Loading...
02/19/2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 19, 2013 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 Donald van Weezel Absent: Chair Nicholas C. Fritsch, Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Planning & Development Director Michael Delk, Assistant Planning & Development 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, Carlough, Dame Hinrichs, Alternate Member van Weezel, City Staff C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: January 15, 2012 Member Dame moved toapprove the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of January 15, 2012, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1-2): 1. Case: FLD2012-11027 - 760 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application Owner: Wayne J. Boyer Agent: Rick Miller; Atlantic Pool Builders (3665 East Bay Drive, Suite 204-112, Largo, FL 33771; phone: (727) 595-1142; email: Rick-APB@yahoo.com) Location: 0.15 acre property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue. Atlas Page: 249A Community Development 2/19/2013 1 Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Request: Flexible Development application for the construction of an accessory pool, spa, and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling (existing) Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2012-11027 2013-02-18 2-14-13 Memorandum FLD2012-11027 2013-02-18 See page 3 for motion of approval. 2. Case: FLD2013-01001 - 1104 Mandalay Point Level Two Application Owner: C James Pitzer Gills, Jr. Agent: Robert R. Sprinkle; Sprinkle Consulting (18115 US 41 North Suite 600, Lutz, FL 33549; phone: (813) 949-7449; email: rsprinkle@sprinkleconsulting.com) Location: 2.31 acre property located on the west side of Mandalay Point approximately 90 feet north of the northern terminus of Eldorado Avenue. Atlas Page: 227A Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)/Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts Request: Flexible Development application to permit a boardwalk four feet in width, 366 feet in length and a maximum of approximately three feet in height (seven feet including handrails to be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905. Proposed Use: Boardwalk as accessory to existing detached dwelling Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2013-01001 2013-02-19 2-14-13 Memorandum FLD2013-01001 2013-02-19 Community Development 2/19/2013 2 Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2012-11027 and FLD2013-01001 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, including an additional Condition of Approval for each Case as stated in the February 14, 2013 memorandum. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1): 1. Case: FLD2013-01002 - 431 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner: C. John Pullara, Peter Pullara, Joseph Pullara Agent: Robert Gregg; European Equities Corporation (630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: (727) 796-8774; email: archreg@aol.com) Location: 0.12 acre property is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street. Atlas Page: 267A Zoning: Tourist (T) District Request: Flexible Development approval to allow for a bar, nightclub or restaurant use where a restaurant currently exists within the Tourist (T) District with no changes to any of the development standards previously approved as part of FLD2009-01001 as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.D. Proposed Use: Bar and Nightclub added to existing Restaurant Use Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Clearwater Beach Association Presenter: Matt Jackson, Planner II See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2013-01002 2013-02-19 2-19-13 Memorandum FLD2013-01002 2013-02-19 Gwen Douse requested Party Status. Member Dame moved to grant Gwen Douse Party Status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Carlough moved to accept Matthew Jackson as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and landscape ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner II Matt Jackson reviewed the Staff Report, correspondence re Mandalay Avenue noise, recommended Conditions of Approval, and an additional Condition of Community Development 2/19/2013 3 Approval, which summarizes the City’s noise ordinance and is recommended to allay neighbor concerns. In response to questions, Mr. Jackson said Mandalay Beach Club condo units are approximately 100 to 300 feet from the subject business. The City’s noise ordinance does not reference decibel levels; it specifically prohibits loud and raucous noise. Restaurants are permitted to have live bands. The 2009 approval of the business’ original comprehensive infill redevelopment application acknowledged the unavailability of off street parking. In response to questions, Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said the Courts have upheld the City’s standard for loud and raucous noise. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Police may measure decibel levels but do not use that standard when citing infractions to the noise ordinance. Robert Gregg, representative for the applicant, said the State determined the business sells 1% too much alcohol for its current license and required a change of status. He said 4COP licenses are difficult to obtain and very expensive. He said nearby businesses have outside bands. He said the board should not consider noise but the change of status that is necessary to meet State requirements. Party Status Holder Gwen Douse said she wished to preserve the quality of life for herself and others. She said she and her neighbors are kept awake at night by loud music from Mandalay Avenue businesses. She said music from the subject business awoke her neighbor after closing hours while staff was cleaning. She requested that the City amend the noise ordinance to limit how late music can be played and that the City work to attract businesses to the area that appeal to families. Heif Abdon, business owner, said he respects his neighbors and obeys the law. He said the business is in a commercial area. He welcomed neighbors to come into the business if the music is too loud and the volume would be lowered. Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the board is tasked with determining if the requested use is appropriate for the location. Discussion ensued with comments that the only change to the business relates to the State’s determination that it sells a percentage more alcohol than food. It was requested that the business not play music after it closes for the night. It was noted that the owner has agreed to work with residents if music is too loud. Community Development 2/19/2013 4 Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2013-01002 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Items not on the Agenda It was reported that Chair Fritsch will attend the March meeting. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:43 p.m. AO) Attest / Co Development Board Board Rep• - 1—CO A Community Development 2/19/2013 5 FLD2012-11027 2013-02-19 EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: D.1. CASE: FLD2012-11027 REQUEST: Flexible Development application for the construction of an accessory pool, spa, and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. GENERAL DATA: Agent……………………… Rick Miller, Atlantic Pool Builders Applicant / Owner.............. Wayne J. Boyer Location……..................... 760 Eldorado Avenue; located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue. Property Size…................. 0.15 acres Future Land Use Plan…… Residential Urban (RU) Zoning…………………….. Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Special Area Plan..............N/A Adjacent Zoning... North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District Existing Land Use............. Detached Dwelling Proposed Land Use………Detached Dwelling D.1. -Not a Survey--Not to Scale-BOHENIA CIR NBOHENIA CIR N PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION MANGO ST MANGO ST MANDALAY AVE MANDALAY AVE BRUCE AVE BRUCE AVE ELDORADO AVE ELDORADO AVE BOHENIA CIR S BOHENIA CIR S GULF OF MEXICO JEWEL ST JEWEL ST Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 2 ESPLANADEHARBORCYPRUS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: PLAZA -Not a Survey- -Not to Scale- LANTANA Site Location and Existing Conditions: AVE The 0.15 acre subject property is locatedon the NARCISSUS AVE GARDENIA ST west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 AVE BOHENIA feet north of the Bohenia Street and Eldorado VERBENA CIR Avenue intersection. The properties to the north, ST ELDORADO PROJECT MANGO ESPLANADE south and east are zoned Low Medium Density CLEARWATER HARBOR SITE ^ CIR Residential (LMDR) District and are developed BRUCE BOHENIA GULF OF MEXICO with detached dwellings. Land to the west is MANDALAY IRIS JEWEL BAY zoned Open Space Recreation (OS/R) District ASTER and is the beach/Gulf of Mexico. ACACIA ST ISLAND SOMERSET Development Proposal: ST CAMBRIA AVE The proposal is to construct a pool, spa and deck IDLEWILD on the west side of the house. This request is GLENDALE WAY LOCATION MAP ROYAL T MHDR I being processed as a Residential Infill Project HEILW00D BAY 815 due to the requested reduction of the rear (west) 815 813 816 811 810807 -Not to Scale--Not a Survey- 809 setback from 15 feet to zero feet as measured to 805 808 812 807 803 808 804 804 805 805 804 801 800 the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) 802 38 800 801 801 800 MANDALAY AVE MANGO ST for the pool and pool deck. Pursuant to Section 765 37 781 780 27 775 769 3-905.C.3., Community Development Code BRUCE AVE 779 776 763 770 766 775 (CDC), any requests to modify setback 765 764 757 770 763 760 771 761 760 753 requirements from the CCCL shall be considered ELDORADO AVE 765 LMDR 766 757 756 755 OS/R 751 761 760 through a Level Two development process. 754 754 P 751 757 750 756 745 750 755 31 752 741 746 740 BOHENIA CIR S 741 The development proposal’s compliance with the 742737 737 736 GULF OF MEXICO 750 various development standards of the CDC is 738 733 745 744734 732 729 JEWEL ST 732 743 discussed below: 730 727 740 729 739 726 736 725 735725 734 724 724 723 Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules 723 720 721 720 731 718 725 719716 730 ZONING MAP and Section 2-201.1, CDC, within the 721 712712 717 724 Residential Urban (RU) future land use plan category, the maximum allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the existing density is in compliance. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2-201.1, CDC, within the RU future land use plan category, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.54 is proposed. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204, CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, and a side setback between zero to five feet. The rear setback for waterfront properties shall be 25 feet from seawall, property line or coastal construction control line. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to front or side setbacks, which is consistent with the above referenced setbacks. Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 1 601133203987654321 5 55 A54774 60 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The reduction in the rear setback to pool and GULF 5815 1260 815 4 813 16 10 5 OF 413 816 4 7 4 811 810807 -Not a Survey- -Not to Scale- 80923 MEXICO 3 805 decking allows for development consistent with 8 808 3 14 812 807 3 3 803 808 804 804 805 2 29 15 2 2 805 804 801 the surrounding and emerging development 800 802 1 110 38 1 16 800 801 60 DETACHED 801 800 MANDALAY AVE MANGO ST pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in DWELLINGS 60 765 37 781 780 27 775 10 67 9 88 769 the vicinity have or appear to have zero-foot 779 776 763 5 108 770 7 766 7 54666 15 775 setbacks from the CCCL. A setback of zero feet 765 49 11 6 764 757 6 770 763 760 11 771 10 3 761 760 12 4 5 753 5 from the CCCL to an in-ground pool and deck ELDORADO AVE 60 765 766 757 13 756 2 60 4 755 4 1 751 was approved for 974 Eldorado Avenue 761 14 760 754 5 3 3 754 751 BRUCE AVE 757 15 750 756 2 6 745 (FLD2010-11031), 740 Eldorado Avenue 2 750 16 755 31 752 1 4 7 1 741 746 (FLD2009-10040), 1000 Eldorado Avenue 740 741 BOHENIA CIR S 14 3 8 742737 60 737 736 750 GULF OF MEXICO 2 12 9 (FLD2011-01002) and for 1154 and 1160 11 5 60 738 745733 734 744 10 1 10 732 4 13 729 DETACHED JEWEL ST Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004). Most 732 60 70 743 11 730 3 3 14 9 DWELLINGS 727 740 729 739 726 recently, a two foot setback to the CCCL was 15 736 860 28 725 12 735 725 734 9 1 724 7 724 7 16 approved for a pool and deck at 716 Eldorado 723 723 13 10 17 720 6 721 6 720 60 731 718 725 716 719 730 EXISITNG SURROUNDING USES Avenue (FLD2012-05012). In addition, a review 5 18 11 5 8 721 712 712 60 4 19 2 12 717 4 7 of aerial photographs depicts several existing 724 60 60 waterfront properties in the vicinity that appear to have structures with setbacks of zero feet from the CCCL, including: the two adjacent properties to the south 756 and 752 Eldorado Avenue as well as 724, 734, 770, 800, 804, 856, 880, 920, 926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970 and 1002 Eldorado Avenue. Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and deck for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the existing and emerging development pattern. In regards to the spa, the CDC defines spas as a swimming pool, and swimming pools that are greater than twelve inches above grade shall be considered a principle structure and must meet a twenty-five foot rear setback. Swimming pools twelve inches or less above grade are considered accessory structures and such accessory structures are not subject to the rear yard setback for a principle structure. Since the subject property’s rear yard area is covered by a concrete patio with no exposed natural earth surface, the height of the seawall is considered by code as the existing grade. The submitted drawings show that the height of the spa qualifies as an accessory structure as it will not be greater than twelve inches above existing grade; therefore, the height of the spa is allowable by Code. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-903.H.1, CDC, air conditioning and similar mechanical equipment is exempt from the side setback requirements, but such equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Any outside pool/mechanical equipment to be located to the rear or side of the dwelling shall be screened from adjacent properties and Eldorado Avenue. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows the location of pool/mechanical equipment and demonstrate how the equipment shall be screened to meet Code. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the proposed detached dwelling with the standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2- 204, CDC: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac (1 unit) 1 unit X ISR 0.65 0.54 X Minimum Setbacks Rear: 0 - 10 feet Zero feet (to pool deck) X 1 Side (north) 0-5 feet 5 feet X Side (south) 0-5 feet 5 feet X 1 See analysis in setback discussion above COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-204.E., CDC (Residential Infill Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity or other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 3 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 3, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1.That the 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue; 2.That the subject property is currently developed with a single-family detached dwelling; 3.That the development proposal is to add a pool, spa, and deck to an existing single-family detached dwelling; 4.That the proposed height of the spa is twelve inches in height above existing grade; 5.That the development proposal requests a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to pool and deck; 6.That the pool, spa, and deck will be setback five feet on the side (north) and side (south) setbacks; 7.That pursuant to Section 3-905.C.3, CDC, any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and 8.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 4 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2- 204, CDC; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E., CDC; and 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A., CDC. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit the construction of an accessory pool, spa, and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-204.E., subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1.That the height of the proposed spa shall be twelve inches or less above existing grade (the height of the existing seawall); 2.That the final design of the pool, spa, and deck be consistent with the drawings approved by the CDB; 3.Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows the location of outdoor pool/mechanical equipment and demonstrate how the equipment shall be screened to meet Code; 4.That there are no obstructions other than the non-opaque four foot fence in height in the waterfront site visibility triangles as per Section 3-904.B., CDC; 5.That no new structure shall be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; and 6.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2012-11027 – Page 5 EXHIBIT: 2-14-13 MEMORANDUM FLD2012-111027 2013-02-19 To: Community Development Board Members From: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III Date: February 14, 2013 RE: FLD2012-11027 – 760 Eldorado Avenue FLD2013-01001 - 1104 Mandalay Point Road On February 14, 2013, the Engineering Department notified the Planning Department that a new condition of approval shall be added to current and future development projects along the beach. Below is the new condition that needs to be added to the Conditions of Approval for the referenced projects. If you have any questions, please contact me at 562-4567 ext. 2502. 1.That Licensed Contractors and Florida residents alike should know that any work beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) requires a permit from both the City of Clearwater and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Furthermore, both sand dunes and sea oats are resources protected by the State. It is unlawful to remove/trim or alter these resources without the benefit of a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2013-01002 2013-02-19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: D.2. CASE: FLD2013-01002 REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to allow for a bar, nightclub or restaurant use where a restaurant currently exists within the Tourist (T) District with no changes to any of the development standards previously approved as part of FLD2009-01001 as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.D. GENERAL DATA: Agent……………………… Robert Gregg, European Equities, Inc. Owner…………………...... C. John Pullara, Peter Pullara, Joseph Pullara Location………….............. 431 Mandalay Avenue; east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street Property Size…................. 0.12 Acres Future Land Use Plan...... Resort Facilities High (RFH) Zoning…………………….. Tourist (T) District Special Area Plan..............Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design Adjacent Zoning.... North: Tourist (T) South: Tourist (T) East: Tourist (T) West: Tourist (T) Existing Land Use............. Restaurant Proposed Land Use…….. Restaurant, Bar and/or Nightclub D.2. -Not a Survey--Not to Scale-CAUSEWAY BLVD CAUSEWAY BLVD SAN MARCO ST SAN MARCO ST E EAST SHORE DR E EAST SHORE DR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION PAPAYA ST PAPAYA ST MANDALAY AVE MANDALAY AVE POINSETTIA AVE POINSETTIA AVE EAST SHORE DR EAST SHORE DR Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 3 of 7 DOLPHINSR-60 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: POINSETTIA BAY ESPLANADE -Not a Survey- -Not to Scale- Site Location and Existing Conditions: ROCKAWAY The 0.12 acre subject property is located on the Ambler east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately GULF OF MEXICO 50 feet south of Papaya Street. The subject ST BAYMONT CLEARWATER HARBOR AVE AVE DR property is currently developed as a 4,384 SAN MARCO PROJECT SHORE square foot restaurant use (Toucans) with zero SITE ^ parking spaces. The restaurant use was PAPAYAST POINSETTIA EAST MANDALAY approved as part of FLD2009-01001 as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Pier 60 Blvd Causeway The subject property is also located within the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design. The surrounding neighborhood is a BLVD DEVON tourist area comprised of hotels/motels, retail DR sales establishments and restaurants. The DEVON SECOND ST 478490 Hilton Hotel is located across Mandalay 480 476 475 475 474 470 -Not a Survey- -Not to Scale- 472 Avenue from the subject property. There are SAN MARCO ST 470 472 473 473 E EAST SHORE DR 464 1 11471 adjacent restaurants to the north and east. 468 467 466 469 P 466 470 464 462 465 Other retail sales establishments and restaurants 462 457 460 460463 458 453 453454 456 exist along Mandalay Avenue between the 451 451452 454 449 450 452 454 449 448 450 447 roundabout and Rockaway Street. City parking 448 443446 446 444 10 30 232 PAPAYA ST 442 443 440 lot #34 is adjacent to the south of the subject 435414547 43438 438Irrig441 55 parcel. 433 T 430 425 432 431 428 P 430 429 439 426 423 OS/R MANDALAY AVE 427Meter 427 423 POINSETTIA AVE 423 Development Proposal: 419 EAST SHORE DR 415 413 On January 4, 2013, a Comprehensive Infill 419 411 409 407 Redevelopment Project application was 405411 408 403A 403 401 409 399 submitted for the subject property. The 400 397 406 405 395 393 391 application proposes to allow for a bar, 389 387½ 403 387 400 383 381 379400 nightclub or restaurant use where a restaurant 401 377 380PEDX OS/R I currently exists with no changes to any of the CAUSEWAY BLVD 391 390 development standards previously approved as part of FLD2009-01001. It should be noted that while bar and nightclub uses are proposed to be allowed at the subject property, the actual function of the subject property would continue to be more consistent with that of a restaurant. The impetus for adding bar and nightclub use results from the State of Florida Department of Building and Professional Regulation requiring that the alcohol license for the subject property be amended to remove the restaurant designation as alcohol sales exceed food sales. As such and when the applicant requested staff Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 1 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION to provide City approval for the removal of the restaurant designation, staff ascertained that the use of the property had changed from restaurant use. As defined by the Community Development Code, a restaurant may have subordinate sales of alcohol, not primary. Staff informed the applicant that a change of use would be required prior to being able to approve a revised alcohol license for the subject property in which alcohol sales exceeded food and non- alcoholic beverages. The applicant is choosing to establish nightclub as well as bar use on the property so as if they choose to have live entertainment (nightclub use) similar to other beach venues, they would not be required to do so through an additional Level II request. To mitigate against any negative auditory impacts to surrounding property owners, a condition of approval is included that there shall be no outside amplified music or microphone usage. 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 along North Mandalay Avenue transform into a pedestrian-friendly retail/restaurant 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 for restaurants. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum floor area ratio for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The proposed one-story building footprint produces a floor area ratio of 0.81, which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Section 2-801.1 of the Community Development Code (CDC), the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.90, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum lot area for bar or nightclub use is 5,000 square feet and ranges between 5,000 – 10,000 square feet for restaurant use. The subject property is 5,400 square feet in area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for bar, nightclub or restaurants can range between 50 – 100 feet. The lot width of this site along Mandalay Avenue is 50 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum front setback for bars, nightclubs or restaurants can range between zero – 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range between zero – 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet. The Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 2 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION proposal includes a front (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing building), a side (south) setback of 5.4 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk) and a rear (east) setback of 2.25 feet (to existing building) and zero feet (to existing sidewalk). Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the maximum allowable height for bars and restaurants ranges from 35 – 100 feet and ranges between 25 – 100 feet for restaurants. The existing building height is 14.67 feet to its flat roof. The existing parapet around the building edge is 16 feet, well below the range permitted. Generally, commercial buildings along both sides of Mandalay Avenue are one- to two-story stories in height. Minimum Off-Street Parking: 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. Pursuant to Table 2-803 of the CDC, the minimum required parking for bars and nightclubs is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. . The existing building and site has no on- site parking with no ability to provide any such parking. The proposal provides zero on-site parking spaces. Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-912 of the CDC, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Pursuant to the conditions of approval for FLD 2009-0101 and subsequent site work, overhead utility lines servicing the subject property were placed underground in conformance with this Code requirement. Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D of the CDC, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. Since there is no parking lot on this property, there is no interior landscape area requirement. CDC Section 3-1202.E.2 requires foundation landscaping along the frontage of a building façade facing a street right-of-way. The building fronts on Mandalay Avenue, but due to its proximity to the front property line, the applicant is unable to provide this required foundation landscaping. Many properties on both sides of Mandalay Avenue do not have any foundation landscaping. Solid Waste: The site will continue to utilize an existing community dumpster located on Poinsettia Avenue to the southeast of this parcel. It is required that staff transports the trash to this dumpster. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 3 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA : The following table depicts the consistency of the restaurant proposal with the standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Maximum F.A.R. 1.0 (5,400 square feet) 0.81 (4,385 square feet) X Maximum I.S.R. 0.95 0.90 X Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 sq. ft. 5,400 square feet X Minimum Lot Width 50 – 100 feet 50 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet Zero feet (to existing building) X 1 Side: 0 – 10 feet North: Zero feet (to building) X 1 South: 5.4 feet (to building) X 1 Zero feet (to sidewalk) Rear: 10 – 20 feet 2.25 feet (to building) X 1 Zero feet (to sidewalk) Maximum Height 25 – 100 feet 14.67 feet (to flat roof) X 16 feet (to parapet) Minimum Off-Street Bars: 10 spaces / 1,000 SF Zero spaces X 1 Parking Nightclubs: 10 spaces / 1,000 SF Restaurants: 7-10 spaces / 1,000 SF 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 4 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA : The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-803.D of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes;  Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,  pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; Variety in materials, colors and textures;  Distinctive fenestration patterns;  Building stepbacks; and  Distinctive roofs forms.  e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 5 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 07, 2013 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1.That the 0.12 acres is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 50 feet south of Papaya Street; 2.That the subject property is located within the Retail and Restaurant Character District of Beach by Design; 3.That the site currently operates as a restaurant (Toucans); 4.That on March 18, 2008, a Development Order with six conditions of approval was issued for Case No. FLD2009-01001 to permit a restaurant with an accessory sidewalk café. 5.That a Unity of Title tying the lots included in this parcel’s legal description was recorded in OR Book 16323, Page 2372; 6.That City parking lot #34, with 24 metered parking spaces, is adjacent to the south of the subject parcel; 7.That the surrounding neighborhood is a tourist area comprised of hotels/motels, retail sales establishments and restaurants; 8.That the proposal is to allow a bar, nightclub or restaurant use where a restaurant currently exists; 9.That the proposal includes no changes to the building exterior; 10.That the proposal includes no changes to setbacks; 11.That the application includes no landscape changes; 12.That due to the location of the existing building and the size and configuration of the subject property, this site has not previously been provided with any on-site parking; 13.That the proposal includes no changes to the existing parking; Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 6 of 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 14.That there are no current outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law.The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2- 803 of the Community Development Code; 2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 803.D of the Community Development Code; and 3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913.A of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development approval to allow for a bar, nightclub or restaurant use where a restaurant currently exists within the Tourist (T) District with no changes to any of the development standards previously approved as part of FLD2009-01001 as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 803.D., with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval 1.That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage outside; 2.That the existing Business Tax Receipt with application number BTR-0030132 be amended to include bar and nightclub uses; and 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 an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Matt Jackson, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Existing Surrounding Uses Map and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board – February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01002 – Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT: 2-19-13 MEMORANDUM FLD2013-01002 2013-02-19 To: Community Development Board Members From: Matt Jackson, Planner II Date: February 19, 2013 RE: FLD2013-01002 – 431 Mandalay Avenue In response to potential noise concerns submitted to staff by residents within 500 feet of the subject property, a condition of approval (condition number four), has been added. Listed below are the revised conditions of approval and please disregard the conditions of approval in the staff report. Conditions of Approval: 1.That there shall be no amplified music or microphone usage outside; 2.That the existing Business Tax Receipt with application number BTR-0030132 be amended to include bar and nightclub uses; 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 an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity; and 4.That all noise requirements pursuant to CDC Section 3-1508 be met including that any loud and raucous noise emanating from a noise source on the subject property that can be heard on adjacent rights-of-way and dwellings or at a distance of 100 feet or more in a straight line from the subject property be prohibited. -Not a Survey--Not to Scale-BAY ESPLANADE BAY ESPLANADE EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2013-01001 2013-02-19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: D.3. CASE: FLD2013-01001 REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a boardwalk four feet in width, 366 feet in length and a maximum of approximately three feet in height (seven feet including handrails to be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905. GENERAL DATA: Agent……………………… Robert R. Sprinkle; Sprinkle Consulting Applicant/ Owner……....... James Pitzer Gills, Jr. Location………….............. 1104 Mandalay Point Road; west side of Mandalay Point Road approximately 90 feet north of the northern terminus of Eldorado Avenue. Property Size…................. 2.31 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Residential Low (RL)/Preservation (P) Zoning…………………….. Low Density Residential (LDR)/Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts Special Area Plan.............. None Adjacent Zoning.... North: Low Density Residential (LDR)/Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts South: Low Density Residential (LDR)/Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts East: Preservation (P) West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District Existing Land Use............. Detached dwelling Proposed Land Use……… Detached dwelling MANDALAY POINT RD MANDALAY POINT RD CLEARWATER HARBOR GULF OF MEXICO ELDORADO AVE ELDORADO AVE LMDR C C C I HDR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.31 acre site is located on the west side of Mandalay Point Road approximately 90 feet north of the northern terminus of Eldorado Avenue. The subject site is comprised of four lots, with approximately 155 feet of frontage along Mandalay Point Road. The site is a waterfront property with approximately 155 feet of frontage along the Gulf of Mexico. The site includes approximately 2,250 square feet of land on the east side of Mandalay Point Road along the Intercoastal Waterway. A detached dwelling is located within a single, 4,300 square foot two-story building along the east side of the site. This site is accessed from Mandalay Point Road via a driveway. Please note that building square footages, based on site visits and City and Pinellas County Property Appraiser records, are made to the best of Staff ability. As mentioned, the site spans two zoning districts; the LDR and OS/R Districts. In addition, the CCCL bifurcates the site north to south and exists approximately 160 feet west of the east property line along the west side of Mandalay Point Road. The CCCL is located approximately one foot to the west of an existing retain wall which, likewise, runs north to south. The CCCL is also located approximately 36 feet west of the line marking the LDR and OS/R Districts. The proposed boardwalk will exist mostly within the portion of the site within the OS/R District. Currently, there are no structures within 50 feet of the CCCL except for a boardwalk approximately three feet in width and 95 feet in length. The existing boardwalk is deteriorated and will be removed with this proposal. Development Proposal: The proposal is to remove the existing boardwalk and replace it with a new boardwalk in roughly same location. No other changes are proposed. The proposed boardwalk will be four feet in width, 366 feet in length and a maximum Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION height of approximately three feet (up to seven feet including handrails) above grade with a minimum clearance of six inches above grade. The boardwalk will begin at the existing retaining wall approximately one foot east of the CCCL and extend westward for approximately 366 feet. The proposal has been presented to and approved by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (Permit 8027674) evidence of which has been included in the submittal material prepared by the applicant. As mentioned the existing boardwalk has deteriorated and constitutes a hazard. The applicant desires to maintain an environmentally sensitive method of accessing the Gulf of Mexico and the proposed boardwalk will provide that by traversing over rather than cutting through existing dunes. The proposed boardwalk will have a smaller and finite footprint thereby preserving the dunes and existing native vegetation. Special Area Plan: None Development Parameters Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 101.1, the maximum Density for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of RL is five units per acre or a maximum two dwellings. The site contains a single dwelling unit, which is consistent with Code provisions. No change to the density of the site is proposed. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-101.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The overall existing ISR is approximately 0.40, which is consistent with Code provisions. No change to the ISR of the site is proposed. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-102, the minimum required lot area or lot width for a Detached Dwelling is 20,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 100,813 square feet and the lot width is 155 feet exceeding and/or meeting the otherwise minimum area and width required by Code. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-102, the minimum required setbacks for Detached Dwellings are 25 feet (front), 10 feet (side) and 20 feet (rear). However, pursuant to CDC Section 3-905 no building or structure shall be located seaward of the CCCL unless approved by the State of Florida. In addition, the CCCL as the line of reference from which setbacks shall be measured along the Gulf of Mexico for buildings and structures. This section further provides that any request to modify the setback requirements contained in this section shall be considered as an application for a Level Two approval. The proposed boardwalk will begin approximately one foot east of the CCCL and continue seaward of the CCCL for approximately 365 feet. The applicant has previously procured State approval. Final approval for the boardwalk must be provided through this Level Two application. Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201, the maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet. The proposed boardwalk will be a maximum of approximately three feet above grade (up to seven feet including handrails) which is less than this allowable height and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-102, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Detached Dwelling is two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The site provides two parking spaces with the existing attached garage which is consistent with this Code Section. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as follows: Coastal Management Plan Element Goal E.2 - management of Clearwater’s coastal resources shall prohibit activities that would damage or destroy the natural or built environment, or threaten human life due to hurricane hazards, and shall promote activities that enhance the natural and built environment. The proposal includes a boardwalk 366 feet in length and four feet in width with a maximum height of three feet above grade (up to seven feet including handrails). The proposal has been approved by the FDEP and will replace an existing deteriorated boardwalk. The provision of a boardwalk will conserve and protect existing dunes by reducing or eliminating the erosion that would otherwise occur from foot traffic. The boardwalk will follow existing topography preserving existing dunes and native vegetation where footpaths, conversely, ultimately cut through dunes, destroying native vegetation reducing the storm surge protection effectiveness of the dunes. The proposal is consistent with this Goal. Policy E.2.2.1 Restoration and enhancement of disturbed or degraded dune and beach areas shall be implemented with the appropriate methods and quality of material necessary to enable successful reestablishment. The proposed boardwalk will maintain and conserve the existing dune system adjacent to the subject site and has been approved for construction by the FDEP. The proposal is largely consistent with this Policy. Conservation Plan Element Policy F.1.3.4 - Prohibit development that will needlessly disturb or destroy native vegetation. This shall be achieved through the site plan review process and site inspections. The proposal will result in providing adequate access from the site to the Gulf of Mexico while preserving native vegetation by providing a finite above-grade path. Therefore, the submittal supports this Policy. Policy F.1.6.3 - Development and/or construction of any structures shall not be built seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, unless approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the City of Clearwater. Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 3 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The proposal is for a boardwalk which has been approved by the FDEP. The methodology of the request is consistent with this Policy. Policy F.1.6.4 - Beach and beach dunes shall not be disturbed or destroyed by any form of construction or development with the exception of wooden boardwalk structures which provide access to and from beach areas; and Policy F.1.6.7 - All dune vegetation shall be protected by local ordinance and by provision of dune walk-over structures for beach access. The proposal is for a boardwalk which will provide access to and from beach areas and is consistent with these Policies. It should be pointed out that those properties which do not include boardwalks have the indications of vegetative and dune degradation. This can be readily seen in the accompanying aerial photograph. Note that the center and far left properties do not include boardwalks and vegetative degradation is evident from the width and tracking of the foot-worn paths. The proposed boardwalk will traverse the dunes following their topography without cutting through them. In addition, the FDEP requires that all work on the boardwalk be done within the footprint of the boardwalk thereby preserving the maximum amount of native vegetation possible. The result will be safe and environmentally sensitive access from the property to the Gulf of Mexico. Community Development Code: The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 4 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The size, location and shape of the parcel are similar to other parcels in the area. The proposed boardwalk is consistent with the character of the area along Mandalay Point Road. Specifically, the proposal is consistent with the property adjacent to the south (1100 Mandalay Point Road) as well as 1088 Mandalay Point Road and 1064 Eldorado Avenue (both farther to the south). Farther to the north properties located at 1136 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road have boardwalks which provide access to the beach. The proposal will provide an environmentally sensitive method for accessing the beach and Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Aerial photographs indicate that all or at least most surrounding properties to the north and south include paths from each respective property to the Gulf of Mexico. Most do not include boardwalks although at least five properties do appear to use boardwalks, at least in part, to access the beach. Based on aerial photographs properties which use boardwalks to traverse the dunes and vegetated areas have a far lesser impact on those areas. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in the conservation of the adjacent vegetated areas resulting in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes replacing an existing deteriorated boardwalk and providing an environmentally responsible method of access the beach. There is anticipated to be little if any impact to the City’s economy or its tax base. Therefore, this Code section is not strictly applicable to the proposal. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes the replacement of a deteriorated boardwalk with a new boardwalk which will provide environmentally sensitive access to the Gulf of Mexico from the subject property. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 5 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for accessory structures and structures seaward of the CCCL as per CDC Sections 2-102, 3-201 and 3-905: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Minimum Setbacks Side: 10 feet South: 70 feet X North: 75 feet X Rear: 20 feet West: 30 feet X Minimum Setback from 20 feet Zero feet (boardwalk begins X 1 Coastal Construction approximately one foot east of the Control Line (CCCL) CCCL and continues west for approximately 365 feet ) Maximum Height 15 feet Three feet (seven feet including X handrails) 1 See analysis in Staff Report 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: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 1 coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X 1 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X 1 residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1 immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1 visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. 1 See analysis in Staff Report SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 7, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1.That the 2.31 acre site is located west side of Mandalay Point Road approximately 90 feet north of the northern terminus of Eldorado Avenue; Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 6 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 2.That the subject property is located within the Low Density Residential (LDR ) District and the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category; 3.That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 4.That the proposal is to construct a boardwalk four feet in width, 366 feet in length and a maximum of approximately three feet above grade (seven feet including handrails) seaward of the CCCL and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 1 and Article 3 Divisions 2 and 9 of the CDC; 5.That the site is currently developed with a Detached Dwelling; 6.The subject property is comprised of four lots with approximately 500 feet of frontage along Mandalay Point Road; and 7.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 pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; 2.That the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Coastal Management Plan Element Goal E.2 and Policy E.2.2.1 and Conservation Plan Element Policies F.1.3.4 through 7; 3.That the proposal consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 and 2 and D; 4.That the proposal is consistent with the applicable standards for accessory structures as per CDC Section 3-201.B; 5.That the development proposal is consistent with the minimum required setbacks for accessory structures as per Section 2-102 of the Community Development Code; and 6.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the Flexible Development application to permit a boardwalk four feet in width, 366 feet in length and a maximum of approximately three feet in height (seven feet including handrails to be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the LDR District under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1.That the final design and location of the boardwalk be consistent with the site plan and elevations approved by the CDB; 2.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; Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 7 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 3.That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 4.That application for a building permit be submitted no later than February 19, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; and 5.That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________ Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board February 19, 2013 FLD2013-01001– Page 8 EXHIBIT: 2-14-13 MEMORANDUM FLD2013-01001 To: Community Development Board Members From: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III Date: February 14, 2013 RE: FLD2012-11027 – 760 Eldorado Avenue FLD2013-01001 - 1104 Mandalay Point Road On February 14, 2013, the Engineering Department notified the Planning Department that a new condition of approval shall be added to current and future development projects along the beach. Below is the new condition that needs to be added to the Conditions of Approval for the referenced projects. If you have any questions, please contact me at 562-4567 ext. 2502. 1.That Licensed Contractors and Florida residents alike should know that any work beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) requires a permit from both the City of Clearwater and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Furthermore, both sand dunes and sea oats are resources protected by the State. It is unlawful to remove/trim or alter these resources without the benefit of a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. LL 0 �- Clearwater U Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD201?„�11027—760 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Numberger,Planner III Yes No 2. Case: FLD2013-01 2—431 Mandalay Planner: Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes No 3. Case: FLD2013-010 — 1104 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP,Plannerlll Yes No I have conducted a person' es ' ation o the personal site visit to the followin'properties. Signature: ,�� 1 L ' Date: 2 s `t k ,JCL C h�S PRINT NAME S S:APlanning Depar twat C D BLlgendas DRC&CDBICDB120/3102 Fehr non 19, 201311 Cover MEMO 2013.doc } Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-1 1027—760 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Nurnberger,Planner III Yes No 2. Case: FLD2013-01002—431 Mandalay Planner: Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes No 3. Case: FLD2013-01001 — 1104 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP, PlannerIIl Yes No I have conducted a I ,stigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. ��Signature: ~i,,.,,,/�,__ Date: 2..//2 As roc t . �. e� PRINT NAME S:■Planning DeparmrenrAC D B\l,gendas DRC&CDByCDB12013102 Fehr Iran 19. 2013\1 Cover MEMO 2013.doc O } ears a er _ .........,,ww os..........„.„.„,. ....,.....w,„.... Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD201122-11027—760 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Nurnberger,Planner III Yes ✓ No 2. Case: FLD2013-01002—431 Mandalay Planner: Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes ✓ No 3. Case: FLD2013-01001 — 1104 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP, Plannerlll Yes No V Co r..(L9 ki- 0T O._ccegC ti L U )--k r 6 c cQ I have conducted a pe nal investigation he personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: Date: /1 Z /l 3 PRINT NAME S:APlanning Department\C D BIAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12O13'O2 Februan 19,201311 Cover 11IE90 2013.doc Ckarwater Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-1 1027—760 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Nurnberger,Planner III Yes No 2. Case: FLD2013-01002—431 Mandalay Planner: Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes No X. 3. Case:FLD2013-01001 — 1 104 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP,Plannerlll Yes No X I have conducted a personal investigation o personal site visit to the followiinit properties. Signature: Date: A? rl ah Far ter- PRINT NAME S:APlanning Department\C D BU1gendas DRC ce CDBICDB12013102 February 19,2013'1 Cover 3v1Ed10 2013.doc 1lir } C7 earwa er _ ,....„...,....„„ 0 .....„.....„„......... .........,,ww....... Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet TO: Community Development Board Members FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case: FLD2012-1 1027—760 dorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Nurnberger,Planner III Yes No 2. Case: FLD2013-01002—431 andalay Planner: Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes No 3. Case: FLD2013-01001 — 1 4 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP, PlannerlII Yes No I have condu e,'ed a :% al inve tig,t o i , the personal site visit to the following properties. I (?Signature ■►_ _ .. - Date: '�� K. / so / () ()C; ,}---- PRINT NAME S.'IPlanning Deparimen11C C BlAgendas DRC d CDBICDB■2013IO2 Fehruaev 19.201311 Cover MELIO 2013.doc lr U Cear 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 Reporter SUBJECT: Agenda Items for February 19,2013 DATE: February 13,2013 CDB packets being distributed contain the following Site investigation form Unapproved minutes of previous meeting January 15,2013 Agenda Level Two Applications (Items 1-3) 1. Case:FLD2012-1 1027—760 Eldorado Avenue Planner: Kevin W.Nurnberger,Planner III Yes No X 2. Case: FLD2013-01002—431 Mandalay Planner:Matt Jackson,Planner II Yes No x 3. Case: FLD2013-01001 — 1104 Mandalay Point Planner: Mark Parry,AICP, PlannerIll Yes No I have conducted a personal i estigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Signature: 41� /� � Date: PR Tc E L4d71 NAME S:IPlanning DepartnnentlC D BL1lgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2013102 February 19. 2013\1 Cover AJEILfO 2013.doc