requirement for Medical Clinics will be
changed to be consistent with the requirement found in other districts.
In the C and T Districts the off-street parking requirement for Offices will be reduced from 4
to 3/1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This will be consistent with the current
requirement in the D, O and IRT Districts.
In the C, T, D and IRT Districts the off-street parking requirement for Restaurants will be
reduced from 15 to 12/1,000 square feet of gross floor area with the exception of the D
District where the parking will be reduced to 10/1,000. The reductions in off-street parking
rates are based upon staff experience with development proposals, as well as comparisons to
other municipal codes and ITE parking generation data.
9.Footnotes
[pages 8-9, 12, 15, 19, 26, and 31-34 of Ordinance]
The footnote denoted by an asterisk (*) in the C, O, and IRT Districts is being deleted as it is
no longer needed based upon amendments adopted under Ordinance No. 8310-12. In
addition to the above, the remaining footnotes in the C District are needed for consistency
with the Countywide Plan Rules.
In the T District there are two footnotes being added. The first footnote allows the
establishment of Restaurant and/or Retail Sales and Services uses on those properties within
the boundaries of the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design without the provision
of off-street parking. This allowance is based upon language within Beach by Design
acknowledging that off-street parking is not envisioned to be provided on each individual
development site, but rather within a parking garage for the entire District. The second
footnote allows swimming pools/decks that are accessory to an Attached Dwellings,
Overnight Accommodations, or Resort Attached Dwellings use on Clearwater Beach to be
permitted with a rear setback of zero feet. This is based upon several development
applications over the years that have requested such flexibility despite the provision of such
an accessory element being widely accepted as a standard for the use, and further that its
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
location at the rear of the development is quite standard as a predominance of the properties
would have waterfront access or views.
In the IRT District there is one new footnote as well as amendments to two other footnotes.
The new footnote, for the new Bars use, occurs in the FLD tier and is needed for consistency
with the Countywide Plan Rules, and is consistent with the existing footnote for Nightclubs,
which this use was considered a part of previously. The first amendment to the footnotes
occurs with footnote (4) in the Minimum Standard tier and adds language that the Office use
is not permissible as a Minimum Standard use when located in the Industrial Limited (IL)
future land use plan category. This is based upon the following existing flexibility criterion
for Offices:
The proposed use of the parcel shall be related to the uses permitted in the district
and shall include, but not be limited to, office uses related to scientific or industrial
research, product development and testing, engineering development and marketing
development, corporate offices provided, however, that they do not provide services
or uses to the general public on the premises, and such other office uses, including
support services, as well as uses which are accessory to and compatible with the
permitted uses. Support services for the purposes of this zoning district shall be
defined as companies that supply services utilized wholly by other companies located
in this zoning district.
Given this existing language, it was determined that the Office use should have some level of
review to ensure compliance, and thus should not be permissible as a Minimum Standard use.
The second amendment to the footnotes occurs with footnote (8) in the FLS tier and simply
moves the second sentence of the footnote to the end in order to eliminate potential confusion
between the two future land use plan categories referenced.
Docks
10. [page 35 of Ordinance]
The proposed amendment will clarify what has always been standard practice, and what
already exists within the County’s Water and Navigation Regulations – that only one dock
structure is permitted for a single-family or two-family dwellings. The amendment also
provides language dealing with the event that two or more properties each already having a
dock are combined.
Fences and Walls
11. [pages 36-39 of Ordinance]
There are numerous changes/modifications to the CDC with regard to fences and walls, most
of which are minor in nature. These changes are as follows:
Section 3-801. The purpose and applicability statement is amended to delete the exception
language pertaining to earth/water retaining walls as these amendments adopt language
regarding such.
Section 3-804. This Section is amended to clarify the rules regarding the placement of
fences/walls. Language pertaining to “setbacks” or “yards” is deleted; thus clarifying that
fence heights are relative to the fences/walls location to the principal structure and not
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
relative to its location on the property. The exception provisions provided for corner lots and
double frontage lots are also amended to add exceptions for those properties adjacent to
arterial/collector rights-of-way. Language is also added regarding the maximum height for
retaining walls, and regarding the maximum height when combining/stacking fences, walls,
landscape berms or retaining walls.
Section 3-805. This Section is also amended to clarify the rules regarding the placement of
fences/walls as discussed previously. The language regarding vacant lots is revised to allow
an increase in the maximum height from three feet to six feet. A provision on “Publicly
owned landbanked properties” is relocated into this Section from Section 3-807.
Section 3-807. This Section is amended to delete the language regarding “Publicly owned
landbanked properties” as this language is being relocated into Section 3-805. The language
regarding subdivisions is also amended to allow for the installation of a six-foot high
fence/wall around the perimeter of a residential subdivision.
Tree protection
12. [page 39 of Ordinance]
The amendment will formally establish an expiration date for tree removal permits at six
months from the date of issuance, and allow for extensions to those permits.
Temporary Uses
13. [page 39 of Ordinance]
The amendment will establish a new temporary use, Temporary Buildings During
Construction. The purpose for this temporary use is to allow for businesses that are in the
midst of renovations to be able to bring temporary buildings onto the site and still be able to
function/operate. The amendment also establishes the criteria by which the use is allowed,
which includes the criterion that the temporary building is only allowable for the duration of
an active building permit and that the building(s) must be removed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion/Occupancy.
Definitions
14. [pages 41-42 of Ordinance]
Animal Grooming or Boarding uses – removes the references to grooming (grooming use
being included in the Retail Sales and Services definition). The definition will now only
pertain to the use of Animal Boarding.
Bars – establishes a definition for the new Bars use that is clearly district from the
definition of Nightclubs. One provision for the definition is that seating/tables must
account for at least 75% of the total gross floor area of the use.
Nightclubs – establishes a definition for the new Nightclubs use that is clearly district
from the definition of Bars.
Nightclubs, Taverns and Bars – this definition is deleted from the Code.
Retail Plazas – establishes a definition for the new Retail Plazas use, which is intended to
allow for a building or group of buildings partitioned into separate units and designed for
a variety of uses including Governmental, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment, Office,
Restaurant, Retail Sales and Services, and Social/Community Center that can be
interchanged without the need for a new approval each time the use changes. The
definition also allows for Bars, Medical Clinics, Nightclubs, and Places of Worship to be
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
incorporated into Retail Plazas subject to their approval through the applicable Level One
or Level Two approval process and meeting all respective flexibility criteria.
Retail Sales and Services – includes Animal Grooming among the uses under the
umbrella of Retail Sales and Services.
Temporary Buildings During Construction – establishes a definition for the new
temporary use that allows for a temporary building to be used to accommodate the
principal use of a property when said building is being renovated.
Vehicle Sales, Limited – adds the installation of accessories or audio equipment to the
uses under the umbrella of Limited Vehicle Sales.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Section 4-601, CDC, sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All
text amendments must comply with the following:
1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goals and Policy
which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Policy A.6.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site
plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development
and/or planned developments that are compatible.
These amendments are intended to simplify or clarify various development review processes,
and facilitate development activities. As such, the above referenced Policy of the
Comprehensive Plan will be furthered.
2.The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be
consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.
It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the
city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide
the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land
development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of
neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of
the city (Section 1-103.A., CDC).
It is the purpose of the Community Development Code to create value for the citizens of
the City of Clearwater by allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property
through innovative and creative redevelopment (Section 1-103.B.1., CDC).
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-06007 2012-07-17
The amendments proposed by this ordinance will further the above referenced purposes by
facilitating the establishment of certain new uses, and changes in use to certain uses in a
more expedient manner than currently possible under the Code, and by providing for more
readily attainable, more appropriate, and more internally consistent development standards.
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. 8349-12 that amends the Community Development
Code.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 8349-12
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-06006 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
CDB Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Number: TA2012-04005
Ordinance No.: 8343-12
Agenda Item: F. 3.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code – Ordinance Number
8343-12
INITIATED BY: Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
In 2009, the Clearwater Regional and Beach Chambers of Commerce established a Task Force of
the Clearwater Government Affairs Committee to create a forum to discuss issues and
ordinances that affect the two Chamber groups. The first undertaking of the Task Force was to
review the City’s sign ordinance. Their approach was to work with the City on a topic-by-topic
basis and the first topic brought forward was sandwich board signs. On September 17, 2009
draft regulations allowing sandwich board signs were presented to City Council for its
consideration. No action was taken as Council directed the Task Force to identify all desired
amendments and present them at one time.
On April 15, 2010, the City Attorney’s Office presented Ordinance No. 8158-10 to City Council
in response to an Order issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida addressing constitutional issues in two areas of the City’s sign code as a result of The
Complete Angler, LLC, et al. v. The City of Clearwater, Florida, Case No. 8:09-cv-346-T-
27EAJ. Specifically, the Court found that, as applied, the distinction between “art work” and
“sign” which turns on whether a painting or other work is displayed in connection with a
commercial enterprise is an impermissible restriction on non-commercial speech. Additionally,
the Court’s discussion of the exemption from permitting for “holiday decorations”, combined
with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250
th
(11 Cir. 2005), indicate that the current exemption could be construed by the Court as an
unconstitutional content-based provision. The City Attorney’s office determined that certain
amendments to the Community Development were appropriate in order to comply with the
Court’s Order and prevent further litigation regarding the issues.
City Council continued Ordinance No. 8158-10 to a date uncertain so the City to get input on the
ordinance. On May 3, 2010 Council authorized the City Attorney to hire Mr. William D.
Brinton, RogersTowers, P.A. as outside counsel to review the sign code and make
recommendations on any necessary amendments and to review proposed revisions by any
stakeholder groups.
The Chamber Task Force, in concert with representatives of the sign industry, submitted
proposed revisions to the Clearwater sign code in the summer 2010. The Planning and
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Development Department met multiple times with Chamber and industry representatives and
developed a list of proposed amendments which were presented to City Council for discussion
on April 18, 2011. At that meeting some general agreement and direction was provided. When
the Mayor’s Business Task Force was established in April 2011, Council requested that signage
be a topic of their discussion as well. Through that process, the Chamber and the Business Task
Force came to agreement on 17 recommendations for Council’s consideration and on September
28, 2011 City Council directed staff and the Business Task Force Executive Committee to meet
and discuss the recommendations and determine areas of agreement and disagreement. Staff and
the Task Force Executive Committee met on October 20,2011 to discuss the proposed
recommendations and on December 14, 2011 presented the final list to City Council. Direction
was provided at that meeting to prepare an ordinance that would address the issues of agreement
and to get input from the City’s outside legal counsel on several topics for consideration.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 repeals and replaces Article 3, Division 18 Signs of the
Clearwater Community Development Code in its entirety and includes amendments to Article 8,
Section 8-102, Definitions relating to signage. Amendments implement recommendations of the
Business Task Force/Chamber that City Council agreed to make, ones recommended by the
City’s outside legal counsel and City Attorney’s Office to address the order of The Complete
Angler case and other constitutional issues, as well as some revisions recommended by the
Planning and Development Department. The proposed revisions strike a balance between sign
function, aesthetics, and pedestrian and vehicular safety and implement the general principles
and purposes of the City’s sign regulations.
Accompanying the staff report is Ordinance No. 8343-12 and Exhibit 1 which is the proposed
new Division 18, Attachment 1, a strike-through and underlined version of Division 18
illustrating the changes proposed to the existing sign code, and Attachment 2 which lists the
Business Task Force recommendations, staff’s responses and how and where those
recommendations are addressed in the ordinance.
Proposed Amendments Addressing the Business Task Force Recommendations
Amendments addressing the recommendations of the Business Task Force primarily focus on
providing additional permanent signage and greater sign area for businesses and are outlined
below.
(see
New Formulas for Attached and Freestanding Sign Area in Non-residential Zoning District
Sections 3-1807.B.1, B.2 and B.3, pages 17-24 of Attachment 1)
To provide greater sign area to the business community through the building permit process
and to incentivize quality designed signs, two minimum standard options for attached signs
are proposed to replace the current formulas that limit attached signage to a minimum of 20
square feet and to a maximum of 24 square feet. One proposed option would permit a 24
square foot sign as of right regardless of building/lot size and sign type/design. The other
option would allow a sign area equal to three percent (3%) of the building façade up to 36
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
square feet provided certain sign types of a higher quality of design are proposed such as
channel letters mounted directly on the building, illuminated capsule signs, contour cabinet
signs, etc. The proposed ordinance would also permit businesses located on corner or through
lots to erect an attached sign on each façade fronting a right-of-way in compliance with the
above standards. Under the current code provisions, this additional sign would need to be
reviewed and approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. Examples of sign types
allowed through the three percent (3%) minimum standard option follow.
Channel Letters Mounted on Building
Contour Cabinet Sign
Channel Letters and Illuminated Capsule Sign
Oval Cabinet Sign
Cut Out Letter Attached to Building
Certain sign types would not be permitted though the three percent (3%) minimum standard
option as they do not present a high quality/attractive appearance, including
square/rectangular cabinet signs, raceway signs, and back-lit awnings. Below are examples
of such signs.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Raceway Sign
Rectangular Cabinet Signs
The same concept is also proposed for revising the formulas for freestanding signs in non-
residential zoning districts, including the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts. The
current formula allows one square foot per two linear feet of street frontage; one square foot
per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street; or 64 square feet (or 40 square feet in
D and T), whichever is less, with a minimum of 20 square feet. Proposed Ordinance No.
8343-12 creates two minimum standard options: the first allows one 24 square foot
freestanding sign per parcel of any design/sign type and the other allows one freestanding
sign up to three percent (3%) of the building façade or one square foot of signage for every
three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less but not exceeding 36 square feet. In order
to be eligible for this greater sign area, the sign design has to be consistent with or
complement the architecture of the building by incorporating a distinctive design or
architectural element used on the building in the sign structure, along with defining materials,
textures and color, etc. Corner/through lots have the option of erecting one freestanding sign
or two signs based on the same formula plus an additional 15 square feet. In the Downtown
(D) and Tourist (T) Districts, the proposed ordinance also increases the height of monument
signs from four feet to six feet as of right. Under the provisions of the current code,
businesses must file a Comprehensive Sign Program to erect a six foot monument sign.
Below are examples of freestanding signs that would meet the design criteria established in
Ordinance 8343-12.
Monument Sign
Free Standing Sign
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Monument Sign Monument Sign
The proposed amendments provide businesses owners with greater attached and freestanding
sign area as of right, greater sign height in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts as of
right, and provide business owners with choices based on their needs, desired sign types and
budget. These amendments will likely reduce the smaller business owner’s need to file a
Comprehensive Sign Program application, which will save the owner both time and money,
and still maintain the City’s aesthetic goals. These amendments will also reduce the amount
of staff time spent processing Comprehensive Sign Program applications.
Signage Allowed in Addition to Primary Attached and Freestanding Sign
Signs on Rear Facades (see Section 3-1807.B.3.d, page 23 of Attachment 1)
In addition to the new minimum standard options outlined above, businesses that have rear
facades facing parking lots with rear public entrances or facades with entrances fronting
Clearwater Harbor or Mandalay Channel will be permitted to erect a 16 square foot sign in
the vicinity of the entrance provided the sign is not erected on a raceway or is not a
square/rectangular cabinet sign. Under the current ordinance, such additional signage could
only be allowed through a Comprehensive Sign Program application.
Graphic Elements (see Section 3-1805.F, page 7 of Attachment 1)
Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 also provides businesses an opportunity to incorporate a
graphic element on an awning in addition to allowable attached signage provided the awning
is not back-lit and the graphic does not exceed 25% of the awning area or 16 square feet,
whichever is less. This provision is intended to allow businesses flexibility to provide an
attractive and interesting element to their building. In the event the business wants to include
both text and graphic element on the awning, it will be governed by the attached signs
provision. Below is an example that illustrates the intent of this provision even though the
graphic may exceed 25% of the surface area.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Sidewalk Signs (see Section 3-1807.4, pages 24 – 25 of Attachment 1)
The proposed ordinance allows sidewalk signs for retail and restaurant uses (excluding
accessory uses) throughout the city. Such signs can be 42 inches in height and 24 inches in
width (eight square feet) provided they are located within two feet of the building wall,
unless in the Cleveland Street Café District where a clear five foot path must be maintained
adjacent to the buildings. Certain design and construction standards are required to be met.
Signs must be constructed of durable wood/metal, have a frame that supports certain chalk
marker boards or professionally designed posters protected by a clear covering. Certain signs
are also prohibited such as plastic signs, white marker boards, signs with changeable copy
areas, etc. Staff is recommending that a permit be obtained on a yearly basis to ensure that
all signs meet the size and design criteria and that evidence of general liability insurance is
maintained for those signs located on the public right-of-way. Below are some examples of
the types of sidewalk signs that would be permitted and prohibited by the ordinance.
Acceptable Sidewalk Signs
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Prohibited Sidewalk Signs
The City has historically prohibited these types of signs due to the visual and physical clutter
they create and the Planning and Development Department does not support their use
throughout the city for those reasons. The Department is also concerned about the amount of
staff time it will take to administer, monitor and enforce the ordinance and believes when
enforcement actions take place, those who do not have a permit or have erected a sign that
does not meet the design criteria will view the City as business unfriendly. It should be
emphasized that this ordinance increases the amount of permanent signage a business can
have, as well as the amount of window sign area, which can be a place for temporary
messages like those typically displayed on sidewalks signs (see below). Furthermore,
attached menu signs are allowed by Division 18 and this ordinance increases the allowable
size from four square feet to six square feet.
Greater Flexibility for Window Signs and Grand Opening Signs (see Sections 3-1806.O and
3-1806.D.1, pages 8 and 12 of Attachment 1)
Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes revisions to the window sign provisions. Currently window
signs are restricted to eight square feet on any window area provided the total area of all
signs does not exceed 25% of the window area and no more than 24 square feet. This is
complicated to administer, limiting for businesses and cumbersome to enforce. The proposed
amendment would allow 25% of the total window area fronting a right-of-way to be used for
signage provided the total area of all signs on the window does not exceed 50 square feet.
Another substantive change proposed to the sign code increases the size of temporary grand
opening signs from 12 square feet to 24 square feet in order to provide more visibility to new
businesses.
Removal of Discontinued Signs (see Sections 3-1804.D and 8-102 – definition of sign,
discontinued, page 4 of Attachment 1 and page2 62 - 63 of Ordinance)
To be consistent with current practices, Ordinance No. 8343-12 increases the amount of time
that must lapse before a nonconforming sign has to be removed. Currently the Code requires
removal of such signs 30 days after a business closes or license expires. Staff has never
enforced in that amount of time as it is not reasonable. The proposed ordinance deletes the
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
definition and provision for abandoned signs and replaces it with discontinued signs and
increases the amount of time a business must be closed to 180 days before requiring its sign
to be removed. This is the same timeframe established in Community Development Code
Section 6-103 for determining when a nonconforming use has been discounted and lost its
right to be reestablished.
Non-substantive Amendments (see Sections 3-1804.P, 3-1806.A and I, pages 5, 8, and 10 of
Attachment 1)
The Business Task Force identified several non-substantive revisions which have been
included in Ordinance No. 8343-12 and address prohibited moving/revolving signs, the
orientation of freestanding menu signs at drive-throughs, and the size of address signs for
non-residential uses.
Topics Identified For Additional Input from the City’s Outside Legal Counsel (see Section 8-
102, page 66 of Ordinance)
The Planning and Development and Legal Departments consulted with the City’s outside
legal counsel on several issues as directed including signs on umbrellas, human signs and
vehicle signs. With regard to signs on umbrellas there are concerns about the impacts such
amendment could have if a content-based constitutional challenge was made so staff is not
recommending an allowance for such signs. Also no amendments are proposed to the human
sign provisions at this time. There may be options outside of the land development
regulations to better address the issue. Vehicle signs are currently prohibited by the Code,
however, a new definition is proposed to replace the current one to better articulate what
constitutes a vehicle sign to aid in enforcement efforts. The new definition specifies that the
sign area on the vehicle must exceed 10 square feet. It also requires that the vehicle not be
regularly used for business and be visible from a street right-of-way within 100 feet of the
vehicle and be parked for more than five consecutive hours within 100 feet from the right-of-
way.
Amendments Proposed by Staff/Outside Legal Counsel
To better position the city with regard to First Amendment issues and to address some desired
changes by the Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 8343-12 contains quite a
few amendments in addition to those recommended by the Business Task Force and are
summarized below.
Section 3-1803 – Exempt Signs (page 3 of Attachment 1)
As recommended by the City’s outside legal counsel, a new section is proposed to Division
18 which clarifies that certain types of signs are not regulated. These include traffic control
signs, those not visible from a right-of-way or navigable body of water, signs on cars, as well
as statutory signs.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Section 3-1804 – Prohibited Signs(pages 4 – 6 of Attachment 1)
Three substantive revisions are proposed to the prohibited section of the Code. While
Division 18 does not explicitly state billboards are prohibited, height, area and number
limitations preclude the use of such signs. Staff is recommending it appropriate to further
clarify the City’s intent by adding billboards to the prohibited sign section of the Code.
Because electronic changeable message signs are distracting and serve to degrade community
aesthetics, they are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18.
Current Code provisions could be clearer with regard to these signs; therefore electronic
changeable messages are proposed to be prohibited except in limited circumstances.
Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 clarifies they may be incorporated into menu signs
provided the message doesn’t change more frequently than once every three hours (to
accommodate changes in menu items e.g., breakfast, lunch and dinner) and they may
continue to be used on existing and legally nonconforming message signs which include
messages which change no more frequently than once every six hours and on signs that only
display time and temperature which changes once every 15 seconds.
Section 3-1805- General Standards(pages 6 - 8 of Attachment 1)
To be consistent with the general prohibition on electronic changeable message signs,
proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 eliminates Section 3-1805.F which currently allows time
and temperature signs. This deletion should not negatively impact the public as such signs
are somewhat obsolete since the majority of cars and cell phones provide this information.
Additionally a new section regarding the substitution of noncommercial speech for
commercial speech was added by the City’s outside legal counsel. The provision allows any
sign that contains a commercial message to be changed by the owner to a noncommercial
message provided the sign does not violate any sign regulations related to prohibited
signs/sign types, and provided that the manner or frequency of the changes does not violate
restrictions on electronic/illuminated signs and provided the sign being changed is in
compliance with all applicable dimensional criteria. This provision further strengthens the
City’s intent of protecting noncommercial speech.
Section 3-1806 – Signs Permitted Without a Permit(pages 8 – 15 of Attachment 1)
Many revisions are proposed to Section 3-1806 and most have been recommended by the
City’s outside legal counsel to strengthen the constitutionality of the Code. Amendments are
proposed to bring more consistency to the sizes allowed for various signs allowed without a
permit and to establish maximum sign heights for many temporary signs where the Code
currently does not provide one.
In response to issues raised in The Complete Angler case, artwork/architectural detail and
holiday decorations are being removed from the sign code as they are not signage.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Current provisions regulating temporary yard sign for political candidates/issues and a
temporary sign for no stated specific purpose are being replaced with free expression signs
and temporary election signs. A free expression sign is allowed to be three square feet in
area and a temporary election sign is proposed to be three square feet in area on residential
properties and 18 square feet on nonresidential property. Current code provisions allow six
square feet and 32 square feet respectively. The amendment revises those to better reflect
what is typically used within the community. Both types of signs can be erected for any
duration provided the temporary election sign is removed within seven days after the election
to which the sign pertains. Every property in the City will be permitted one free expression
sign and one election sign per candidate/issue no more than three square feet in area and four
feet in height on properties occupied by single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouses
units and six feet in height on all other property (see Section 3-1806.B, C and N.)
Amendments are proposed to the temporary construction sign regulations that increase the
amount of construction signage allowed for a multi-family use. A total of 32 square feet is
proposed consistent which is the amount allowed for nonresidential uses. A similar change is
proposed for temporary real estate signs. Multi-family properties are limited to a six square
foot real estate sign and the proposal increases it to 32 square feet to be consistent with the
nonresidential provisions. (see Sections 3-1806.F and M).
There has been confusion about how to interpret Section 3-1806.G which allows one or three
flags on a property and Section 3-1805.D which states a flag can be used as a permitted
freestanding or attached sign and if used has to be considered a sign for the purposes of
allowable sign area. In attempt to eliminate any confusion, a sentence is being added to
Section 3-1806.G that states the area of the flag in this instance (one – three flags) is not
included when determining sign area.
Staff has also included an increase in the size of drive-through menu signs set forth in
Section 3-1806.I from 16 to 24 square feet as menu signs are typically larger than 16 square
feet.
Sign regulations for marinas have been consolidated into one subsection and a new provision
has been added to allow a marina to erect directional signs. In particular this will assist the
Clearwater Beach Marina in providing the public better information regarding the location of
different activities/businesses located throughout the marina. The ordinance also proposes
increases to the allowable size of signs at the individual charter/commercial vessel slips from
four square feet to six square feet in size (see Section 3-1806.L).
Lastly adopt-a-park signs currently addressed in Section 3-1807.A.4 are being moved to
Section 3-1806.W and a new sign type is being added that allows the City to erect signs that
recognize funding sources (e.g., grants for various public amenities/improvements).
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Section 3-1807 - Permitted Signs Requiring Development Review (see pages 16, 17, 19, 22,
23, 26, and 27 of Attachment 1)
In addition to the amendments supported by the Business Task Force, staff is recommending
some amendments to bring internal consistency to the section, to address some specific
requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and to provide more
flexibility along U.S 19.
Currently Section 3-1807.A.3 provides for signs for schools and parks located in residential
zoning districts. Since schools and parks are also allowed in nonresidential districts the
existing section is being deleted and a new section is being established (Section 3-1807.C) to
regulate such signs. Staff is also proposing to increase the allowable height from five feet to
six feet to provide more design flexibility but still ensure a scale that is compatible in a
residential setting. Additionally there are sign allowances for resident equivalent uses such
as assisted living facilities, large residential group homes, nursing homes and congregate
facilities as the Code currently does not provide for such signage. One 24 square foot sign
six feet in height is proposed (see Section 3-1807.A.3).
In response to concerns articulated about recent construction changes on U.S. 19 and
decreased visibility as a result of those improvements, the Planning and Development
Department is proposing to revise Section 3-1807.B.1.i. The current provision allows sign
height to be measured at overpasses from the crown of the roadway. Staff is proposing to
revise this section to allow freestanding sign height to be measured from the top of the barrier
wall on the elevated roadway measured at its highest point adjacent to the sign location. The
Florida Department of Transportation is also adding barrier walls along the frontage roads
and in the centerline of U.S. 19 which will further impact business visibility. To mitigate the
impacts of these walls, Staff is recommending a provision be added that allows sign height to
be measured from the top of the wall adjacent to the property along the frontage road or
within the center of the right-of-way, whichever is higher.
In light of the fact the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan design guidelines have
some specific requirements regarding signage, Staff believes it is appropriate to incorporate
those standards into the Community Development Code to better inform the public of all
requirements that may impact a sign proposal in the Downtown area. Section 3-1807.B.2.g
has been added and specifies that only properties within the Downtown that have a building
setback of 20 feet or more are allowed to erect a monument sign and that manual changeable
copy area is restricted to 25% of any sign face area.
Due to the unique needs and characteristic of large entertainment facilities, Section 3-
1807.B.6 is being amended to clarify that electronic changeable message signs may be
erected by facilities located on publicly owned property that exceed 35 acres in area and
have 2000 seats provided such sign complies with existing criteria for changeable copy signs
erected on publicly owned property. Additionally, a new subsection is being added to
clearly recognize that that all signs may include an area for manually changeable copy
provided the sign meets all applicable area and design criteria.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Section 3-1808 – Comprehensive Sign Program (see pages 27 – 29 of Attachment 1)
Several substantive revisions are proposed to the Comprehensive Sign Program. Section 3-
1808.B.1 is revised to reflect that electronic changeable message signs, cabinet signs and
signs on raceway are not allowed sign types through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The
purpose of this amendment is to clearly articulate signs types which do not meet the “higher
quality of design” standards required for program thereby providing better direction for those
filing a Comprehensive Sign Program application. Section 3-1808.C.2 is also being
amended to allow for the potential of signs integrated into fences or walls that exceed six feet
in height on publicly owned property such as the library, City Hall, Coachman Park, etc. By
definition, signs placed on wall/fences are considered to be freestanding signs and in the
Downtown (D) and the Tourist (T) Districts such signs are limited to a maximum height of
six feet. Fences are an appropriate means of defining a public space in an attractive and
unique manner and providing for the possibility of signs integrated into such fences is an
appropriate use of the Comprehensive Sign Program.
Lastly Section 3-1807.C.4.a includes a new provision establishing a maximum sign area for
attached signs approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program. The current formula
allows signs up to 6% of a building façade on which the sign is attached. When applied to
structures with multiple stories the potential amount of signage is great; therefore Staff is
proposing to establish a maximum of 150 square feet unless at a regional mall where 300
square feet would be appropriate. These amounts were arrived at through a review of
existing approved CSPs for larger projects.
Section 3-1809 - Severability (see pages 29 – 30 of Attachment 1)
To better assist in upholding and sustaining as much of the City’s sign ordinance as possible,
a new section entitled Severability is proposed. While there is a severability provision in
Section 1-107 of the Community Development Code, outside legal counsel is recommending
one be specifically added to Division 18 to ensure severability provisions apply to the
maximum extent possible.
Section 8-102 – Definitions (see pages 62 - 67 of Ordinance)
Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes a number of additions and deletions to the definition section
of the Community Development Code to fully implement revisions proposed to Article 3,
Division 18 Signs. In order to address The Complete Angler order, a revised definition of
artwork is proposed and a definition for holiday decoration has been added. The definition of
sign is also amended to specifically indicate a sign does not include artwork or
holiday/seasonal decorations (see page 61 of Ordinance).
Definitions are also proposed for graphic element and other types of signage such as cabinet
sign, raceway sign, garage-yard sale sign, machinery or equipment sign, construction sign,
safety sign, statutory signs, and traffic control device sign. Temporary sign is proposed to be
deleted and replaced with election sign and free expression sign, which is defined as a sign
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 12
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
that provides information on matters of public policy or concern or any other lawful
noncommercial speech. A new expanded definition of construction sign is proposed to
clarify the purpose of such signs. Abandoned sign is proposed to be eliminated and
discontinued sign added which is a sign that advertises a product/service no longer available,
a business no longer licensed, which is blank or advertises a business no longer doing
business for a period of 180 days (implementing one of the Business Task Force
recommendations). A definition of sidewalk sign is replacing the sandwich board sign
definition and is broader in scope to reflect the increased design options for signs made to be
placed upon sidewalks.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Section 4-601, CDC, sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All
text amendments must comply with the following:
1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goals, Objectives
and Policies which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Goal A.3 The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment
initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City
through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code
The general principles and purposes of Division 18 recognize that safety
and community appearance are of paramount interest to the City of
Clearwater and all regulations contained in Ordinance No 8343-12
implement those purposes and principles. Appropriate sign regulations
are critical in creating a safe and attractive environment. New formulas
for attached and freestanding signs are reasonable and provide options
that incentivize the use of quality and attractive signs. Due to safety and
aesthetic concerns, the prohibited section of the code is being amended to
clarify that certain signs, including billboards and electronic message
signs and billboards do not meet the safety and aesthetics needs of the
City. The Comprehensive Sign Program, which is a design based
program, is being further strengthened by prohibiting the use of certain
sign types that have been determined to not meet the higher quality of
design standards. And the ordinance is providing for the use of graphic
elements on awnings in addition to allowable sign area due to the
aesthetic benefits such graphics can provide.
Objective A.3.1 All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the
Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code,
and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of
the streetscape.
Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 includes amendments which balance
business need to have effective signage with the City’s need to have a safe
and attractive environment. Allowable sign area is proposed to be
increased in a reasonable manner to aid business identification. Two
minimum standard options for determining allowable sign area are being
established and one allows greater sign area but requires attractive and
quality designed signs that will have a positive impact on the visual
environment thus furthering the City’s goal of maintaining an attractive
visual and business environment. Prohibiting billboards, signs that move,
revolve, rotate, etc., and other distracting signs, including electronic
changeable message signs, in conjunction with reasonable limits on sign
area, height and location will greatly aid in minimizing and preventing
visual clutter, enhancing safety and maintaining an attractive community.
Policy A.3.1.1 Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the
proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for
highway safety, and to allow the identification of business locations.
Proposed Ordinance No. 8343-12 establishes reasonable sign area
parameters and limits such area to one permanent attached sign and one
freestanding sign, unless located on a corner or through lot. By limiting
the number of such signs to one, the regulations greatly discourage visual
clutter. Having design based approvals like the new three percent
minimum standard option and the Comprehensive Sign Program, greatly
promotes community aesthetics and provides businesses with greater sign
area to better identify their business location.
Policy A.3.1.2 Proliferation of billboards along major collector and arterial streets shall
be prevented as is currently provided.
While the current Division 18 precludes the use of billboards through its
sign area, number, and height regulations, Ordinance No. 8343-12
directly implements this policy by adding billboards to the Prohibited
Signs section of the sign ordinance (Section 3-1804).
Policy A.3.1.3 Sign identification of City parks and buildings shall be used as a positive
example of aesthetic and legible site identification.
The proposed ordinance establishes new regulations for freestanding sign
at parks in any zoning district whereas the current Code only provides for
them in residential zoning districts. The ordinance also increases the
allowable sign height to provide more design options which will enhance
the appearance and legibility of such signs.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
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 amendments will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be
consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.
It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the
city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide
the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land
development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of
neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of
the city (Section 1-103.A., CDC).
It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make beautification of the city a
matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in
the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(Section 1-103.D, CDC).
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 (Section 1-103.E.2, CDC).
Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the
resident and tourist population consistent with the city’s economic underpinnings.
(Section 1-103.E.5, CDC).
Coordinate the provisions of this Development code with corollary provisions related to
parking, fences and walls, signs, minimum habitable area and like supplementary
requirements designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for
the use of land and water within the city (Section 1-103.E.12, CDC).
The amendments proposed in Ordinance No. 8343-12 will further the above referenced
purposes by implementing the Comprehensive Plan policies related to signage,
establishing a regulatory framework that limits the heights, size, number and setback of
signs in a manner that promotes vehicular and pedestrian safety, reduces clutter which
enhances community character and creates an attractive built environment which
contributes to the economic stability of the City.
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, except the provision for sidewalk signs. Based upon the above, the Planning
APPROVAL
and Development Department recommends of Ordinance No. 8343-12 which
amends the Community Development Code with the exception of the sidewalk sign provisions.
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2012-04005 2012-07-17
Alternatively, the Planning and Development Department recommends revising the ordinance to
allow sidewalk signs only in traditional urban corridors where businesses do not have space to
have freestanding signs and to limit the visual impact of such signs on the community.
Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff:
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning &
Development Director
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 8343-12
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 8343-12
Attachment 1 – Strikethrough/Underlined Version of Division 18
Attachment 2 – Business Task Force Recommendations and Staff Responses
Community Development Board – July 17, 2012
TA2012-04005 – Page 16
O
Clearwater
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting(Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes X No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2012-05011 —425/441 East Shore Drive
Yes x No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes No
S.\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012doc
O
,_
jeaater_ ,....„........„„
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting(Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No x
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2012-05011 —425/441 East Shore Drive
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes No X
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
v.
O
} lc eamater
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting(Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-04009/PLT201 04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2012-05011 —425/441 st Shore Drive
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Man lay Avenue
Yes No
S.(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEb/O 2012.doc
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: CPA2O12-04001 —Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
2. Case: TA2O12-06007—Amendments to the Community Development Code
3. Case: TA2O12-04005—Amendments to the Community Development Code
I have conrlu,t d a •,min ti_atioAon Le •ersonal site visit to the followink properties.
Signature:
!IV
Date: ' r
PRINT NAME k) C L0CJ� (f
S.\Planning Depart nentIC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI20 12107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
t
LL
o
ajter
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12, 2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD201 2-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued fro • • July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Cas• : 01,-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
No
Level Two A, I 'cations Items 1-2
1. Case: ' 02012-15! 1 —425/441 East Shore Drive
Ye No
2. Case: FL • 2/i5010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes No
S.(Planning DepartmentIC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
s
I
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: CPA2012-04001 -Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
2. Case:TA2012-06007-Amendments to the Community Development Code
3. Case: TA2012-04005-Amendments to the Community Development Code
I have condo a per 0 nal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: ---7
Tr co � Date: 2O CZ CI l
PRINNAME
S:\Planning DepartmentIC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
LL
} earwa er
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes x No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case:FLD2012-05011—425/441 East Shore Drive
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes No
S.\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: CPA2012-04001 —Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
2. Case: TA2012-06007—Amendments to the Community Development Code
3. Case: TA2012-04005—Amendments to the Community Development Code
I have conducted a r rson• • vestigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: / Date: 7//4-//2. i
'--PRINT NA&LF4-ril<-
E
S.(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
1eaater
0
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting(Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
Yes No V
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD2012-0501 1 —425/441 East Shore Drive
Yes V No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes V No
S.(Planning DepannentkC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: CPA2012-04001 —Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
2. Case: TA2012-06007—Amendments to the Community Development Code
3. Case: TA2012-04005—Amendments to the Community Development Code
I have conducted a I'rsonal investihatio on the personal site visit to the followi ' properties.
Signature: �` �� , •� _ — .- Date: --74 1
PRINT NAM
S:APlanningDepartnent\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBl2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
--wp
O
C1e.arWater
, e
_ ........................................-...........-..................____
U
........._e_..._.............._s....„_„........„..,.....,._
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 July 17,2012
DATE: July 12,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 19,2012
Agenda
Request to Continue to the August 21, 2012 meeting(Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-06014—407 South Arcturas Avenue
Continued from the July 17,2012 meeting (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD`2012-04009/PLT2012-04001 —2881 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
12
Yes v No
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2)
1. Case: FLD20,12-0/5011 —425/441 East Shore Drive
Yes V No
2. Case: FLD2012-05010—385 Mandalay Avenue
Yes v No
S.Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc
Level Three Applications (Items 1-3)
1. Case: CPA2012-04001 —Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
2. Case: TA2012-06007—Amendments to the Community Development Code
3. Case: TA2012-04005—Amendments to the Community Development Code
I have conducted a •'rson l invest;tion on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: ��.J� Date: 7//6h Z
W g•1j 4 • Gtk) CCz.Z
PRINT NAME
S:1Planning DeparhnentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12012107 July 17,201211 Cover MEMO 2012.doc