The URL can be used to link to this page

12/18/2012COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER December 18, 2012 Present: Vice-Chair Thomas Coates, Member Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson, Member Brian A. Barker, Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough, Acting Member ponald van Weezel Absent: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch Also Present: Attorney for the Board Morris Massey, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Planning & Development Director Michael Delk, 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 Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: Chair Fritsch Vice Chair Coates Members Adelson Barker Carl__o_uqh, Dame Hinrichs, Alternate Member van Weezel, City Staff C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: November 20 2012 Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of November 20, 2012, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The followinq cases are not contested bv the applicant, staff, neiqhborinq property owners, etc. and will be approved by a sinqle vote at the beqinninq of the meetinq: (Items 1-4) 1. Case: FLD2012-10019 - 2100 Nurser Road Level Two Application Owner: Imperial Gardens Co. Aqent: Chris Weddle, P.E., Aurora Civil Enqineerinq, Inc. (610 E. Morqan Street, Brandon, FL 33510; phone: 813-643-9907; email: chris(a�auroracivil.com) Location: 12.16-acre aarcel on the north side of Nurserv Road. aaaroximatelv 405 feet west of Belcher Road Atlas Paqe: 316B Zonina: Medium Hiah Densitv Residential (MHDRI District Request: Flexible Develo ment a�plication to permit the expansion of a arking lot servinq existinq attached dwellinqs in the Medium Hiqh Density Residential �MHDR) District with a front (south) setback of 1.5 feet (to pavement) where 10 Community Development 12/18/2012 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, as a Residential Infill Proiect under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-404. F. Existinq Use: Attached Dwellinqs Neiqhborhood Associations: Imperial Park HOA, Clearwater Neiqhborhoods Coalition Presenter: Matthew Jackson. Planner II See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 See page 4 for motion of approval. 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 - 45 Papaya Street Level Two Application Owner: John and Christina Pimenidis Aqent: Alex Azan; The Sustainability Group, Inc. (4124 Headsail Drive, New Port Richey, FL 34652; phone: 727-488-1002; email: alxazan(a�qmail.com) Location: 0.064-acre parcel at the southwest corner of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue Atlas Paqe: 267A Zoninq: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 522 square-feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 2,799 square-feet; lot width of 60 feet; a front (north) setback of 3.5 feet (to patio� and five feet to buildinq), a front (east) setback of 3.25 feet (to patio) and 26 feet (to buildinq), a sid_e �south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and six feet to buildinq); a side west) setback of 0.5 feet (to service drivewa�) and 7.9 feet (to buildinq) and to dela� the underqroundinq of adjacent overhead utilities until such time as adiacent parcels are redeveloped, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proiect, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.0 and to permit a 500 square-foot, 28-seat outdoor cafe located within the Poinsettia Avenue riqht-of-way under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-909.. Existinq Use: Attached Dwellinqs Neiqhborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neiqhborhood Coalition Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-10017 2012-12-18 See page 4 for motion of approval. Community Development 12/18/2012 Case: FLD2012-10018 - 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Alanik Properties, LLC Aqent: Braulio Graiales, Hiqh Point Enqineerinq (5300 W. Cypress Street, #282, Tampa, FL 33607; phone: 813-765-6433; email: bqraiales�hpe-fl.com� Location: 1.21-acre parcel on the east side of S. Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 200 feet south of Fifth Street Atlas Paqe: 276A Zoninc�: Tourist T District �uest: Flexible Development application to allow a 1,618 square-foot accessory use (outdoor seatinq area) to an existinq overniqht accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a front (west) setback of 1.2 feet where zero feet is allowable and a side (north) setback of five feet where zero feet is allowable, under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2- 803._K._, as well as a reduction to the required foundation landscapinq alonq S. Gulfview Boulevard from five feet to 1.2 feet as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Proqram, under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Existinq Use: Overniqht Accommodations Neiqhborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neiahborhood Coalition Presenter: Kevin Nurnberqer, Planner III See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 See page 4 for motion of approval. 4. Case: TA2012-10008 - Amendments to the Clearwater Communit� Develo ment Code Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code reaardina numerous arovisions. includina: encroachments into setbacks and riqhts-of-way, correctly statinq the freestandinq siqn calculation method for the Comprehensive Siqn Proqram, illeqally created nonconforminq lots, and a reduction in permit fees for private plan reviews; and an amendment to the Clearwater Code of Ordinances rovidinq for an exception for board member attendance when related to military commitments. Neiqhborhood Association: Clearwater Neiqhborhoods Coalition Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manaqer See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2012-10008 2012-12-18 Community Development 12/18/2012 Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2012-10019, FLD2012-10017, and FLD2012-10018 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed and recommend approval of Case TA2012-10008 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. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m � � _ hair ommunity Development Board Community Development 12/18/2012 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 12.16 acres is located on the north side of Nursery Road, appro�mately 405 feet west of Belcher Road. The subject property is currently developed with 240 attached dwellings and accessory parking. The subject property has 785 feet of frontage along Nursery Road, which is a right-of-way of 80 feet in width. The existing parking running along the south property line fronting Belcher Road has a maximum aisle width of 21.5 feet. Development Proposal: The proposal is to permit the construction of four off-street parking spaces to reduce the deficiency of existing off-street parking. Pursuant to the attached dwelling parking requirements in the 1V�IDR District, 480 spaces are required and 314 exist. Due to existing site conditions prohibiting the addition of parking spaces in other areas in the site, only four spaces are proposed in the existing parking area along the southern property line. Pursuant to Community Development Code ��""��W��' NURSERYRD (CDC) Section 2-402, the front setback for �°4 �°' �°° � �� attached dwellings is 25 feet. The existing � Q � front (south) setback along Belcher Road is 1.5 �'�' �'„ �,""�°� (to pavement) and the proposal is for a 1.5 foot � � � � � � � ° � ,�� '�, �� setback (to pavement). For this reason, this �� zONING 1v�Ap application is being processed as a Level II ' Residential Infill Project since the attached dwelling use in the 1V�IDR District does not afford such flexibility to the front setback. Other proposed modifications to the existing parking lot include adding curbs around the edge of the parking lot, expanding the throat of the driveway from 28 feet to 33 feet, removing 48 linear feet of four foot sidewalk, removing pavement from a landscape island and relocating existing palm trees. The proposal also includes a new stormwater pond adjacent to the east side of the proposed parking area. As all proposed development is restricted to a small portion of the subject property only affecting the south property line setback, only that section of property will be analyzed and discussed in the staff report. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Densitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Residential High (RH) land use category and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-401.1, the maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre would allow for a maximum of 364 dwelling units on this parcel. There exist 240 dwelling units on the property (19.74 dwelling units per acre), which is consistent with the above. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and Section 2-401.1, CDC, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.520, which is consistent with the above. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The existing lot area for this parcel is 529,690 square feet (12.16 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement for attached dwellings is 150 feet. The lot width along Belcher Road is 785 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for attached dwellings. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum front setback for Residential Infill Projects can range between 10 — 25 feet but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria. It is noted that for attached dwellings, the minimum required front setback is 25 feet. The proposal includes a reduction in the front (south) setback to 1.5 feet. Staff recommends approval of the setback reduction as the reduction will allow for additional parking spaces with a setback consistent with the existing parking area. Maximum Buildin.°� Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the maximum allowable height for a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) can range between 30 — 50 feet. The height of the existing two-story residential building is 28 feet to the top of flat roof, which is less than the allowable height. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum required parking for a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) is two spaces per unit. The purpose of this application is to upgrade the site as much as practicable to the current Code requirement of two spaces per unit (480 spaces). There are currently 314 parking spaces and the additional parking four spaces will bring the total to 318 spaces. One of these spaces will be a handicap space meeting Code requirements. The existing driveway is also being widened to the required 24-foot width. Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to Section 3-904.A, CDC, to minimize hazards at the existing driveway on Nursery Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-912, CDC, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION undergrounding is not practicable. The proposal does not include and work related to utilities and as such undergrounding of utilities is not required. Landscaping_ No additional landscaping is required since the cost of the project is less than 25 percent of the value of the principle structure and the additional parking lot area is less than 4,000 square feet. However, the proposal does include Code compliant landscaping in an interior landscape island and a row of hedges along the east side of the proposed parking area to screen the parking area from the view of the apartment building to the east. Solid Waste: There are multiple dumpster enclosures on the subject property that serve the attached dwellings. The applicant has proposed no changes to the existing method of waste collection. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of the Residential High (RH) future land use plan category and the Medium Density Residential (1VIDR) District as per Section 2-401.1., CDC, and Table 2-404: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 30 dwelling units per acre 19.74 dwelling units per acre X (max. of 364 dwelling units) (240 existing dwelling units) Impervious Surface 0.85 0.52 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area N/A 529,690 sq. ft. (12.16 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 785 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 — 25 feet South: 1.5 feet (to pavement); Xi 60 feet (to existing building) North: N/A X Side: 0-10 feet East: N/A X West: N/A X Maximum Height 30 — 50 feet 28 feet (to mid-point of roo� X Minimum 2 spaces per unit (480 parking 318 parking spaces X� Off-Street Parking spaces) 1 A front setback of I 0-25 feet is required but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria. See setback discussion above. Z See analysis in StaffReport. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-404F (Residential Infill Project): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one ar more of the following: intensity; other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill proj ect will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properkies. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access 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. Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X X 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: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, 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 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or warking in the neighbarhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November 1, 2012 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findin�s of Fact Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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 12.16 acres subject property is located on the north side of Nursery Road, appro�mately 405 feet west of Belcher Road; 2. The subject property has approximately 785 feet of frontage along Nursery Road; 3. The site is currently developed with 240 attached dwelling units and 314 off-street parking spaces; 4. The proposal is to construct four additional off-street parking spaces; 5. The proposal includes a reduction of the front (south) setback to 1.5 feet where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria; 6. The proposal includes landscaping for an interior landscape island and screening of the proposed parking area; and 7. There is no active Code Enforcement case for the subject property. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-401.1 and 2- 404, Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 404F., Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A., Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (1V�IDR) District with a front (south) setback of 1.5 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable but may be varied based on the Flexibility criteria, as a Residential Infill Project as per Community Development Code Section 2-404.F, with the following conditions: Condition of A�proval 1. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot and landscaping improvements; and 2. 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 Stafi Matt Jackson, Planner II Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10019 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ATTAC�IMENTS: Existing Surrounding Uses Map and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10019 — Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10017 2012-12-18 - - - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: December 18, 2012 D. 2. FLD2012-10017 Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 522 square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 2,799 square feet; lot width of 60 feet; a front (north) setback of 3.5 feet (to patio) and five feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 3.25 feet (to patio) and 26 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and six feet (to building); a side (west) setback of 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and 7.9 feet (to building) and to delay the undergrounding of adjacent overhead utilities until such time as adjacent parcels are redeveloped, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.0 and to permit a 500 square foot, 28-seat outdoor cafe located within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-909. GENERAL DATA: Agent ........................... Alex Azan; The Sustainability Group, Inc. Applicant / Owne►' ... .......... John and Christina Pimenidis Location .......................... 45 Papaya Street; southwest corner of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue Property Size .................... 0.064 Acres Future Land Use Plan...... Resort Facilities High (RFI� Zoning .......................... Tourist (T) District Special Area Plan .............. Beach by Design (Retail/Restaurant District) Adjacent Zoning.... No►�th: Tourist (T) District SOUth: Tourist (T) District East: Tourist (T) District West: Tourist (T) District Existing Land Use ............. Attached Dwellings (two units) Proposed Land Use......... Restaurant (522 square feet) with an 80-seat onsite outdoor cafe and a 500 square foot, 28-seat outdoor cafe within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10017 2012-12-18 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.064 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue within the Tourist (T) District. The subject property, comprised of one parcel with frontage of approximately 60 feet along Papaya Street and 50 feet along Poinsettia Avenue, is also located within the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design. The immediate area is characterized by a variety of uses including older overnight accommodation, retail and attached dwelling uses. Several lots and buildings in the neighborhood are vacant. For example, the True Value hardware store across Poinsettia Street to the east has been vacant for approximately seven years. Many of the properties along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue include parking spaces located at least partially within and which back out into the right-of-way. Redevelopment in this area of the Beach has mostly been though the refurbishing of a few properties with the notable exception of Belle Harbor at the northeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. The properties to the north and south along Poinsettia Avenue are generally characterized by the back ends of businesses fronting on Mandalay Avenue and small motels and attached dwellings generally located on the east side of and fronting on Poinsettia Avenue. Properties along Papaya Street to the east and west are a mix of attached dwellings, restaurants, motels and retail. The properties at the northeast and southeast corners of Papaya Street East Shore Drive have recently been the subject of site plans recently reviewed and approved by the Community Development Board including a seven-story, 134-unit mid-priced hotel including a 6,500 square foot restaurant and a 10,749 square foot restaurant with a 28-slip commercial dock, respectively. Both development proposals include 15-foot wide publicly- accessible boardwalks along the Intracoastal Waterway. The site is currently developed with a two-unit attached dwelling located in a one-story building. The site does not include any Code-compliant parking spaces. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 1 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct a 522 square foot restaurant with two outdoor cafes consisting of 80 seats onsite and 28 seats located within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way along the east property line of the subject site. The proposed building will house the kitchen, restrooms and storage areas; all proposed seating will be outdoors. The existing building and all other structures on site will be removed with the proposal. Setback reductions are requested on all sides of the site with a front (north) setback of 3.5 feet (to patio) and five feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 3.25 feet (to patio), a side (south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to driveway) and six feet (to building) and a side (west) setback of 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and 7.9 feet (to building. The one-story restaurant is proposed at a height of approximately 12 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the mid-point of the highest roof structure (17.5 feet from grade). As mentioned, the building will only contain the kitchen, serving area, storage space and restrooms. A gated service driveway eight feet in width will be located along the west property line providing access to the operational rear of the building as well as a four yard dumpster. The dumpster will be maneuvered into place along Papaya Street for servicing. As mentioned, all 108 seats will be outdoors with 80 seats located onsite and an additiona128 seats located adjacent to the site within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way. The restaurant will operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. seven days a week with additional hours for breakfast on the weekends starting at 7:30 a.m. The applicant anticipates the proposed restaurant will create six new jobs. The proposed building can be characterized as an interpretation of a mix of tropical bungalow vernacular with elements of traditional Key West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof, exposed rafter tails, wide accent corner trim and a wide frieze running the perimeter of the building. A solid bamboo fence six feet in height will be provided along the south and west sides of the site. A three foot non-opaque fence will be located along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue providing physical separation from the streets but allowing a visual connection between the private and public realms. Please note that this is in contrast to the submitted site plans which indicate a four foot fence. The applicant indicated their preference to maintain the fence at three feet subsequent to their package submittal to the CDB. Two gates will provide pedestrian access to the site with one gate located along the north side of the site near the proposed building and the second gate roughly centrally located along the east side of the site. Two e�terior colors are proposed including the natural grey of the metal roof and light gray for the siding (see color samples included in the submittal packet). The site is designed to be pedestrian-friendly with the provision of entrances along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue, tropically-themed landscaping along the north (Papaya Street), east (Poinsettia Avenue) and south sides of the site, a six foot wide sidewalk along Papaya Street and a 15 foot wide sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue. Appro�mately seven feet of the sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue will be occupied by the 28-seat outdoor cafe. The proposal will also include street tree plantings along Poinsettia Avenue (location, materials, fit and finish to be coordinated with and approved by City Staf�. A minimum of five feet will be provided on the sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue in any given area. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 2 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Special Area Plan: Beach by Design: Retail and Restaurant District The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments to this plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian-friendly development in order to create a vibrant active resort and waterfront destination 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 Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design provides that North Mandalay Avenue is to be an attractive street with limited functionality as a two-sided "retail street." As a result, it is desired and envisioned that the land area between North Mandalay Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue will transform into a pedestrian-friendly retaiUrestaurant district. The document further acknowledges that development within the District may be inhibited by existing parcel size and depths and that a key to success is the construction of a parking garage. A recent Code amendment further recognizes the limitations of the properties within this district and eliminates the requirement for the provision of off-street parking. This is one of the first restaurant redevelopment projects proposed within the Retail and Restaurant District since the adoption of Beach by Design. Beach by Design: Section VII. Design Guidelines: Section A specifically addresses the issue of density. The proposal does not include any dwelling units or overnight accommodation units. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section B specifically addresses height. The proposal provides for a building approximately 12 feet in height as measured from BFE where a height of up to 35 feet is permitted. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension greater than 100 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 of the building is 522 square feet and no single plane of the building exceeds 30 feet therefore this guideline is not applicable to the application. Regardless, the design of the building is broken up by offsets in the fa�ade and varying heights of the roofline providing for a modest yet interesting and attractive building. 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 building fa�ade is greater than 30 feet in length. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. 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, doors and architectural details into the north and east (front) fa�ades. The south and west facades face adjacent buildings and are not readily visible from off site. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. The distance between the edge of the right-of-way along local streets and a building should be a minimum of 12 feet where the proposal provides a distance of six feet along papaya Street and 15 feet along Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 3 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Poinsettia Avenue. Currently, the only existing sidewalk adjacent to the subject site is along a portion of the site at the corner of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue. Otherwise sidewalks do not exist adjacent to the subject site. Given the diminutive size of the site parceling a portion of the site for use as part of a sidewalk is not practicable. The proposal provides the maximum amount of sidewalk width practicable. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features into the facades of buildings. The proposed building provides an interpretation of the classic Key West-style architecture through the provision of a variety of building materials common to the vernacular such as a metal standing seam roof and board and batten siding. The building is approximately 12 feet in height as measured from BFE to the mid-point of the highest peaked roof structure and is proportionally-sized for the site. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section F addresses issues related to parking areas. No parking is proposed to be located on the site. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section G addresses issues related to signage. A sign package has not been included with the submittal. Any proposed signage will be required to meet the requirements of this section of Beach by Design and any applicable portions of the Community Development Code. Section H addresses issues related to sidewalks (also addressed in part by Section D, above) and provides that all sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least 10 feet in width. An existing sidewalk approximately four feet in width is located along Papaya Street adjacent to the subject site. No sidewalk currently exists along Poinsettia Avenue. The proposal includes increasing the width of the sidewalk along Papaya Street to five feet and providing a sidewalk 15 feet in width along Poinsettia Avenue. While the proposed sidewalk along Papaya Street does not strictly meet the vision of this section it is the widest sidewalk possible between the subject site and the street. Incorporating a portion of the sidewalk on the subject property is not practicable given the small size of the site. Therefore the proposed six foot sidewalk along Papaya Street meets the intent of this section while the proposed 15 foot sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue meets the letter of this section. This section also provides that portions of a required sidewalk may be used for outdoor dining and landscaping. A 28-seat outdoor cafe is proposed along the east side of the site within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way e�tending approximately seven feet into the sidewalk space. Two at-grade landscape planters three feet in width are proposed within this right-of-way as well. The minimum pedestrian walkway width will be five feet. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section I addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. Street furniture is not proposed with this development, however, a bike rack is. The exact location as well as material and style of the bike rack will be approved by and coordinated with City Staff. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. Street lighting is not proposed with this development. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 4 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Section K addresses issues related to fountains. A fountain is not proposed with this development. Therefore this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section L addresses issues related to materials and colors. Finish materials and building colors are required to reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. The proposal includes a tropical Key-west style vernacular and meets the intent of this section. The installation methodology, materials, fit, finish and/or styles for the proposed sidewalks, bike rack and right-of-way landscaping will be approved by and coordinated with City Staff prior to installation. Two e�terior colors are proposed including the natural grey of the metal roof and light gray for the siding (see color samples included in the submittal packet). The applicant may adjust the color scheme however any such adjustment would require Staff approval and must meet the requirements of this portion of the Design Guidelines. The proposed color scheme and material schedule meets the requirements of this section. Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio: 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 522 square feet of floor area which yields an FAR of 0.19, which is consistent with the Code provisions and less than the existing FAR of 0.59. Im�ervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.80, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, Flexible Standard Development Standards, the minimum lot area for restaurants can range between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. The lot area is 2,787 square feet. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can range between 50 and 100 feet. The lot width along Papaya Street is approximately 60 feet. The proposal does not meet the lot area requirements for restaurants of CDC Tables 2-802 or 2-803 and must therefore be reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. 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 zero and 15 feet and minimum side setback between zero and 10 feet. Rear setbacks, under the provisions of 3-903.D, do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two side setbacks. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of five feet (to building and 3.5 feet (to patio), a front (east) setback of 26 feet (to building) and 3.25 feet (to patio), a side (south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to driveway) and six feet (to building) and a side (west) setback of 7.9 feet (to building) and 12 feet (to patio). The proposal does meets the setback requirements of CDC Table 2-802 and would otherwise be reviewed as a Level I Flexible Standard Development application notwithstanding the request to reduce the required lot area and width. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 5 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Mc�imum 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 35 and 50 feet. The proposed building height of 12 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the mid- point of the highest roof structure is below the range of height provided in the Code and no variation from the Code is requested. Minimum Off-street Parkin� Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-802 and 2-803, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for properties within the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design. The proposal does not provide any off-street parking and is therefore consistent with the Code provisions of Article 2 Division 8 and Beach by Design and no flexibility from the Code is necessary. Mechanical Ec�ui�ment: 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 the west fa�ade of the building. This area will be adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way by a six-foot high fence and the building itself. This screening of the mechanical equipment will also be reviewed at time of the building permit submission. Si�ht Visibili Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the intersection of streets and/or driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal does not propose any structures within the required sight visibility triangles and landscaping within them will be limited to groundcovers and low shrubs, complying with this provision. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Landscaping located within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the rights-of-way along the south side of Papaya Street and the west side of Poinsettia Avenue that will need to be undergrounded. The applicant has requested that the undergrounding of these utilities is not practicable at this time given the modest size of the lot. The applicant has agreed that adjacent overhead utilities will be relocated underground when either adjacent property is redeveloped but such undergrounding will be limited to the utilities along the street where such redevelopment is occurring and if practicable. In other words, when the property to the south of the subject site along Poinsettia Avenue is redeveloped the property owner of this site (45 Papaya Street) will coordinate the undergrounding of the adjacent utilities along the east side of the subject site along Poinsettia Avenue with the undergrounding of the overhead utilities adjacent to the neighboring property to the south. The same applies for the redevelopment of the parcel to the west of the subject site Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 6 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION along Papaya Street. The only exception will be if the undergrounding of overhead utilities is deemed to be impracticable due to the existence and direct conflict of existing underground utilities and/or if the owning entity refuses to allow the undergrounding of their respective utility. However, the applicant will place all service lines leading onto the property underground, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Landsca�in� 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 Papaya Street and also includes perimeter plantings appro�mately five feet in width along the remainder of the north side of the site as well as the west property line and a portion of the south side of the site. The site will be planted with palm trees (Me�can Washingtonian and Florida Royal Palms), accent trees (crape myrtle and wax privet), shrubs (hibiscus, sage and ixora) and ground covers (India hawthorn, lantana, perennial peanut and beach sunflower). Solid Waste: A dumpster, proposed at the southwest corner of the site, will be screened by the building on the north and east and a solid wall with a stucco finish matching the primary e�terior color of the restaurant on the south. A six-foot solid fence is proposed along the west side of the site. The dumpster will not be visible from off-site. The access gate to the dumpster will match the proposed six-foot high fence proposed along the west and south sides of the site. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Si�nage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future freestanding sign must be designed as a monument-style sign, maintain a setback of five feet, match the e�terior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet. Attached signage is not proposed at this time but must also meet Code requirements. All signage will be required to meet the applicable portions of the Community Development Code and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by applicable various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Policy A.3.2.1 All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Cleanvater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. The proposal, as discussed, meets the requirements of the CDC providing foundation planting along the north fa�ade of the building and perimeter landscaping along the north, east and a portion of the south sides of the site. Objective A. S. S- Promote high quality design standards that support Cleanvater's image and contribute to its identity. The proposal includes the demolition of a dated two-unit attached dwelling use and the redevelopment of the site with a new attractive restaurant. The proposed restaurant meets the Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 7 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION requirements of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, is supported by the vision of the Retail and Restaurant District and supports this Objective. Policy A. S. S.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. As mentioned above, the proposal is consistent with the vision of Beach by Design, the Retail and Restaurant District and the Design Guidelines and supports this Policy. Objective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards. In adopting Beach by Design the City recognized that large portions of the Beach could be classified as blighted, substandard and suffered from "obsolescence and age". One of the goals of Beach by Design is to reverse this trend of disinvestment. This goal is well on the way to being met (perhaps even exceeded) in many areas of the Beach. The Retail and Restaurant District is one area which has not seen a great deal of redevelopment activity. For example, the property across Poinsettia Avenue to the east (formerly a True Value hardware store) has been vacant for the better part of a decade. The proposed restaurant should be seen as an important first step in revitalizing this area of the Beach and supports this Objective. Policy A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels [less than one (1) acreJ which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method of promoting urban infill. The proposal includes the redevelopment of a parcel with an area of 0.064 acres which currently receives an adequate level of service. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the redevelopment goals of Beach by Design as well as the vision of the document's Retail and Restaurant District and Design Guidelines. The proposed redevelopment constitutes a classic example of urban infill redevelopment and supports this Policy. Objective A.6.6 - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. The proposed redevelopment will serve tourists and locals alike contributing to a vibrant successful resort destination and supports this Objective. Policy A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes a modest building 522 square feet in area appropriately scaled for the small property on which it will be located with a large outdoor dining area along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue. The proposal also includes an outdoor cafe within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the subject site. The overall effect of the proposal will a pedestrian- scale restaurant similar is scope and scale to surrounding properties, consistent with the goals and vision of Beach by Design and the Retail and Restaurant District and supports this Policy. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 8 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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 bicycles and walking as modes of transportation for potential customers through the provision of bike racks and 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. It should be noted that the elimination of parking requirements for properties within the Retail and Restaurant District was recently added to the CDC. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Community Development Code: The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.8.1. 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 duplex improving the site with a new attractive building, a vibrant use (restaurant with an outdoor cafe) and contribute to the public space with sidewalks between eight and 10 feet in width along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 1-103.8.2. 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 developed with 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 Retail and Restaurant 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. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 1-103.8.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tcrx base as a whole. The proposal includes the removal of an outdated attached dwelling use and replacing it with a new restaurant and outdoor cafe within the Poinsettia Avenue public right-of-way. The new restaurant is expected to create six new jobs thereby positively contributing to the City's economy and its tax base. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. 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 mcrximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new attractive building characterized by a mix of tropical bungalow vernacular with elements of traditional Key West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof and board and batten siding. Most of the site will be dedicated to a patio containing the majority of the restaurant's dining area. The remainder of the site's seating will be located within a 500 square foot outdoor cafe within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way along the east side of the site. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 9 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION This proposal meets the required minimum five-foot wide building foundation landscape area along Papaya Street. The applicant has provided perimeter plantings appro�mately five feet in width along the remainder of the north side of the site as well as the west property line. A landscape buffer is also provided along a portion of the south side of the site. The site will be planted with palm trees (Me�can Washingtonian and Royal Palms), accent trees (crape myrtle and wax privet), shrubs (hibiscus, sage and ixora) and ground covers (India hawthorn, lantana and beach sunflower). Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. 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 proposal will support both the resident and tourist populations with a new restaurant, eight- to 10-foot wide sidewalks along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue and an outdoor cafe. The proposal will be consistent with regard to the desired form and function of the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design and meets the Design Guidelines of that document. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. 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 Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.187 X Impervious Surface 0.95 0.80 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area N/A 2,787 square feet (0.064 acres) Xi Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 5 feet (to building) Xi 3.5 feet (to patio) East 26 feet (to building) X' 3.25 feet (to patio) Side: N/A South: 6 feet (to building) X' 0.75 feet (to patio) West: 79 feet (to building) Xi 0.75 feet (to driveway) Maximum Height N/A 12 feet (from BFE to midpoint of X the highest roof structure) Minimum N/A Zero parking spaces Xl Off-Street Parking 1 See analysis in StaffReport Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 10 of 16 II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, 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 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or warking in the neighbarhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual_ acoustic and olfactorv and hours of oneration imnacts on adiacent nronerkies. Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.0 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from 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 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 development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighbarhood; 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 ar flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides far 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 £ The proposed use provides far the development of a new and/or preservation of a warking waterfront use. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 11 of 16 Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X II Flexible Development Application Review Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; a 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 tea�tures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscane desian and annronriate distances between buildines. COMPLIANCE WITH OUTDOOR CAFE CRITERIA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent X Consistent 1. Outdoor cafes are restricted to the sidewalk frontage of the subject business applying X for a permit, except that outdoor cafes located within the Cleveland Street Cafe District may extend the linear distance of any adjacent business frontage, in accordance with the provisions of section 3-909.D.10. 2. A minimum of one unobstructed pedestrian path at least five feet wide shall be maintained at all times. Within the Cleveland Street Cafe District the path shall abut the building fa�ade. 3. All furnishings shall be of good design and made of quality materials. 4. No furnishing shall be chained or attached to any tree, post, sign or other fia�ture. 5. No furniture shall be permitted within the sight visibility triangle as required by the Community Development Code. Furniture shall not be placed within four feet of bus stops, telephone booths, fire hydrants, or counter service windows or within two feet of any entrances and/or exits. 6. Outdoor cafes pursuant to Section 3-909.A.1.d, above, are restricted to sidewallc frontage of the subject business applying for a permit and may extend no more than 25 feet from the fa�ade of the subject business. Under no circumstances may any portion of an outdoor cafe extend into or obstruct any portion of the main pedestrian thoroughfare (promenade) of Beach Walk. In addition, access to outdoor cafes from the public right-of-way shall be limited to no more than one entranceway. The perimeter of outdoor cafes shall be clearly delineated through the use of self- supporting fencing and/or landscape planters and/or other such devices and methods as presented to and approved by the city. 7. Any area in which an outdoor cafe is permitted shall be clearly delineated on a drawing accurately depicting the area and specifically delineating where alcohol beverage sales are intended to occur. Such a drawing shall be submitted to and approved by the city as part of a minimum, flexible standard ar flexible development application, as applicable. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 12 of 16 /:� / / / � /:� Inconsistent Inconsistent II Flexible Development Application Review COMPLIANCE WITH BEACHBYDESIGNDESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Section A: Density. 2. Section B: Height. 3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. 4. Section D: Setbacks. 5. Section: Street-Level Fa�ades. 6. Section F: Parking Areas. 7. Section G: Signage. 8. Section H: Sidewalks. 9. Section L Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks. 10. Section J: Street Lighting. 11. Section K Fountains. 12. Section L: Materials and Colors. 1 See analysis in StaffReport PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent I Inconsistent N/A1 X X X X N/A1 X' X X N/A1 N/A1 X SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November 1, 2012, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findin�s 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 0.064 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue; 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 subj ect property is located in the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design; 4. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 60 feet of frontage along Papaya Street and 50 feet of frontage along Poinsettia Avenue; 5. The parcel contains two attached dwellings within a one-story building; 6. The proposal is to construct a 522 square foot restaurant with all seating located outdoors including 80 seats on the subject site and an additional 28 seats located in an outdoor cafe within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the subject site; 7. The proposed building height is 12 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to mid-point of the highest roof structure; 8. The proposal includes zero parking spaces; 9. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of 3.5 feet (to patio) and five feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 3.25 feet (to patio) and 26 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and six feet (to building) and a side (west) setback of 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and 7.9 feet (to building); Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 13 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 10. The proposal includes a six foot sidewalk along Papaya Street and a 15 foot sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue consistent with the Design Guidelines provided by Beach by Design; 11. The proposal includes a bike rack to be located within the public right-of-way along Poinsettia Avenue (specific location of which as well as installation methodology, style, fit and finish to be approved by and coordinated with City Staf�; and 12. 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- 803.0 of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 3-909. Outdoor cafes located within public right(s)-of-way of the Community Development Code; 5. That the development is consistent with the General Purposes of the Community Development including Sections 1-103.B, D and E.S; 6. That the development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan including Policy A.3.2.1, Objectives A.5.5, A.6.1 and A.6.6 and Policies A.5.5.1, A.6.4.1, A.6.8.3 and A.6.8.9; 7. That the development is consistent with the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design; and 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 522 square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 2,799 square feet; lot width of 60 feet; a front (north) setback of 3.5 feet (to patio) and five feet (to building), a front (east) setback of 3.25 feet (to patio) and 26 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 0.75 feet (to patio), 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and six feet (to building); a side (west) setback of 0.5 feet (to service driveway) and 7.9 feet (to building) and to delay the undergrounding of adjacent overhead utilities until such time as adjacent parcels are redeveloped, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.0 and to permit a 500 square foot, 28-seat outdoor cafe located within the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-909 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of A�proval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by the CDC with regard to area, height and number; Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 14 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 3. 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; 4. That fences greater than three feet in height be specifically prohibited along any adjacent street; 5. That all irrigation systems be connected to the City reclaimed water system where available per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32.376. Reclaimed water lines are available in the Poinsettia Avenue and/or Mandalay Avenue rights-of-way; and 6. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. Outdoor Cafe Conditions 7. That all requirements of CDC Section 3-909.D be met prior to the issuance of any permits for the outdoor cafe. Timing Conditions 8. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than December 18, 2013, unless time e�tensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 9. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities be installed to the satisfaction of City Staff along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue; 10. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 11. That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all service lines onto the property shall be installed underground; 12. That adjacent overhead utilities will be relocated underground when either adjacent property is redeveloped but such undergrounding will be limited to the utilities along the street where such redevelopment is occurring; 13. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located e�terior 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 any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees be paid; 15. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 16. 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; Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 15 of 16 II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 17. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence be submitted to and approved by Staff which indicates that the proposed dumpster will meet the requirements of NFPA-1, 2009 edition by providing a one-hour separation and a fire sprinkler system for the protection of the structure. Such evidence will be required to have been designed by a fire protection engineer in addition to the architect of record detailing the one hour rating of the area in question; 18. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304). 19. That prior to the issuance of any permits all improvements as specified by City Staff shall be made at the intersection of Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue; 20. That prior to the issuance of any permits, a site plan, accompanied by a vault maintenance schedule, signed and accepted by the owner, which provides stormwater vault specifications indicating that the vault provides water quality benefits is submitted to and approved by City Staff; 21. That prior to the issuance of any permits a grading and drainage plan is submitted which provides for City Staff-acceptable levels of stormwater attenuation and that the design of the on-site stormwater facility satisfactorily meets the six-inch freeboard requirement provides a six-inch vertical clearance between seasonal high water table and the bottom of the rock layer and ensures that the entire quality and attenuation volume shall percolate within 24 hours or less; and 22. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Sidewalk Conditions 23. That the final location of the sidewalks along Papaya Street and Poinsettia Avenue be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise determined/required by City Staff; and 24. That the fit, finish, materials, installation methodology of the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities (such as benches, trash receptacles, trees, lighting), as the case may be, be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III ATTAC�IMENTS: Existing Surrounding Uses Map and Photographs Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10017 — Page 16 of 16 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.21-acre subject property is located within the "Beach Walk" District of the Beach by Design special area plan on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 200 feet south of Fifth Street. The property consists of a 73-room, four-story hotel (Magnuson Hotel) with 71 off-street parking spaces, an outdoor pool and a 150 square foot ice cream shop. Development Proposal: On October 1, 2012, a Flexible Development application was submitted to allow for the construction of a 1,618 square foot thatched roof accessory structure to be utilized as a tiki bar and outdoor seating area at the northwest corner of the existing building. The 27.6 foot tall structure will front onto South Gulfview Boulevard and `Beach Walk," and includes a handicap accessible ramp and stairs providing connectivity to the Beach Walk promenade. The application also includes the conversion of one hotel room adj acent to the new structure/seating area into a storage room. The restrooms of the converted hotel room will be utilized by patrons of the outdoor seating area. The applicants propose to reconfigure the �° ` existing retention pond to utilize the remaining ZONING MAP open space area at the northwest corner of the subject property (along Beach Walk). A portion of the outdoor seating area will be built over the redefined retention pond. The goal is to create a tropical themed outdoor seating area (tiki bar) that connects the existing hotel to the Beach Walk promenade where hotel guests, tourists and beach goers will be welcome to sit and relax with views that overlook the Gulf of Mexico and promenade. The development proposal is a Flexible Development application because the requested flexibility from the front and side setbacks is more than what is allowable through the Flexible Standard Development (Level One) application process. The addition of an outdoor seating area to an existing hotel along South Gulfview is in-keeping with the objectives of the Beach by Design special area plan. Following the realignment of South Gulfview Boulevard and the creation of the Beach Walk promenade, it has been anticipated that the motels and hotels will take advantage of the opportunity to revitalize their property along the boulevard so that sidewalks on the eastern side of the road will be bounded by new and improved Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 1 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION grounds with pools, outside cafes and other "seaside" amenities. The development proposal ensures a pleasing architecture in a tropical vernacular that creates an inviting, human scale "place" at the street level of a building. The applicants propose a sidewalk that will serve as the entrance to the accessory use structure from South Gulfview and Beach Walk The plans indicate that this sidewalk will be of an interlocked brick paver pattern similar to the existing sidewalk along Beach Walk which is supported in the Beach by Design guidelines Section H(Sidewalks) and Section L(Materials and Colors). It is attached as a condition of approval that the final materials, fit, and finish on-site sidewalk be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise required by City Staff. Densitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-801.1, the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight accommodation rooms per acre. In August of 1999, the then owners of the subject property were granted approval from the CDB to modify the existing hotel to allow for 73 hotel rooms and one managers apartment. A part of that approval was a termination of the status of nonconformity in regards to density because the existing hotel had 68 hotel rooms when only a maximum of 48 hotel rooms were allowable based on code provisions. The approval from the CDB recognized the hotel as a conforming use with a density of 73 hotel rooms and one manager's apartment. The termination of the status of nonconformity entitles the property owner to continue and to expand as a lawfully existing use. The accessory structures square footage as a use that is not interior to the development or a as a structure that is not completely enclosed does not count towards the overall gross floor area of the hotel or require any additional off-street parking spaces as set forth in CDC Section 2- 8.3.I.11. The current development proposal does not include any increase to the number of hotel units; rather the proposal will result in the elimination of one unit. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2.801.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the RFH Future Land Use Category is 0.95. As per the site data table, the proposal has an ISR of 0.81, which meets the above requirement. Minimum Lot Area/Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for overnight accommodations ranges between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet. The subject property is 52,659 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for overnight accommodations may range between 100 and 150 feet. The lot width of this site along South Gulfview Boulevard is 171 feet and 325 along Coronado Drive. There are no proposed changes to the lot size or width. Based upon the above, the parcel is consistent with these Code provisions. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 2 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum height allowed for overnight accommodations is between 35 and 100 feet. As set forth in CDC Section 3-201.B.8, accessory structures in a non-residential district shall be no more than the allowable height of the principle structure. The height of the existing hotel is 41 feet; the outdoor seating area covered roof structure will be 27.6 feet in height which is less than Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the front setback for overnight accommodations may range between zero and 15 feet and a side setback may range between zero and 10 feet. The development proposal consists of a front (west) setback of 1.2 feet (to proposed deck expansion) and a side (north) setback of five feet (to to proposed deck expansion). No other setbacks reductions are required for this development proposal. The front and side setbacks are requested to construct an accessory use (outdoor seating area) to an existing hotel that currently has limited interaction with the Beach Walk promenade. It is anticipated that the outdoor seating area will provide a more active and dynamic street life where tourists, beach goers, and hotels guests can sit and relax in a tropical themed outdoor environment with a view of the promenade and the Gulf of Mexico. The reduced front and side setbacks will contribute to a more active and dynamic street life; the thatched roof outdoor seating area style and design shall contribute to the appearance of the hotel by adding a Florida vernacular building element along Beach Walk; and no required landscaped areas will be lost by the addition of the accessory use. For these reasons, the proposal is complies with Code provisions. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum off-street parking requirement for overnight accommodations is 1 to 1.2 parking spaces per unit. The construction of the proposed accessory use/structure would not require the provision of additional off-street parking spaces. The existing hotel currently has 73 hotel units and 71 off-street parking spaces. As a part of this proposal, one hotel unit will be eliminated and converted to storage space and restrooms for the accessory use which will result in 72 hotel units remaining. As noted above, no additional off- street parking spaces are required as a part of this request; however the reduction in the number of hotel rooms will bring the parking closer to compliance with the Code provisions. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings are required for 100 percent of a building fa�ade with frontage along a street right-of-way within a minimum five- foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building fa�ade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. The proposal is asking for a reduction to the foundation planting from 5 feet to 1.2 feet for the 27 linear feet immediately in front of the outdoor seating area. The reduced foundation planting is a consequence of the requested reduction to the front setback to allow for the outdoor seating area to have a visual presence on the Beach Walk promenade. The remaining 67 linear feet of the foundation plantings width and landscape materials along the existing buildings frontage along South Gulfview Boulevard complies with the Code provisions. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 3 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/ar materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted far the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. The proposal has been found to be consistent with the above requirements, but specifically with regard to criterion l.b, the applicants propose to add new landscaping to the front of the property that exceeds the requirement for foundation plantings as well as provide landscape materials that are consistent with landscape materials planted by the City under the guidelines of Beach by Design special area plan. Based upon the above, it seems appropriate to allow for the requested reduction to the foundation planting area along South Gulfview Boulevard. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 4 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the applicable standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803: Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 73 rooms 73 rooms X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.81 X Minimum Lot Area 10,000 — 20,000 sq. ft. 52,659 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width 100 —150 feet 171 feet (along Gulfview) X 325 feet (along Coronado) X Maximum Building Height 35 — 100 feet 27.6 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 0— 15 feet West: 1.2 feet (to proposed X building) Side: 0-10 feet North: 5 feet (to proposed X building) Minimum Off-Street 1— 1.2 parking spaces 71 parking spaces Xl Parkin per room (88 spaces) See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with applicable Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.I (Overnight Accommodations): 1. The reduced front and side setback will contribute to a more active and dynamic street life. 2. The reduced front and side setbacks shall result in an improved site plan through the provision of a more efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and appearance. 3. The reduced front and side setbacks will not result in the loss of landscaped area, as those areas are being diminished by the setback reduction compensated for in other areas through a Comprehensive Landscape Plan. 4. The accessory use must be incidental, subardinate, and customarily accessory to the overni�ht accommodation. Consistent � Inconsistent X � ►'/ ►'/ 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: 5. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 6. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 7. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or warking in the neighbarhood. 8. The proposed development is desi�ned to minimize traffic con�estion. Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 5 Consistent � Inconsistent X �/ i`/ ►'/ EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 II Flexible Development Application Review 9. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 10. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactorv and hours of operation impacts on adiacent properkies. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent � Inconsistent i`/ ►'/ SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of November 1, 2012, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Findin�s 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 That the 1.21-acre subject property is located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 200 feet south of Fifth Street; That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; That the subject property is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the `Beach Walk" district; That there is presently a four-story, 73 unit overnight accommodation (Magnuson Hotel) on the subject property; That the subject property was granted a termination of the status of nonconformity in regards to density in August of 1999. The approval from the CDB recognized the hotel as a conforming use with a density of 73 hotel rooms and one manager's apartment; and That the development proposal consists of the construction of a 1,618 square foot accessory use/structure (tiki bar and outdoor seating area). That the request includes a front (west) setback of 1.2 feet where zero feet is allowable; That the request includes a side (north) setback of five feet where zero feet is allowable; That the height of the accessory structure will be 27.6 feet; That the development proposal will result in the elimination of one hotel room. 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 has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2-801.1 and 2-803; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.I; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A; Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 6 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2012-10018 2012-12-18 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per CDC Section 3-1202.G; and 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to allow a 1,618 square foot accessory use (outdoor seating area) to an existing overnight accommodation in the Tourist (T) District with a front (west) setback of 1.2 feet where zero feet is allowable and a side (north) setback of five feet where zero feet is allowable, under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-803.K; and a reduction to the required foundation landscaping along South Gulfview Boulevard from five feet to 1.2 feet as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of A�proval: 1. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the building and landscaping improvements on the subject property; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all requirements of the General Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed; 3. 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 adequate water supply is available and to determine is any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe, and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity; 4. That the final design and color of the structure is consistent with the architectural elevations approved by the CDB; 5. That the final materials, fit, and finish of the on-site sidewalk be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise required by City Staff; 6. That any future signage for the accessory use shall be subordinate to and incorporated into the primary freestanding signage for the overnight accommodation use. In no case shall more than 25 percent of the sign area be dedicated to the accessory uses. Any change to or proposed signage shall be reviewed by Staff though a separate sign permit; 7. That all landscaping be installed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion as appropriate; and 8. That the owner shall amend the Business Tax Receipt to indicate the elimination of one hotel room prior to the Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion as appropriate. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Existing Surrounding Uses Map and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — December 18, 2012 FLD2012-10018 — Page 7 ��'� �:: ,� h . .. _ . ... ... .... - � . _.<§.::.°_.: i�'-E�f?�•.:�h: k;' ��ws.�"�C.�'��.'w-•'�•.�tF�4: �7�i� $a-:e�a':A^:�`.'�.:�°r'.^.'�,�%: �-:.�' •� C.�.�':s s.��[uu��i'"8:.�;.`:%:: Y e..� - _"5fi = �F: -:{^. - - � . r g f.�..;:::::^.: :-F& ? •i34:',! :._' i-=i'�;.ti@: r•.6 tiCL' ':�! 'i<�a� :i.: i�.'"s:�`s�i..i- x;j:7F��1 1-eG�:n � :S!'ffi.:.'�s°.'�d'SaR..'l...=noF[.5�.�:i:?i.=!�"�:'�':3� •, � -- - . _ — -= . -_ , - . ..,� .,-;.�. : �.. F . a �:. �e : ,. � �' ='''_,... .;�: .. .. _. . � �? a� _ .. ..�.�,s �Y:.. � � �.._ ��!". ��Ei.. Yx; x;��. r--�:- � "x�S�iF�F.::.. . �:�:&? °s.'sx�.,gf . ». . i?.�i.. ;�rs"...r.,�S:a�'. .�. .. a ; .� . G�'.. �.- �w,� .�,�� . .. - - _ -- -- .� � - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -..... _'.`�`.... �':" .. ... � F'x.0 �:. . :II �:�':'.[: : i' !' :'�:.: _:0� i a � . �pr. .�p,' V: "sy _ .. . �t:....�e... . .. . . .. ... <..17 . ._........ ._ .. ........ .....� ..-..�v.. . . k % "r� �� .! . "�. - : i.'� i , w.; _ . . : -. . . 3, ..� ' �.• � . .. . . . . "" � ' 't: . .. . .. . .- •:� i:.�.; �. ..:.:' ..:: .�i.�: . _.v.�...�.! ..`,:..."i i_' �'•:...,� _.:c' ............:...�.!�. ��1:7.�.'..:K..'._.�f:..,..-F.'�. $ � N '. ' 1� �� a.l _ _ _ - _N - .....a;y `._... . .. _,. :_' _& E'-' .kS.'_. 5_i��'"..3�i.ti'..'�_':ia�0.l� ' �.. � . .� . . .. - ia ' t.�LS�c�'.� .L 'L:,x ' '�"'� '.�S � n.�'' ;': ':�'. � - .. .=+1"ni�'!:�i:'r.'�.i .+,.e ,�,��: � : � ��.�'a �-` `� f� i ��. . '.�e�i�.' a < �n..23;.. ,F,� �� . . •R �• ,: ��- = Mei . g �ro-.:= �� Y _ .' �.�� _ .�` ��'�,,..,�:i�. ��;� -�?�'� , "�`�"''r: �.�' ,. , ;� r.K �;�: � �:�: �.s.;. . . �. �� - �� =+ P. :a:= _ y ."�='.::L�x ��:.3'2t �.y�� i'V`$�� _ � �. � � �3`i " � ��i�..� 4' �x �w" ��N':�.' _ ..�1' '�� 'Ce, .c ':.'3", xl:.:�-<..�f• 'il S'.,�ti [!I�'.I. ' � :�- .; �,r� MQ ' _ :� r � - �� . ' f � i�.' •� � N'. ' .i .. �Y�`Y�ie._�.� '�. ...�. '�1.�?.��•" ;� . � ;�; i � ... ` -�� - .d; b F.' � � ��'�1�' �''�Fv!+n,+x'Am ..�• �p..�. �'•,n�. - ' .`� _�^f' . �: - � ` �. ` i� �,;, ; , � P . K �� w '_�:';� ;.;g:. • - _ m_ _� . r e�_ . _�: ; : '.� 95 ��S'g''�: ' "u� , �i' � '�.�4; ;..�:�' ,: �. �r;'�F'^.: � ` - ^ F� . - � : �� •�`�as,• �i.� ,x '. u . s r�+,. ; i ., - ., _ ..:�:,. ,�-!s, s, � , �.� �. ,:k �. .'': ?� : � �; ...� �, � �,,., t � � � : �: � . _ . .. • �' �h, � � ` • �.-: ••;��:. rw i . . z. � , �' �" LU; � n. '�; �-�ti.i = �.r ��a ,_. �, �' -:��:�. � ��y�:' `�:�:,; . .;� • � .? ' °rP� 1� _� � re '. �s� ' � .L . 6.'"' i . '�.^'-s.. 'i�' �.- .. :i � . .. ' . : � � � �'= � : �� -' r "•' �' - .r- r:;:�� , . �s.. �•:�...x:�:, :.s17. 'i� i`Fc� '�" ... :-�'::..:!..;i; '��' If-. _'-� x'•'' - ��.�.r�s�ei:r'�. ..:� - ;` � ' ' � � 't � -, i, : <- . �'. �: � Y : �.; "s"' . � . 4.:�. " ' . � . o- : �N _ �.��.. �'�:. . , i. Y�i � ?y� . ti �" -.. . � ' �� ' . .;��a•. . . J " • ' .��: i i'�.'°`-.:?•; •.: � p. ,^- , � ��?•• } �x- .y4�." z1 � . ,� "# . . .: z� , ¢ , �� .• ' �� " _ •en ' �� u, �v'. �. g,: � �' '�=:.Y' :� �� ' � � ��>' .. .. `" �' ,�c '�.� �. � :;x-. �. �� c ,�.� ;.'.;. _�; �• ;:: _... y - �,,". ,: , �� ? : `� . ��,. F: :t :'� �; ,. !� = ° "3:�',�%:�. � ��' � � �. ��'"�.,�:.�" � �` ��'.'.a� �Ir. : ''� �y. � . a�� .��;� ��'�s r�.. � � � . _. . ' x�.`:;': - � . � . �w.br•- . ' . `�<, �' v�`. T��_.'�.,," • "`�3.•�` . � " . �'' ��?� � �� .�x:� •. ��' �.�°s-'�•' �a-::; aT!`,�t��: , ��:�:��_ ' _ " :.-�✓y:e,i�p.=. L '�W�"i , ' ' A . �. _ ' �6}'%. :�:'.a`�'-?:�` . - � . . �� i�. .f ��.• ��..5.� a,; _ �� '�'§ .�'-+. �c� • ,;q, �c' •.�_.,. ...;;a;... - `�. - �:. - y :�X m _ ; � ,. �' ` �;;,, ',�':;� ;. r :,:...; „ �,: � ,� _ :�;- . � �i e:....�: ,p,.•s: - _ ',:��:`�.: '� �y� - .. - �� i�+' � r�=S "?=. :y. c,�e. � '��.b��" Ta�:�i':: ;:;.ne_ - �:. � . - iF� �.. . , :._, .. � � "F" : i'-.; ��xe, 3,�., -� <....: ,. .. :�. ..,. a . .. ;- -:y ; , : ; . F - ,; : .:< 9S• ta 'ffi. '.. .. . . �. W r� � .. ..h?.. ��Y•�:.;a.:.�. .��_. - " ..a...�.. ..r �<�- . .s �:.�. . .. .. „y. .. .. ' :r�;.'..g>.:�:.ix; :� w,�; � ��:: =�;;'%Te y'�•• :a: _ ;s: ?�':, rG::., • (:a �'-4.G:d�. ::l--.� � . `�:" .i �,�:?:a . . ... _ '�" �'� <,� �. ,.. . x• . �: < � - . .,... .. •--.. _ �'• a'i.` i. z? :� r.x �'°'. *. �. ,.aF�.: r � "; �_� . �?.1 ' � . . .. . .��-r �P'ir.�v-- .�a:��gc=i ;y � :-., �.. � -•.�`�' _ ' ::� �. . 5: F ffi�: ��g.F�;i� - . � � .,�; ''a,., `�'• .��: � ��3:� .� si;:= �"; .. . .. � ,. i i s.:.Fi_: - �::: -�:, .. a.�:.4��RS9 �. . :.£P� [9:: 5 &•'�':: �x�.-°.�� !�f { � — _ _ .:i � ��i;;:.S:= � '.�x.- R<:a" ka��x:�� I: �� dX?�'_ .�F'• ;I�!�•Ss�: •.JLldy� °".�;�',�� ..:�: F ".�'..,�a.r'.aai ..�kR� ��.�,:�."}� _.S�:li:.�..i..J• ::l �;gY.�,nAr�°°� .�.'..4�: � �:. �� .:.:?`�' �e r�'" :��si�•. �"�� ..� .,! s..�.'�r,� . .�,, ;,'�r� r �.z.M.:�s.. .::t"i': ^::��~�a .:i�:.',�.°s.�• .'_.d?.��. W.; �r'^p � • �.. � ; ��;T.C,:.:. ��'�,' ,. ;wa.::;x. t?��•.:rs�;� �:Y.•�: °� �. ' � � 5' _ _'a :'7: . k : '. ��. �..:, b':. :C!4:;.� .� :'�,'� : i I:'r i : •,y. 3 �:'$ i% i!� �� ,��:_ -...��. ' - — [ ��A�� ;ny� �, . 4 t .' e .:i�ny:�➢?' _- '1. r .�__r\.... '.W''... ..a�.... i§i � _�: � r � ° ±� s�a xii � .+K' � ;�; �.,�.. i ui 3 �-: � �: �� x ..> .:.�.. -?�� - ":3h:.1- F:.ik.�.�' ..k...a:i.c. MN.° �3!::.°a<.. i.5....�-�.r� ��. . ! . . _ _ _ ' . .. .:�ry._ - .. .. � . _ _ __ _...... ��t`. i..' .,y..;':°��l 5 .��^a��'+_'8�-''�.•'a ��n� r..,.. ��: . P.c" o ��,.•':-' �-s s.ne� ..�"s�'�: s .�:�._..��•�, �:�� . .��.�, �� x� .�cz: i'tY.•. ..�x.i:?:: 8 .-..k�' ��' �2�,� �S�rx.. . —' .-� ��'z.. ,.,. �. �'^� �. £.R " �� Y:' '.a_ 5�:.x��4,v:" -....�;��C &;u��;� �:. , .. �,,.• �:.. �. . L'+'. s�'�� : !3� . E. Y i � :.:� & � �; !. �n': '�a ' f::�-� '�x.'L�' �e's.�'.�9..5' — _ _ _" _.:..F"" �� — _ ' � . - w�•_ _�"� ^_ _ � -- �-� _J" " _ _ . ,a I �� "�. ..'iL'::✓i:.:• h'S. « S.k.: .�!��.F.•.�:S:z�'•':k��l� :'ll•.3��G�ti'� �1� ..'.�k�:�:":5 .. .. [%i�. ...�..iG�� ...��`��:` ....i'Q�: �� a�€u,t� .��:f?i;��_'I�?�.wg��Z;: :,i,;� :�n:'.s' .. I A: �r' . ::��::�;:.. i '• �.'� � !�"'i " !r �s`• i - `z' �° p:�� I� ��' ,s' .€%� a:4i.�. �s"��d��z�� ..->:S'�:$3�.�3s:.a< ..34��'s'�+",;6i.-.yi`.'X s:�7 �'.r�r.[r:.$='. �.3! ;�� - - �13s 3.'.• �.a'.�E� ;a5; :Ra.:- .9.,. :�' tl ..0 3`�:� �e�' :a.; •K,:' a' ':{,:5� &�•' Y:—= .F��*.^ �� r:� 'S'$'^ 'u:§'. •x':!y"' :S p" �,'.-:�'' �6?$'�.'� �' ��:'3i %i 9'. �; u`r :: _,.r?�sss� �� x-d,�.�..,t `��....?�z:: ,e .�ze .H��;z.�.. . °.�:_.� . ..:•�s;�� . �i .: �.$.:� S�S � i�'�.�.[ � n:.;:s-@ �". � ��. r,�:�r."""t':�-',��:!`:�:�r?:'" f`:"i":�di � LL � } �ar�a er � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Revie�v Manager COPI�S: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist, /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for DATE: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Annlications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-10 9— 2100 Nursery Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — 45 Papaya Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes No Level Three Annlications (Items 1) 1. Case: TA2012-10008 — Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code Yes No Sig�iatu re: — �� Z�' �' �} 1� \ r�'S�- � C � _ 1 �a►n�T n�AME l� S: �Plu�m�ng Depu�Unen��(� D B�_-Ig��udas UIl(� �ti� i'U8�('DH�2Ul? l' Ue�eir�fier l8. _'0l_' I('orer.11E.110?Ol?.doc � o � �J� � } ae � U Interdepartmental Corresponcience Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROIVI: 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: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Annlications (Items 1-31 1. Case: FLD2012-10019 — 2100 Nursery Road Yes %� No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — 45 Papaya Street Yes %` No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes � No Level Three Applications (Items 1) 1. Case: TA2012-10008 — Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code Yes__� No Signature: PR[NT NAME site visit to tlre foNowingprop Date: V' S:'�Pluru�ingD�pnrunen��(�UB.dY��ndasDRCX C'Ul3�CDBZOI? /'Ueceinher /d, 30/'�1 ('orer.tlL.11O20/?.doc � ° �ar�c�� er � � U Interdepartmenta! 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 Speciati�t, /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for DATE: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Una�proved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Annlications GItems 1-31 1. Case: FLD2012-10019 — 2 0 Nursery Road � Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — Papaya Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 4 1 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes No Level Three Annlications (Items 1) 1. Case: TA2012-10008 — A endments to the Clearwater Community Development Code ,� Yes i�o t'Kll� l 1VAM� S: ��P/unnn�p Depa��nnenl �<' U B.�ig�ndus URC & (,U/3��CD8 20/_' i' Deeembe�� /8. 'Ol � / ('orer .11E.110 ?0/2.clor LL � � �ar�w�a er � U . Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist, /Pat Sullivan, Board ReporCer SUBJECT: Agenda Items for DATE: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unap�roved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Anplications (Items 1-31 l. Case: FLD2012-10019 — 2100 Nursery Road Yes V No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — 45 Papaya Street Yes �� No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes 1/ No Level Three Annlications (Items 1) 1. Case: TA2012-10008 — Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code Yes _�__/ � No Signature: �G�sl�r �� _ �� R[NT NAMG Slle V%Sll Date: l 2-- 1 S: ��Plun�ring l_��parimen��(' D B.I,��i��as l)RC &(�UB�CD8�201? l21.)ec�n�her la' _0/_' l(��oi�er:l1E.4J0 �013.doc TO: FROM: COPIES: Community Development Board Members Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager � O } ear��a er � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Speciatist, /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for DATE: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Annlications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-10019 — 2100 Nursery Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — 45 Papaya Street Yes No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes No Level Three Anplications (Items 1) L Case: TA2012-10008 — Amen ments to the Clearwater Community Development Code Yes No I have co�tducler � �erso� ' n Signature: ��,��c �. � �ainTT ��AmE a� the nersonnl site visi, Date: %�i ��. � �� S�Plcurning U��prrrlme��1' U B_-Igendas DRC & C'UB�,('DB�?U/? !? D�ceinber- /� ?0/2 1('over,llti.11�) 201?.c1oc LL Q } �ar��a er � U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attonley; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist, /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for DATE: December 18, 2012 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting November 20, 2012 Agenda Level Two Annlications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-10019 — 2100 Nursery Road Yes No 2. Case: FLD2012-10017 — 45 Papaya Street Yes \ No 3. Case: FLD2012-10018 — 421 S. Gulfview Boulevard Yes � No Level Three A�nlications (Items 1) l. Case: TA2012-10008 — Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code Yes No a Signature: to tlre Date: �rl'�.r+ �ar�c�- � PRINT \'AME S: Plunniag Drp�n�trnen��C� D 8��-Igencias DRC &(�UL3�(�DB 2017 l? Uecemher 18, ?Ol? l('o�•er:tlE.ilO?Ol?.do<�