10/16/2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 16, 2012
Present: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch, Member Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson,
Member Brian A. Barker, Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough, Acting
Member Donald van Weezel
Absent: Vice-Chair Thomas Coates
Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie
Dougall-Sides, Planning & Development Assistant Director Gina Clayton, Development
Review 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: September 18, 2012
Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of September 18, 2012, as submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following case is not contested by the applicant,
staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single
vote at the beginning of the meeting: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2012-05012 - 716 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: Robin & Gail Selby
Agent: Rick Miller, Atlantic Pool Builders. (13665 East Bay Drive, Largo, FL
33771; phone: 727-595-1142).
Location: 0.15 acre located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately
120 feet north of Acacia Street.
Atlas Page: 258A
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new swimming
pool and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of two
feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a
Community Development 10/16/2012 1
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-204.E.
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association, Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2012-05012 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,
with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2012-00001 Appellant: Amscot Corporation
Agent: R. Donald Mastry, Esquire, Trenam Kemker (200 Central Avenue, Suite
1600, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-824-6140; email:
dmastry@trenam.com).
Request: An appeal of an administrative interpretation of Section 8-102,
Community Development Code, with regard to the definition of problematic use
as it pertains to Amscot.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
See Exhibits: Staff Report APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
City Letter to Amscot APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
Member Barker moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Development Review Manager Robert Tefft reviewed the Staff Report and the City’s
August 28, 2012 letter, responding to Amscot Corporation assertions.
Amscot Corporation representative Attorney Don Mastry said while staff classifies
Amscot as a check cashing center, the Code does not define the term. He reviewed
services Amscot provides in addition to cashing checks. He said the City does not
categorize banks, credit unions, and grocery stores as check cashing centers even
Community Development 10/16/2012 2
though they also cash checks. He said this classification is arbitrary, capricious and
classifies Amscot as a problematic use, described by Code as “typically
characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of
neighborhood deterioration or urban blight.” He said Amscot stores in Clearwater
are well maintained, well lit and exhibit none of those characteristics. He said
Amscot’s trade association and form of regulation should not influence the business’
classification. He said the City’s position is unconstitutional.
Mr. Tefft said Amscot did not respond to staff’s request to submit an alternative Code
use to consider; the Code has no alternative classification for this business. He
discussed locations where problematic uses are permitted. All previous Amscot
applications were for check cashing businesses. He said a court needs to consider
constitutional issues. In response to questions, Mr. Tefft said there is another check
cashing business on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. He did not know if arrests had occurred
due to illegal activity near Amscot locations.
Discussion ensued regarding Amscot locations in Clearwater and the CDB’s
(Community Development Board) approval of the Highland Avenue store.
Mr. Mastry said Amscot had met its burden of proof to be granted this appeal. He said
the Ordinance is flawed and needs to be updated to reflect industry changes since the
Code’s adoption. He said problematic uses, such as pawn shops and tattoo parlors, do
not offer a range of other services nor do other businesses pawn items or provide
tattoos. He said Amscot has caused no trouble during its 12 years in Clearwater.
Discussion ensued with comments that industries change over time and the Highland
Avenue location does not appear to be problematic. Concern was expressed the City
pigeonholed Amscot in the narrow category of check cashing when it provides a range
of money services. It was stated a literal reading of the Code does not support staff’s
decision. It was felt convenience stores attract activities that exhibit problematic use
concerns in the Code more than Amscot does. It was commented that Amscot offices
are clean and do not attract problematic activity.
In response to questions, Mr. Tefft said the Code does not list every possible use. Staff
determines which category best reflects a business’ operation; the check cashing
category best fits the type of business that Amscot operates. Amscot is not regulated
as a bank and cannot be classified as one.
Community Development 10/16/2012 3
In response to questions, Board Attorney Gina Grimes said the CDB is asked to
determine if the proposed use meets the Code's definition of a problematic use. She
said the board's decision will not set precedent as it will be based on the application,
facts, and evidence presented in this particular case.
Member Dame moved to grant the appeal for Case APP2012-00001, and reverse the
Staffs development order denying the application based on the evidence and testimony
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby make
the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: City staff misinterpreted the
definition of a problematic use in Code Section 8-102, this decision is in harmony with
the general intent and purpose of this development code, and this decision will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and hereby issue the
Conclusions of Law that the application complies with City Code Section 8-102 as it is
not a problematic use. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, Adelson,
Hinrichs, and Carlough, Acting Member van Weezel, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye";
Member Barker voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
It was requested that Article III of the board's Rules and Regulations be updated to
indicate that the most senior board member present at the meeting shall assume the
Chair's duties when the Chair and Vice Chair are absent.
F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m.
' / 41111111/0„,,4
•
C air
Atte Community Development Board
Board Ri ••der
Community Development 10/16/2012 4
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney: Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: October 11,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD220012-05012—716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes V No
2. Case: APP20012-00001
Yes ✓ No
I have conducted a g rsonal investi!ati m n on the r ersonal site visit to the ollowin! •ro s ernes.
Signature: ,. J. - _ C
Date: /0--/
64)1 6.0 tot s C r��scA-
PRINT NAME
S: Planning Department,(D B!.lgend. DR('X CDB'CDBt21112110(kiober 16.2012 1(over 11E110 2012.doc
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
DATE: October 11, 2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2012-05012 —716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No
I have conducted personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Ottit Date: /06/�
g( 7 AA1 ,4 z-�jn�C►
PRINT NAME
S Planning Department∎(1)B'-lgenda.el)R('(k: (7(B'('1)B?0/2 /0 October 16.201 1 Cover 111..110?01?.do(
LL
0, 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
DATE: October 11,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2012-05012—716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No X
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Date: /0/15/12
�N A-A Tyr IQ
PRINT NAME
s Planning/)epartmen(i 1)B'.-Igenclns DR(' (.DB(7)8 2612',l0 October/6.20/2 1('over 118(to 2012.do(
c: Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: October 11,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2012-05012 —316 Eldorado Avenue
Yes No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No
1
I have conduce a ersong1!invest ation on a personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: z ��, , 2�-'� -'
Date: C (
t\ y
, 6
PRINT NAME
S Planning l)epari nenl 1.1)13 Igentlii,1)R( COB C1)BP2012'J0 Oclnber l6-2012 l('orrr 11E110 201 2.doc
LL
}
çater
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
DATE: October 11, 2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FFLD2012-05012 —716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes '✓ No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No
I have conducted a • tzrrff/lin,_,sti!anon on the rersonal site visit to the ollowin! pro rerties.
VRAPZIak
Signature: Date: G7) L.--
� r
PRINT NAME
�'� Planning Depariment C'D B'.-Igendu.c DR('S(7)B(1)13.2012.10 Weber/6 2012 1('over 1IF410 2012.doc
Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: October l 1,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2012-05012— 716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No
I have conducted a erso it investi, on on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature:
Date: /0/(r/ 2
DINT NAM E
C Planning Department d'1)B'_1genJa'I>R(' (7)B('DB 20/2/0 October/6 2012 1('over 111-.110 2012.doc
Ll
y
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
DATE: October 11,2012
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting September 18,2012
Agenda
Level Two Applications (Items 1-2
1. Case: FLD2012-05012— 716 Eldorado Avenue
Yes No
2. Case: APP2012-00001
Yes No
I have conducted a pers nal iv - lion on the personal site visit to the followin properties.
-' (
Signature: Date: ,
PRINT NAME
S Planning L>eparanent',('1)13 lgendccr 1)R( A (Z)B('1)11 2012 /0 October Ili 2012 1(over.11F.11(3 2012_Jo�
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
CDB Meeting Date: October 16, 2012
Case Number: FLD2012-05012
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner: Robin and Gail Selby
Agent: Rick Miller, Atlantic Pool Builders
Address: 716 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of an
accessory swimming pool, deck and waterfall feature for an
existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of
two feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is
allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.
ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Detached Dwelling
Proposed: Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Preservation (P) District
Water
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 120
feet north of Acacia Street. The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Land to the
west is zoned Preservation (P) District and is the Gulf of Mexico.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct a pool, deck and waterfall feature on the west side of the house. The
entire pool and waterfall feature are to be located underneath the existing overhang of the second
floor living space. This request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
FLD2012-05012 – Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
requested reduction to the side (west) setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL) for the pool, decking and waterfall feature. Pursuant to Section 3-905.C.2., Community
Development Code (CDC), any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be
considered through a Level Two development process.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is
discussed below:
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-201.1, CDC, within the
Residential Urban (RU) future land use plan category, the maximum allowable density is 7.5
units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one dwelling unit is allowed and
therefore, the proposed density is in compliance.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-201.1,
CDC, within the RU future land use plan category, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The site
is in compliance as an ISR of 0.42 is proposed.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204, CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill
Projects shall have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five feet,
and a rear setback between zero and 15 feet. However, these development standards are
guidelines and may be varied from. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of two feet with
no reductions to front or side setbacks, which is consistent with the above referenced setbacks.
The reduction in the rear setback allows for development consistent with the surrounding and
emerging development pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in the vicinity have or
appear to have zero-foot setbacks from the CCCL. A setback of zero feet from the CCCL to an
in-ground pool and deck was approved for 974 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2010-11031), 740
Eldorado Avenue (FLD2009-10040), 1000 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2011-01002) and for 1154
and 1160 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004). Existing pools and decks to the north of the
subject property are set back zero feet from the CCCL based upon surveys provided for
FLD2010-11031 (926 and 920 Eldorado). In addition, a review of aerial photographs depicts
several existing waterfront properties in the vicinity that appear to have structures with setbacks
of zero feet from the CCCL, including: 14 Somerset Street, 9 Cambria Street, 724, 734, 740, 770,
800, 804, 856, 880, 920, 926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970 and 1002 Eldorado Avenue. Therefore,
the rear setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront
detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the existing and emerging development
pattern.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-903.H.1, CDC, air conditioning and similar
mechanical equipment is exempt from the side setback requirements, but such equipment must
be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Outside pool equipment is to be
located to the rear of the dwelling out of view from Eldorado Avenue. There exists a six-foot
wood fence along the north and south property lines shielding view of the equipment from
adjacent properties, which is consistent with the above.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
FLD2012-05012 – Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the proposed detached dwelling with the standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204, CDC:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/ac (1 unit) 6.6 du/ac (1 unit) X
ISR 0.65 0.42 X
Minimum Setbacks Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: two feet (to pool deck) X 1
1
See analysis in setback discussion above
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-204.E.,
CDC (Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity
or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-14.A., CDC:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
FLD2012-05012 – Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 6, 2012, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue
approximately 120 feet north of Acacia Street;
2.That the subject property is currently developed with a single-family detached dwelling;
3.That the development proposal is to add a pool, deck and waterfall feature to an existing
single-family detached dwelling;
4.That the entire pool and waterfall feature will be located underneath the existing overhang of
the second floor living space;
5.That the development proposal requires a rear setback of two feet from the Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL) to pool deck;
6.That pursuant to Section 3-905.C.3, CDC, any requests to modify setback requirements from
the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and
7.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204, CDC;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
204.E., CDC; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A., CDC.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application for the construction of an accessory swimming pool, deck
and waterfall feature for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of two feet (to Coastal
Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. subject to the following
conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design and colors of the pool, deck and waterfall be consistent with the
elevations approved by the CDB;
2.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles as per Section 3-
904.B., CDC;
3.That pool and deck not be constructed higher than 12 inches above existing grade;
4.That pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; and
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
FLD2012-05012 – Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-05012 2012-10-16
5.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the
provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an
adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the
developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the
needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required,
then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Matt Jackson, Planner II
Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
FLD2012-05012 – Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
CDB Meeting Date: October 16, 2012
Case Number: APP2012-00001
Agenda Item: E. 1.
Appellant: Amscot Corporation
Agent: R. Donald Mastry, Esquire, Trenam Kemker
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST:An appeal of an administrative interpretation of Section 8-102, Community
Development Code, with regard to the definition of problematic use as it
pertains to Amscot.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
Earlier this year Amscot representatives met with Planning and Development Department staff to
discuss relocating from their current location at 922 Missouri Avenue to 1227 Missouri Avenue.
Staff informed Amscot that the proposed use was considered to be a “problematic use” and that,
as such; the proposed location would not meet the applicable criteria for approval as it would be
adjacent to another property with a residential designation in the Zoning Atlas. Amscot
questioned the applicability of the problematic use definition to their business, and on July 26,
2012, the Department received a letter from their attorney, R. Donald Mastry, Trenam Kemker,
formally requesting an interpretation of the Clearwater Community Development Code (CDC)
that Amscot would not be considered to be a problematic use at the 1227 Missouri Avenue
location (copy attached).
On August 28, 2012, an interpretation pertaining to Amscot (in general and not just limited to an
individual location) being a problematic use was issued. A copy of this interpretation is attached
to this staff report.
On September 10, 2012, an appeal of this interpretation was received by the Planning and
Development Department. The basis of this appeal, as stated by the appellant in their
application, is that, in part, the City considers Amscot to be a “check cashing center,” but does
not define such a term; that Amscot does more than cash checks; that banks/credit unions cash
checks but are not found to be “check cashing centers;” and that this is an arbitrary application of
the definition of problematic use to Amscot.
The City has made clear its position on these matters in our determination letter of August 28,
2012, in that it appears that Amscot wants to establish two positions. For the purpose of this
appeal, they wish to be associated with banks/credit unions; however for all other business
purposes a very clear line has been drawn between Amscot (and other financial service
centers/money service businesses) and banks/credit unions.
APPEAL PROCESS:
The appeal from the aforementioned determination was filed on by R. Donald Mastry, Esquire,
of the law firm Trenam Kemker, on behalf of the appellant, Amscot Corporation, on September
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
APP2012-00001 - Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
10, 2012, consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to be initiated in Section 4-
502.B., CDC. Pursuant to Section 4-501.A.1., CDC, the Community Development Board (CDB)
has the authority to hear appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by
an administrative official in the administration of the development code.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation
of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5., CDC,
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1.The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of
this development code; and
2.The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this development code; and
3.The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning and Development Director
Attachments:
Letter received July 26, 2012 from R. Donald Mastry, Trenam Kemker requesting an interpretation
Letter of interpretation dated August 28, 2012
Community Development Board – October 16, 2012
APP2012-00001 - Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT: City Letter to Amscot APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
August 28, 2012
R. Donald Mastry
Trenam Kemker
200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Re: Amscot Corporation
1227 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
Dear Mr. Mastry:
This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of the Clearwater Community Development Code
(CDC) regarding Amscot being classified as a Problematic Use, and more specifically as it relates to the
proposed Amscot (re)location at 1227 South Missouri Avenue.
As you stated in your letter, the City of Clearwater defines a problematic use as “commercial retail and service
uses, including but not limited to, day labor, tattoo parlors, body piercing, pawn shops, check cashing centers
and blood plasma centers which are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other
indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight.” The City has consistently applied this definition to,
and classified Amscot as a Problematic Use. While our position on Amscot being a Problematic Use has not
changed, it should be noted that the City has supported proposals to establish new Amscot branches when they
have met the applicable flexibility criteria, such as with the Amscot branches at 922 South Missouri Avenue and
2760 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
In your letter you also state that Amscot is similar to a bank or credit union; however the Amscot website makes
great effort to distinguish itself from both banks and credit unions
(www.amscotfinancial.com/financial/pages/services.htm) in the following excerpt:
We can cash virtually any check for any amount, including personal, payroll, insurance and bank checks. In
addition, we can also cash money orders, traveler’s checks, government checks and out-of-state checks. And
the best part is, while banks and credit unions will often “hold” the funds until the check clears, we don’t. We
give you cash up front without waiting for the check to clear the bank or credit union.
The Amscot website also lists and discusses check cashing (described as “financial services”) before all of the
other services that Amscot provides. It is even the first service they themselves
EXHIBIT: City Letter to Amscot APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
list when describing their business (www.amscotfinancial.com/financial/pages/ourCompany.htm).
Additionally, Amscot is a member of several trade associations, including the Community Financial Services
Association of America (CFSA), which is “the national trade association for companies that offer small dollar,
short-term loans or payday advances” (cfsaa.com/about-cfsa.aspx). It should be noted that while CFSA counts
Amscot among their members (cfsaa.com/about-cfsa/2012-cfsa-corporate-members.aspx), they do not count
any bank or credit union.
A further trade association to which Amscot is a member is the Financial Service Centers of America (FiSCA),
which describes itself as “the national trade association representing America’s expanding financial service
centers industry.” The current financial and other consumer services offered by FiSCA members include:
check cashing; debit cards; money orders; pre-paid card based savings accounts; money transfers; ATM access;
electronic bill payment services; DMV license plates and title pick-up; small dollar, short-term loans (i.e.,
payday advances); and electronic tax preparation and filing
(www.fisca.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutFISCA/FAQs/default.htm#what_is).
FiSCA also differentiates financial service centers from financial institutions in the frequently asked questions
(FAQ) sections of their website as follows (same reference as above):
Q: Why do people choose to use financial service centers instead of banks or credit unions?
A: Consumers choose to utilize Financial Service Centers because the products and services offered by them
match their needs and they are highly satisfied with the way in which their transactions are conducted. The
products and services provided by FiSCA members fill a niche that financial institutions have chosen not to fill.
The Financial Service Center industry has been successful because it satisfies the most fundamental needs of its
customers. These are:
Liquidity
Many low-and-moderate-income individuals and families live paycheck to paycheck and do not have the means
to leave their hard-earned money in a bank account. Financial service centers allow customers to access
100% of presented funds instantly, without having to wait for the funds to clear, thereby bringing them
immediate liquidity.
Access (Convenience)
Low-and-moderate-income consumers need access to financial services in the communities where they live and
work. As a result of demanding lifestyles, consumers need to conduct financial transactions where and when it
is convenient, and in a safe environment where they feel comfortable and respected. Financial service centers
maintain stores in the communities where these consumers live and work, offering flexible hours (many 24/7),
cashiers
EXHIBIT: City Letter to Amscot APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
who speak the languages of the community, and who understand customers’ needs and concerns.
Service
Financial service center representatives deliver quick, courteous and personalized service to customers with
each financial transaction. In addition to the financial services listed above, Financial Service Centers also
offer helpful products like transit system access cards, stamps and more.
Transparency
Low and moderate-income consumers need to manage tight budgets and cannot be subject to surprise fees and
incomprehensible charges. When money is tight, an unexpected charge can be catastrophic. Unlike banks and
credit unions, all fees charged by financial service are posted and known up front – there are no surprises. All
fees are paid at the time of the transaction, at the point of sale.
Further, financial service centers that meet one or more of the definitions of a type of Money Services Business
(MSB) (i.e., check cashing) are designated as MSBs and must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act requirements
as applicable. An MSB is classified by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the United
States Department of the Treasury as a “non-bank financial institution for the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act
(BSA).” (www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/amimsb.html)
…the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31: Money and Finance: Treasury, specifically excludes MSBs from
its definition of bank
(ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=3dedf5399ca3c1d8a6be14f9a322ca96;rgn=div5;view=text;
node=31%3A3.1.6.1.2;idno=31;cc=ecfr#31:3.1.6.1.2.1.3.1), and specifically includes check cashing in its
definition of MSBs.
Based upon all of the above, we reaffirm our position that Amscot is neither a bank nor a credit union, but is a
check cashing center, and therefore is also a problematic use.
It should also be noted that when the application proposing the Amscot located at 2760 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
was originally submitted in 2005, it was proposed as a Problematic Use. The application materials provided by
the applicant make no objection whatsoever to Amscot being considered a Problematic Use. I note this
because you were the applicant for this proposal, and because it appears that Amscot only has objection to being
considered a Problematic Use when the City is not supportive of their proposed location.
In addition to the above, I do have a couple of points of clarification with regard to references made in your
letter. As you indicated, the Amscot located at 1874 North Highland Avenue was found by the Community
Development Board (CDB) (on July 19, 2005) not to be a Problematic Use. While this is correct, it should be
noted that this approval was “limited to this specific use and this specific site, and that this approval is not
transferrable”. It should also be noted that the same Board approved another Amscot at 2760 Gulf to Bay
Boulevard as a Problematic Use on January 17, 2006. Therefore, it is possible that the Board no longer held
the same opinion on
EXHIBIT: City Letter to Amscot APP2012-00001 2012-10-16
Amscot not being a Problematic Use as they did not make the same finding as they had done just six months
prior.
Also, your letter references one Amscot location sharing a site with a credit union and that both facilities have
similar appearances. While you do not specify which Amscot you are referring to, it can be assumed that you
mean the Amscot at 2760 Gulf to Bay Boulevard as the other three Amscot locations do not share a site with a
credit union and MacDill Federal Credit Union was originally proposed to be a part of this development site.
However, the building that would have housed MacDill Federal Credit Union was never constructed. As such,
this Amscot location does not, and could not possibly, have an appearance even remotely similar to that of the
nonexistent credit union.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (727) 562-4561, or via email at
michael.delk@myclearwater.com.
Respectfully,
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning and Development Director