The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2013-11039r � � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD � � �� PMENT DEPARTMENT _ ,,�.,,y,�,�.__. .�_ ._� __�_:., PLANNING AND DEVELO � �='�`��_{��-`�`�"=� STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent........................... January 21, 2014 F3. FLD2013-11039 (related to DVA2013-11001) Flexible Development application to permit a Vehicle Service use within a Retail Plaza with a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area as an amendment to a previously approved Site Plan (FLD2011-04018 / PLT2011-04002 / DVA2009-00005 / DVA2011-04001) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. Peter Flint; RS Clearwater LLC c/o Redstone Construction, Inc. AppliCant/ Owner . ............ Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. Location .......................... 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard; southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road Property Size .................... Future Land Use Plan...... Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Special Area Plan .............. Adjacent Zoning.... North: South: East: West: Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use......... 11.637 acres Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Commercial (C) District None Commercial (C) District Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Commercial (C) District Commercial (C) District Master Site Plan including Retail Sales and Service; Automobile Service Station (building permit under review); Restaurant (building permit under review) Revision to an approved Master Site Plan which included Retail Sales and Service, Automobile Service Station (building permit under review) and Restaurant (building permit under review) to include Vehicle Service � � � �� ` � "�' � � � ��" �`�; � ,','',y'7 ��' ��,�;d �� y!�� -� �� , �' ;.+ � � —i t � �Y -�. .�. . . ., u t ...._.. �� ` � � A � � 1 r �p , .�-+5��4�" :.,� .. � �« . �", a ~ ��1L. wm _. , i t.. . �,�' � k' r . , � f � � , 1 '" ��_ � �?�� : • r� H� � �r�l l"''! JJ* �, � _. , •. _ �( .�J�r I J � � � �-' ��' ,� � � _ � _ . �� . » �:.. . � .. � '!. w. A i ... . . . �{,f r4 � �I � : �'!_Y �.��.M� � f'!�. � — .a ��„� 'L �,�? �'`� � S . �w > � w�",.. Tr � T �i '� r r . ` , . . ,. s '� ""�F M,v`3'a>1s,lt �'n�l a Il�rii�«, . « w .. � � ( , t� "r r-,� !"� �� a° `p'� t -- � "'-. .�..,� �_ �f��:t,�ys� � � f 1 = �' i ' : yr'" � R�` '�i 0 �9�;91�1'1118ai11 � �� y.. .� l�� t . ; ��,,;a33 � .-_ �y x ; ' , , � , � �� , 'r x a 9 �",� -,�.�r�� .l}l � ��r� �� i �� j,,� f� � f��•,�e�Art� � ��aaa� � �� i �'+� f ` '�� !"P' , o � ' / � c' �' n� �fr'� 1 �T f4 � �� .. �!� , �� .1 � � ' . . �i'` ��' ��: 1 , �f�.�Yah�� . — � � � t- � 1 � i'� � /M.fP/r� "aIF/��fF� y, b . � �e .,} � ` !'c �tFA,f . ` . � . �� . � � �� ,� "ti: � . ' i' ,� r 1�� 'kti1,1��.. Y yy-- �!,..n � ;� .. ` � a _ � � ' A �R 'f,�+�r'a��'� > � ,. � � 1 t r � , ? ,� , f �'e_r. A�f r ta,eiM� � ��' I � � � ' a ,_.. -�� ;a- �e� � � f' v ! � •'� r � ", { -; • ` r�3 � �j:�1A �: � �� ... � �� C� !� �: � ' �. � i ,� 1 ?4;4 �; �� - { � � � �� Y ��«►.,... . I "� . a ` . " "'.S ! ! I*''�' [�.e.l*ww::. -�� . '7�� :,�,�. . . � a�.. {��^s,��. Y lilbN�l 1r�l�l.J. Level II Flexible Development Application Review u �..,,.....^�.."�,.i. . . ., .� '� :�., 53. :-::,� . . . . ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 11.637-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road. The subject site is comprised of two parcels with approximately 770 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 577 feet of frontage along South Belcher Road. The site is part of a larger Master Site Plan which includes a third parcel containing a Wal-Mart grocery store and is located along the west side of the property south of the proposed Kauffman Tire location of the. The Master Site Plan will also include a WaWa automotive service station with convenience store (in permit review at the time of the writing of this report), a Starbucks (also under permit review) and two other commercial uses (as yet unnamed). Additional detail is provided in the Site History portion of this report. The overall site is accessed via a two-way driveway along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and a second two-way driveway along Belcher Road. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of residential and non-residential uses including an Albertson's and gas station across Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the north, a Publix within a retail plaza across South Belcher Road to the east and car sales to the west. An attached dwelling complex is currently in the permitting process to the south of the overall site. This residential development was included in the Master Site Plan and is also outlined in the Site History portion of this report. A variety of other restaurants (fast food and otherwise), offices, automotive service stations and other retail sales and service establishments are located farther to the east and west along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Single family dwellings are located to the south and west of the site. Site History: The subject site was originally part of a larger site extending between Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Druid Road. It has been the subject of three PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION i � i a i i N . �I �� ;.— � N, .y , ,,. �� rc � � . � .�a °. .o't _ Y, , II 6 � J i I � I . � I I j I I ' . � :.ti: �. °o – N _ O r �-'1 RAINBOW DR a .. u�. 3-- � Q ;� � C. J a —� � - : PROJECT "' I —.=��I N SITE \ ;— � . — _ , � � � � -�-� I — , �J _ � , �� .. �u�-raam e�w � � � ,_---- � _ r— >i � � � , J I �_ II 1 m '— f f. _�l �, _ --� m —� —= 1�_:l � � �._� , aDRUIDCIR � : E: __ � : i DRUID CiR w , - w � �� I �� :.;_ ORUID RD m �� -� I I � " N I ' g.:_' .. LOCATION MAP �DR � � � � � Hl � � ---u. �� - - —_ y h �$ I � � Y E I• $I R � N : � � GUIi•TO�BA-3'BLVD_L , ___... _—_< _ —_ .... _- ,�_ z i. _.,. ..s. .....::��n.� a� -- _ � x s �„, �::��..F�.. ........... ..E ,r -� - - i......... �' � .x ,� r MDR � ,� MD � N 2�� . A ZONING MAP Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 1 Y C�L(Jl 1't �Ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PL^xr�mrG & nEVELOrMENr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u.,�.,, ,. ....e.a .Aa��`3xe.a�s.., ,. .. . Level II Flexible Development applications, and land use and zoning amendment application, preliminary plat application and two Development Agreement applications. It is important to note that the south half of the original site has been platted (PLT2011-04002) and was approved for attached dwellings and building permits are currently under review by Staff. To be clear, the south half is now a separate property and is unrelated to the current request and references to the "overall site", "overall site plan" and the like refer only to the north half of the original property. The history of the site as related to the current request is provided below. ➢ In 2010, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2009- 12046) which requested approval to permit 70,212 square feet of Retail Sales and Services uses and 12,787 square feet of Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet) in the proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and along South Belcher Rd. of 617 feet, a front (north) setback to Gulf to Bay Bivd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a front (east) setback to South Belcher Rd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement), a maximum building height of 36 feet and 495 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order. That case was approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) based on a recommendation of approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on February 16, 2010 with 23 conditions. This site plan approved as part of this Flexible Development application is void and was superseded by application FLD2011-04018 outlined, below. The site was also the subject of a Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005). ➢ In 2011, the site was the subject of a Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2011- 04018) which requested approval to permit 40,000 square feet of retail sales and service use, 5,559 square feet of automobile service station use, 4,200 square feet of office use (bank) and 9,400 square feet of restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 59,159 square feet) in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and 617 feet along South Belcher Road, a front (north) setback (Gulf to Bay Blvd.) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement), a front (east) setback (South Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk), a west setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement), a maximum building height of 35 feet, and 409 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order as well as a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from 10 feet to two feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. That case was approved by the CDB based on a recommendation of approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on July 19, 2011 with 19 conditions. The site was also concurrently the subject of a plat application (PLT2011-04002) which was also approved. The site is also subject to a Development Agreement (DVA2011-04001). Building permits were applied for and obtained within required timeframes therefore the site plan is considered vested. Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 2 0 � C��l /1(�il.�l Level II Flexible Development A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ' � �.:.., � °�� ^� � � ➢ As noted, there are two Development Agreements associated with the site; DVA2009-00005 and DVA2011-04001. The former Development Agreement provided for the usual and customary range of applicant and City responsibilities and obligations, time frames and the like and was approved by Council and adopted on March 10, 2010. It provided, in brief and as pertinent to the current request, the following: ■ A maximum of 90,000 square feet of retail and restaurant development; ■ 495 parking spaces; ■ A maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.178 (interestingly, the Development Order approving the site provides for a lesser maximum FAR of 0.117); ■ A maximum height of 36 feet; ■ That any minor amendments to the site plan may be made by the Planning and Development Director pursuant to Code; and ■ That any amendments to the site plan deemed to not be a minor amendment or that require further review by the CDB shall require an amendment to the Development Agreement. On August 29, 2011, DVA2011-04001 which constituted an amendment to the original Development Agreement was adopted by City Council. Again, in brief and as pertinent to the current request, the details of the first amendment are as follows: ■ An overall amendment to the Site Plan; ■ The number of parking spaces changed to include specific ratios rather than an overall number of required spaces as follows: • five spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA) for retail and automobile service stations; • four spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office; and • 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for restaurants. ■ That the ability to utilize cross-parking amongst outparcels be permitted. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-406 a minor amendment to a Level II Flexible Development approval is, among other allowances, one which does not change the use unless such change is of a similar or less intensity, as determined by the community development coordinator. The proposal includes the inclusion of vehicle service as a new use on the site. One methodology of determining intensity of use is the amount of parking required for a particular use. Vehicle Service is typically permitted within the Industrial Research Technology District where the required parking is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. As noted above, the least intense use associated with the master site plan vis-a-vis parking is office at three spaces per thousand. Therefore, the Community Development Coordinator determined that the proposed use is at a similar or lesser intensity as approved and constitutes a minor amendment. However, because Vehicle Service is not an otherwise permitted use within the C district it does need to be approved as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project requiring further review by the CDB a second amendment to the Development Agreement is required. It should be noted that in 2012 the CDC was adopted to include, among other items, a new use called Retail Plaza. A Retail Plaza is defined as a building or group of buildings on the same property or adjoining properties, but operating as and/or presenting a unified/cohesive appearance and generally but not necessarily under common ownership and management, and Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 3 � C��.t�� ►t��l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION . „ .�" z"�:7�,.tx.""�t;:�°z:;�w�° . which is partitioned into separate units that utilize a common parking area, and is designed for a variety of interchangeable uses including governmental, indoor recreation/entertainment, office, restaurant, retail sales and service, and sociaUcommunity center. This definition was not in the CDC at the time of the original site plan and Development Agreement approvals. The use of the site is considered and referred to as a Retail Plaza within this report. This has little if any bearing on the request, Development Agreement amendment or past approvals and is mentioned only in the interest of factual accuracy. Development Proposal: The proposal is to amend a previously approved site plan to allow a Vehicle Service use within the C District as part of a Retail Plaza with a minimum parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. The proposal also includes a revision to Condition 3 which was part of the Development Order approving FLD2011-04018. Condition 3 limited the FAR of the overall site to 0.117 where the Development Agreement permits an FAR of up to 0.178. The proposed FAR is 0.127. To be clear, the primary change is the elimination of the Office use proposed for the northwest corner of the site and replacing it with a Vehicle Service use. The proposal also includes minor changes to the east side of the site with regard to parking lot layout and building orientation. It must be emphasized that these changes, in and of themselves would be considered minor amendments would not otherwise be required to be reviewed by the CDB. Outside of the change of use of the building at the northwest corner of the site from Office to Vehicle Service no other material changes, including but not limited to landscaping, height, setbacks and FAR, are proposed for the site plan. The Vehicle Service use will be located within a one-story 6,622 square foot at the northwest corner of the site replacing the approved 4,200 square foot proposed office building. The general location of the building and its parking is consistent with that of the office building as approved as part of FLD2011-04018. The parking area (consisting of 34 spaces) adjacent to the vehicular services use will be accessed from a common two-way driveway from Gulf to Bay Boulevard. A total of 360 spaces are required for the overall site given the types and areas of the proposed (and constructed) uses where 400 spaces are provided. An enclosed dumpster will be located to the southwest of the building generally in the same location as approved as part of FLD2011- 04018. A sign package has not yet been submitted. All signage for the site will have to be reviewed as part of a comprehensive sign program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1807.B. While attached signs are shown on the elevations on the north and east facades none of the attached signs shown on the elevations are dimensioned allowing their areas to be determined. In short, a sign package has not been submitted with this application and signage, whether indicated or not, should not be considered as part of the request nor would any approval of this proposal in any way imply approval of any sign shown or not. The building has been designed to complement the architectural style approved as part of FLD2011-04018. The service bays are located on the south side of the building facing the Wal- Mart grocery store and are not readily visible from off-site and are not visible at all from adjacent public rights-of-way. The building has been designed and placed so as to provide a finished retail-style storefront facing Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Finish materials include cultured Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 4 � 1�ll.�l rl'�l�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLnr��rrc & nEVEr.orMENr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION aa�",�w��'a:P?r"�S.G��h�`,..h', ., . .. stone, stucco and metal. The primary colors of the building will be earth tones including brown, sand and tan offset with white trim and light yellow. Special Area Plan: None Community Development Code ➢ Purpose Intent and Basic Plannin� Objectives The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. As noted, the overall site plan was approved by the CDB in 201 l. The proposal, in essence, is limited to the replacement of an Office use with a Vehicle Service use. Vehicle Service is not a permitted use within the C District although it is permitted by the underlying R/O/R FLUP classification. Generally, the concern with Vehicle Service uses is their potentially negative visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties as they typically include highly visible service bays and noise. These concerns are eliminated or otherwise mitigated through the provision of an attractive building consistent with the architectural style already approved for the site with all service bays hidden behind the building. The service bays will face the side of the Wal-Mart grocery store (nearly ready to open) and will not be readily visible from offsite. Setbacks, height, landscaping and all other development parameters will be consistent with the approved site plan and Development Agreement (as amended to permit vehicle service), as applicable. 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. Surrounding properties are dominated by a variety of non-residential uses including retail sales and service, automotive service stations and restaurants. The proposed development will be consistent the site plan which provides extensive landscaping in excess of that as otherwise required by the CDC but a higher standard with regard to building design and appearance. It is likely that surrounding properties will have their values enhanced. It should be noted that several other properties in the area along Gulf to Bay Boulevard have incorporated upgrades to their sites such as new facades and landscaping, including sites located at 1765, 1928 and 2094 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposal is, at the least, consistent with the level of design (with regard to both site and building) as applied to the aforementioned properties and others throughout the City which have been approved as part of Level II Flexible Development applications. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on surrounding properties through the provision of a needed viable use as part of an approved master site plan. 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 the amendment of an approved site plan with the replacement of an approved Office use with a Vehicle Service use. The proposal will be consistent with development parameters already approved as part of the master site plan including but not Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 5 � Cll.�� 11[i1�l.l Level II Flexible Development Appiication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION o �.,.nlLi^._i...��,.��.."�`r:�'�6..., � $:�z�^.^wa-:'.;.. , � . . limited to setback, height and landscaping of the approved master site plan. The proposal is expected to have a net increase in the tax base as a whole with the construction of a new, viable business located within an attractive building and the provision of landscaping in excess of the intent of the minimum standards of the CDC. It is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is fundamentally built-out where the primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and buildings. Improving a property typically results in an increase in its value thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive redevelopment in the community which can only further interest in the improvement of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code 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 maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new Vehicle Service use as an amendment to a site plan approved in 2011 as part of a Level II Flexible Development application. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building is consistent with that as approved as part of the overall site plan and that no material changes are proposed for the site. The proposal with regard to site, landscape and building design is consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and private property owners in the City as a whole and along Gulf to Bay Boulevard specifically. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a designated Primary Scenic Corridor. While a specific Corridor Plan has not been adopted the intent is clear in that properties along designated Scenic Corridors, such as Gulf to Bay Boulevard, are expected to provide landscaping at least consistent with the minimum standards set forth by the CDC if not more. The proposal includes a landscape design consistent with that as already approved by the CDB and which exceeds the minimum standards of the CDC with regard to the numbers and arrangements of plant material. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 2-401 1 Intent of the C District and R/O/R FL UP classification. The CDC provides that it is the intent of the C District to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the City without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the City or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. Furthermore, it is the intent of the C District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the C District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Countywide Land Use Rules concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the C District that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the City Council and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.4.3 of the Rules provides that the purpose of the R/O/R FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in residential, office and/or retail commercial use; and to recognize such areas as well-suited for Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 6 � C1Qt�� 1' i1�1�� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION e:_��.. � . mixed-use of a residential/office/retail character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Permitted Primary Uses include commerciaUbusiness services. Article 7 of the Rules provides that commercial/business service uses include an occupation or service involving the repair, service or rental of motor vehicles. The site has been developed as a Retail Plaza subject to conditions of a Development Agreement and Development Order, as noted in this report. The proposal is to modify the previously approved site plan to include a Vehicle Service use which is a use permitted by the R/O/R FLUP classification. ➢ Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio (FAR�: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) is 0.40. The proposed FAR for the entire 11.637-acre planned area is 0.127, which is consistent with Code provisions and the FAR (0.178) approved as part of the governing Development Agreement. A modification of condition three, which limited the FAR to 0.117, associated with FLD2011-04018 revises the permitted FAR to be consistent with the Development Agreement. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed ISR is 0.74, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width for Retail Plazas are to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 506,892 square feet and the lot width is 770 feet exceeding and/or meeting the otherwise minimum area and width required by Code. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 702, front and side setbacks to primary structures are 25 and 10 feet, respectively. Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the front (north and east) are both 15 feet, respectively and 10 and five feet for the side (south and west), respectively. Rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two side setbacks under the provisions of 3-903.D. As noted, the proposal is restricted to a change in use whereby an approved (although un-built) Office is replaced with a Vehicle Service use at the northwest corner of a larger site plan approved by the CDB in 2011. No changes are proposed to any setback already approved as follows: • Front (north) setback (Gulf to Bay Boulevard) of 61.8 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to pavement); • Front (east) setback (South Belcher Road) of 79.3 feet (to building) and 25.5 feet (to pavement); Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 7 � C�N�l 1'�aL�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review nEVEL MENT REVIEW DIgVIS ON - "�:��: �:�?�"¢�. :, . � �.r , . , . . . . . . . • Side (south) setback of 90.8 feet (to building) and two feet (to sidewalk); and • West setback of 20 feet (to building) and 19.4 feet (to pavement). The proposal includes front (north) and side (west) setback to the building of 75 feet and 51 feet, respectively. The proposed setbacks to parking or other like vehiculax use areas along the front (north) and side (west) are 25 and 23 feet, respectively. Front (east) and side (south) setbacks are not considered as other buildings are already approved between the subject building and those respective property lines and distances are in excess of 100 feet. Setbacks are consistent with those as approved as part of the overall site plan and exceed those as otherwise required by the CDC. Maximum Building, Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-702, the maximum allowable height for Retail Plazas is 25 feet. The maximum permitted height as provided by the approved site plan for this site is 35 feet. The proposed building height of 22 feet (25 feet to top of architectural embellishments) is less than the height provided for by the CDC and the approved site plan and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Minimum O�'f-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. In addition, Vehicle Service is not a pertnitted use within the C District. However, it is a permitted use within the Industrial Research Technology (IRT) District and for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1302, the minimum required parking for Vehicle Service is 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This results in a requirement of 10 parking spaces for the proposed 6,622 square foot building. As a further point of comparison, Retail Plazas pursuant to CDC Table 2-702 require four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The site includes 59,159 square feet of gross floor area (including all shown buildings) normally requiring 238 spaces. The Development Agreement, as mentioned was amended to require specific parking requirements specific to each provided use including five spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA) for retail and automobile service stations, four spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for office and 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for restaurants. It should be noted that an amendment to the Development Agreement accompanies this application which adds Vehicle Service as a use associated with the approved site plan and provides for a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. That amendment also revises the parking ratio for restaurants to match current CDC requirements of 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Given the square footage of the proposed uses excluding the Vehicle Service use 351 spaces are required per the Development Agreement. Including the 10 spaces the proposed Vehicle Service use would require within the IRT District the total number of required spaces increases to 361 where the proposal includes 400 spaces. It should also be noted that 34 of those spaces are in the immediate vicinity of the subject building. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the CDC and the Development Agreement, as amended. Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 8 � �T +p1+ � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � C Qa� 1'��Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVffiW DIVISION ° v�.��.�-...�-�.,,.��r� _ ��.:��r. . Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof of the proposed building and will be concealed with parapet walls on all sides. SiQht Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road and at the intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Belcher 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. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. 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. All utilities which serve the site are currently underground or in the process of being located underground. Landscapin� • Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are 15 feet (north and east — arterial streets), five feet (west — nonresidential use) and 10 feet (south — attached dwellings). In addition, Section 3- 1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 304,991 square feet requiring 30,500 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-1202.E also provides that no more than 15 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least iive feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. As mentioned, the overall site plan was approved with a reduction in the side (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to two feet. No changes are proposed to this or any other approved landscape buffer. The proposal meets the requirements of Section 3-1202.E in that no more than 15 parking spaces in row are proposed and foundation plantings along the north fa�ade are provided. The proposal with the exception of the aforementioned south buffer (the reduction of which was approved in 2011) otherwise meets the requirements of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC and is consistent with the landscape plan approved as part of FLD2011-04018. Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. The dumpster area will be screened by a solid wall with a stucco finish to match the primary exterior color of the subject building. The location of the dumpster is consistent with that as shown in the current approved site plan. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 9 o p�r �I�n } PLPJVNING & DEVELOPMENT = C btfl rt Lli.e� Level II Flexible Development Appfication Review DsvELOrMExr xEV�w nivisioN =rx°�� .,, c SiQnage: A sign package has not yet been submitted. All signage for the site will have to be reviewed as part of a comprehensive sign program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1807.B. While attached signs are shown on the elevations on the north and east facades none of the attached signs shown on the elevations are dimensioned allowing their areas to be determined. In short, a sign package has not been submitted with this application and signage whether indicated or not should not be considered as part of the request nor would any approval of this proposal in any way imply approval of any sign. ➢ General A�plicability Criteria Requirements The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: 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. The proposal includes a 6,622 square foot Vehicle Service use. The proposed building replaces an approved Office but otherwise maintains the architectural style approved for the site. The subject site is surrounded by a myriad of uses indicative of an intensely developed commercial corridor including such uses as retail sales and service, restaurant, automotive service stations, vehicle sales and display and office. The proposed addition to the approved Retail Plaza will constitute an appropriate use for the neighborhood. The proposal includes lush landscaping which exceeds the intent of the CDC, is consistent with the landscape already approved for the site and will complement and enhance surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or signfficantly impair the value thereof. The proposal is, as discussed in relation to CDC Section 3-914.A.1, above, consistent with the character of adjacent properties and with the overall approved site plan. The applicant has shown through substantial competent evidence that the proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis form and function to adjacent and nearby properties and the whole of the approved site plan. The proposal is not expected to impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safery of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Issues relating to traffic congestion have been mitigated with the previous approval of the overall site plan. The replacement of an Office with a Vehicle Service use will have a minimal if any effect on traffic congestion. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of a variety of uses indicative of an intensely developed commercial corridor. The proposal is for a modest, one- Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 10 Y C��RI �!' �1�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u ��i.�_..-��^�r�:��5sx`+�`�"`�£ rg�a .<;�;.F „_. "' . . . story Vehicle Service use. The proposed building maintains and complements the approved architectural style of the overall site plan. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts vn adjacent properties. There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind. The service bays are all located on the south side of the building facing Wal-Mart. The front (north) fa�ade of the building has been designed to look like a typical retail establishment. The building will aesthetically match the other buildings approved for the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. ➢ Com�rehensive Infill Redevelopment Proj�ect criteria Requirements The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.E as follows: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and✓or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The overall site is in the process of being completely redeveloped. The master site plan, currently under construction and/or under permit review, replaces an obsolete, deteriorated mobile home park with a new Retail Plaza and attached dwellings. The property manager has been unable to attract a viable user for the area otherwise designated for an Office use per the approved site plan. Kauffman Tire was one of the few potential tenants whose needs were met by the subject site and was willing and able to meet the strict architectural standards set for the site. Deviating from the use standards of the C District is required in order to establish the proposed Vehicle Service use on the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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. The redevelopment of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail elsewhere in this document. Therefore, the proposal will be found to be consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with a variety of uses indicative of a dense commercial corridor. The proposal includes a 6,622 square foot Vehicle Service use. The overall proposal, outside of the use, includes no material changes to the approve site plan. The proposal should have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop or otherwise be improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 11 � C�l�tt� 1Y �l�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review nEVEL po �G T xEV¢w DME s ox � ,.,�.�� ,..,� 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. As discussed in detail, the proposal is similar to surrounding uses vis-a-vis use along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and consistent with the site plan as approved in 2011 by the CDB. Adjoining properties should not be affected by the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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 neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; 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 As mentioned previously, the R/O/R district permits Vehicle Service uses per the Countywide Land Use Rules. The proposal will provide for a viable commercial use which will also meet the design parameters approved for the site. The alternative to requesting the use as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project would be to rezone this portion of the site to IRT District with an underlying FLUP classification of Industrial Limited of Industrial General which would constitute spot land use and zoning designations. Finally, the proposed Vehicle Service use will be similar in form and function to other uses in the area and as approved as part of the overall site plan. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. 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. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with a variety of uses typical of an intensely developed commercial corridor. The proposed Vehicle Service will support and complement surrounding uses with regard to form and function. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. While there are no formal design guidelines adopted by the City applicable to the site or area an architectural style and specific building design was approved by the CDB as part of the overall site plan approval. The proposed building, as noted, is consistent with and complements this approved style. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 12 Y C1LCal ►1' �iL�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review nsveL po �G r�v¢w nME s oN x�� . ��:��.a.r.. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area. The proposal provides for a use similar in scale and scope as already approved for the site. The intensity of use is consistent with that as approved as part of the Development Agreement. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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. The architecture of the building provides for substantial articulation of the fenestration through the use of fa�ade offsets and bifurcations, canopies, windows and change of material and color. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposal provides for a building, the form of which is consistent with that as already approved for the site. The proposed landscape buffers and setbacks are also consistent with the approved site plan. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Policy A.2.2.3. Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections. The proposal includes a commercial use located at the intersection of two arterial streets. While the overall site is adjacent to the north of a proposed attached dwelling development (approved as part of the overall site plan) the Vehicle Service use itself is not directly adjacent to any residential uses and is separated from the residential use by 500 feet including the Wal-Mart grocery store. The proposed service bays face the Wal-Mart grocery store (nearly fully Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 13 � C��.R� �t�l��l Level II Flexibie Development Application Review nsver.oP�iv¢rrr�v�w MS ON � ;`�zs?s,a�"�,�5.§��?�k`�'� ?�,"",�.,G�,�,:.. .. . constructed). Access to the site is via a shared driveway from Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposal should have no off-site impacts into residential neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with this Policy. Objective A.3.2. All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Communiry Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Policy A.3.2.1. All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within Section 3-1203 of the CDC and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Primary scenic corridors are those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to properties along them. Furthermore, Gulf to Bay Boulevard is specifically listed as a "Corridor to Redevelop" within the Linkages section of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. No material changes to the landscape plan are proposed to the approved landscape plan and the landscape design continues to be demonstrably better than that as required by the minimum standards of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy. Policy A. S. 5.1. Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use not otherwise permitted within the C District. However, the CDC does provide the flexibility to consider proposal on the merits of their design and potential impact on a site by site basis. As noted, the site plan associated with this property was approved by the CDB in 2011 and is also subject to a Development Agreement, as amended. These approvals included performance standards with regard intensity of use, landscaping and the architectural styling and details of all proposed buildings. The proposed building maintains and complements the architecture of the other buildings approved as part of the overall site plan. As mentioned, no material changes are proposed to the overall site or landscape plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Goal A.6. The City of Clearrvater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development; and Objective A.6.2. The Ciry of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. Policy A.6.2.1. On a continuing basis, the Communiry Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development andlor planned developments that are compatible. The proposal is a modest component of an approved overall master site plan which has replaced an outdated and obsolete mobile home park. The proposal is expected to positively contribute to the success of the site and is the sort of project envisioned as an appropriate recipient of flexibility from the minimum development parameters as provided by the above Goal, Objective Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 14 t C�Lµ� I�Yalei Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVEL MENT REVIEW DIVI Is ox - s��,t�� s;° �.� ., � . and Policy its location within the urban service area and an attractive redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal, Objective and Policy. 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 for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704. Additional standards are added, as appropriate, from the Development Agreement, as amended and the approved site plan: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.178 per Development 0.127 X� Agreement Impervious Surface 0.85 0.76 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area NA 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres) X Minimum Lot Width NA 770 feet X Minimum Setbacks (feet) Front: North: NA 61.8 feet (to building) /25 feet (to Xl pavement) East: NA 79.3 feet (to building) /25.5 feet (to X� pavement) Side: South: NA 90.8 feet (to building) / two feet (to X� sidewalk) West: NA 20 feet (to building) /19.4 feet (to X' pavement) Maximum Height (feet) 35 per approved site 25 X� plan Minimum Retail and Automobile 400 spaces X� Off-Street Parking Service Stations: 5 spaces/1,000 square feet GFA (258 spaces) Office: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet GFA (0 spaces) Restaurant: I S spaces/1,000 square feet GFA for restaurants per Development Agreement (93 spaces) (total number of required spaces excluding the Vehicle Use GFA is 351 � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 15 >��1.(sl 1'1' �ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review — .��"`�"�'.�i^t�`�-- �s'�r&,.,YS ,_ _. .. � � . 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 2-704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations trom 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 sunounding 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 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 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. � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 16 Consistent Inconsistent X X1 X1 X' X1 X' ��e�� tatel Level II Flexible Development Application Review - , . """�3�"�� . � �'a � ":.::; , . .. _ . . PLANNA'G & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVTEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: 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 working in the neighborhood. 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 operation impacts on adjacent properties. � See analysis in Staff Report Consistent I Inconsistent X Xt X� XI X� SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December 5, 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 11.637 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. � South Belcher Road; That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Future Land Use Plan category; That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; That the subject property is subject to a vested Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2011-04018) approved by the CDB on July 19, 2011 with 19 conditions; That the subject property is subject to a Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) as amended (DVA2011-04001); An amended Development Agreement (DVA2013-11001) must be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design considerations; That the proposal is to construct a Vehicle Service as part of a Retail Plaza and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 7 of the CDC, the approved site plan (FLD2011-04018) and Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005 and DVA2011- 04001); That the site is currently under construction with a Wal-Mart neighborhood market and various site improvements including but not limited to stormwater facilities, site access and utilities; The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 770 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 577 feet of frontage along South Belcher Road; Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 17 � C�l.[a� 1� [�L�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review nEVeLOPMErrr xF.v�w nME s ox - ��.s; � .,,. 10. The proposal includes no material changes to the approved site plan and/or Development Agreement, as amended, with regard to landscaping, setbacks, height, parking or FAR; and 1 l. 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 consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 — 3 and D; 3. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the C District and R/O/R FLUP classification; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-702 of the CDC, the approved site plan andlor Development Agreement, as applicable, including but not limited to such development parameters as to setbacks to building and pavement, FAR, landscaping, height and the number of parking spaces; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.E of the Community Development Code; and 7. That the proposal is consistent with certain applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in this report. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a Vehicle Service use within a Retail Plaza with a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area as an amendment to a previously approved Site Plan (FLD2011-04018 / PLT2011-04002 / DVA2009-00005 / DVA2011-04001) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Iniill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the original conditions of approval associated with FLD2011-04018 are in full force and effect with the exception of Condition 3 associated with that case as modified as follows: That the maximum Floor Area Ratio be dictated by the Development Agreement (DVA2009- 0005), as amended; 2. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of an amended Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2013-11001); 3. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 4. 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 January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 18 ? Cl\.ttl ►1'�l�el Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DNISION ° ��_n./�.i-`.�'�J''�'g"s��.�:^�.'"�z"��s`,r" �:,';' . . . 5. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; 6. That the uses associated with the use be limited to no more than 6,800 square feet located as shown on the accompanying site plan and shall include only the following services: (a) Tire Services; (g) Brake Services; (b) Alignment Services; (h) Shocks and Struts Services; (c) Cooling System Services; (i) Electrical Services; (d) Air Conditioning Services; (j) Preventative Maintenance; (e) Oil Change Services; (k) Drivetrain Services; and (� Wheel Services; (1) Battery Services. 7. That the uses associated with Vehicle Service, major as defined in Article 8 of the CDC are not permitted on the site; 8. That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 9. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 10. 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; 11. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 12. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General, Stormwater and Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed; 13. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a site plan which meets all the requirements of the Fire Department including but not limited to the provision of a site plan which indicates the inclusion of a fire sprinkler system; 14. That all utility equipment including but not limited to electrical and water meters is screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and 15. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ark T. Parry, AICP, P er III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board January 21, 2014 FLD2013-11039 - Page 19 MARK T. PARRY 1655 Linwood Drive Tel: (727) 742.2461 Clearwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry@tampabay.rr.com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting. OBJECTIVE To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my community through sound and innovative planning and design principals. EDUCATION COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification B.S. Environmental Planning and Design Certificate Urban Planning Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member AICP #020597 40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training PLANNER III PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Present 08/98 — 04/05 • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code. • Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments. • Land Development Code development, interpretation and application. • Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design. . Acting Development Review Manager 9/99 —11/99 and 01/05 — 03/05. . Manage and direct Associate Planners. • Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation applications at in-house and public review meetings. . Principle Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines. Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12 • Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair. • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Perform site design and inspections. • Provide technical planning support for engineering department. . Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments. • Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. • Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes. • Provide CADD support. • Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material. • Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling. DesignerlOwner GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ 9�92 - 6�9$ • Founded and established a local garden and landscape business. • Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD and photo-manipulation programs. • Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics. . Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs. • Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment. • Manage, train and schedule installation crews. Program Supervisor LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM, HOLMDEL, NJ • Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed"). • Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups. • Supervised several other programs throughout the year. • Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year. COMPUTER SKILLS 6/87 - 8/93 Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan, Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher Vie�� I��okina S i�r��m N W corner of site ai., `�`�;-�.',��,3�,� ;'��`�;s,�� .. Q ..�,, �.�.. _ 'e!iin�F '-?�.� � . `� a� k��"��.a�, i. � � ! .�� _ � .. . . ... .:y+'y �Y' �': I 1 �,� ., ... ,, _ _ _._ _ . ;i�. '�� ' ` `;�_ � �;�� rr� �; ' r.:' ,{ '4 a : �. i ;y � �:s� �.€t- ±.�. .. Lookin� 1'� I�u�n t,ide u� ,iic �� . �' l;,- -......�;�,.:;�,.uv.�M ti�C3� �� J �. � . ~� h-��' � t f�= �`.. :�. _ . .Sfa. �• �'7 ...f::,T4r.iw:' .. " .. . Vie�v looking SW from NW con�er oi ,itc. i ;, � , � � �. � ., '� .. ��.,,,9�di[� ,- .. 2i�r � h 'w 17�*.i�Y ...R'r , , , ', i;„] n 3'{ S � t � r l:"'�(. ",.. 1 . ' &�,f � ,�,I}.,,�r �` , �,�� 7,�t?�1;� �rS1M��! �i l i. L .`� fJn � <<� .,y � "�^ t�w� �: hi�! C ,'.P.tj�l�� ' � _..:a.vtii � 5�� iY � 'k�� .... . ' <` i-ti7.a..v. .�-'r't:5� , �� , ` �"' i '� i �7;?'i I n�,kinQ �1 W ti-om the SE corner of site. ��aw�=�' a,r��- �� .; �� s _. . _ � � �i Y'� ; �a. � t:�r.,�. , -�? � . ' :+� .. .,.� �. .: �.`. . . � ..«. . ....,w.-d:..2.ao- .a'�.:�.... �. _ �`rtw � . I.00king SE at general location of buildings I 1 and 12. 1965 Gulf to Bay Boulevard FLD2013-11039 City of Clearwater Response to Comments — Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. DVA2013-11001 — FLD2013-11039 21654 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Engineering Review: Prior to Community Development Board: 1. Please show all existing easements on the landscape plans. Response: See revised landscape plans. 2. Please acknowledge in writing that as per Community Development Code Section 3-806 - Easements and rights-of-way, the City has the right to remove, without cost or obligation to replace or restore, any fence, wall and/or landscaping as may be necessary to maintain the utilities located in the easement. Response: Acknowledged. Prior to Building Permit: 1. If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-speciiic water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Response: Acknowledged. General Notes: 1. Only Sheets LA2 and IR2 were reviewed for General Engineering criteria. The additional details provided in the plan set may have been necessary for other departmental reviews to provide flexible development approval. Construction plans shall be reviewed in more detail prior to receipt of the building permit. Response: Acknowledged. Environmental Review: Prior to issuance of Building Permit: 1. Provide erosion control measures on plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. Response: See revised Plans Acknowledged. Civil Drawings shall show all erosion control measures. General Note(s): 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621(2). Response: Acknowledged. 3. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. Response: Acknowledged. Fire Review: 1. Show location of fire hydrant for fre fighting use. Must be within 300 feet of building as hose lays and on same side of street as building. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: Acknowledged. Construction Plans for Lakeside at Clearwater Commercial Area (Sections l, 2 and 3A) under tracking number BCP2012-06085 show fre hydrants within 300' of each building. This construction is nearly completed at application time and is expected to be completed and approved prior to CDB. 2. Provide and show on the plan minimum 30 feet turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: Acknowledged. All civil plans shall show the 30' minimum turning radius at all entrances and exits. 3. Must meet the requirements of NFPA30A must provide proper floor drains with oil separator ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: Acknowledged. Civil Plans for the civil and building plans shall demonstrate compliance with NFPA30A and will show proper floor drainage and an oil separator. 4. This is a D.R.C. approval only. Other issues may develop and will be addressed at building permit stage. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: Acknowledged. Land Resource Review: Prior to BCP: 1. Please show tree barricades along the west property line protecting the offsite trees. Response: Acknowledged. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, prior to issuance of a building permit any and all performance based erosion and sedimentation control measures must be approved by Environmental and or Stormwater Engineering, be installed properly, and inspected. Response: Acknowledged. General Notes: 1. Please maintain the existing performance based erosion control measures as per the approved SWPPP. Response: Acknowledged. Planning Review: General Site Plan and Application Comments 1. Clarify that there are no property lines between the Kauffman Tire parcel and the Wal-Mart and Wawa parcels - in other words that the site containing Buildings 10 through 15 is one piece of property and not two or more pieces of property. The reason I need to know is that if there are property lines to the south and east of the Kauffman Tire site then I need to include those setbacks in the request. Response: This request is an amendment to the previously-approved Development Order. At the time of the original Development Order, there was one parcel and the site was planned as a common plan. Since then, a plat has been filed which separates the site into three (3) parcels. Therefore, there are property lines to the south and east of the Kauffman Tire site. For the purpose of this approval, building setbacks specific to that parcel for the Kauffman Tire site are as follows: NORTH 75' SOUTH 76' EAST 43' WEST 51' The original Development Order approval indicated setbacks for three proposed buildings. This amendment to the order is includes the following setbacks: NORTH 61' SOUTH 74' EAST (Belcher Road) 72' �ST (to latted line) 42' 2. Unless I am mistaken, the submitted elevations are not the same as settled on a month or so ago. I believe that the preferred elevation set was one from Georgia although I could be wrong. Response: The architecture previously shown to the City were examples from various stores throughout the country in an effort to determine the proper size, scope and amenities included in the design. Based upon the City's Code and the City's desire to have a common theme among the buildings that are included in this shopping center, the tenant architecture shown now was modified to reflect the same type of architecture as the Wal-Mart, which was recently completed. 3. Relabel the elevations as simply north, south, east and west. Response: Please see revised Elevations of the Building. 4. Clarify how signage will be addressed. Response: A comprehensive sign program was approved for free-standing signage for the entire shopping center and attached signage for the Wal-Mart parcel. Upon approval of each individual use, the Owner-Applicant will have to amend the existing Comprehensive Sign Program approvals to reflect additional signage. 5. Clarify how mechanical equipment will be placed and screened on the site. The methodology to screening the mechanical equipment needs to be shown prior to CDB review and the applicant will be held to what is shown. There was an issue related to this when WaWa submitted for building permit that I would like to NOT repeat. Response: Mechanical equipment is screened by a parapet on top of the building and a line-of-site diagram is included with this submittal. 6. Clarify the materials used for the exterior of the building. I see that cultured stone is used. Clarify if the rest of the building is finished in stucco or some other material. I imagine that the use of cultured stone without will be completed by the provision of complimentary peanuts within. Response: See revised elevations. The balance of the building that is not cultured stone will be finished in stucco and EIFS similar to the constructed Wal-Mart. 7. Please provide all required sight visibility triangles on the site and landscape plans. Response: See revised Site Plan and Landscaping Plans. 8. Clarify how the dumpster will be screened. Include details such as material, colour, fit and finish. Response: The dumpster will be screened with the same materials and colors as the building. Please see revised site plan and elevations for detail. 9. Clarify the request. We were originally talking about establishing vehicle service here not vehicle service major. These are two different uses. We will not support vehicle service major at this location. Please be aware that the size of the building and specifc activities which will be included as being permitted in conjunction with the vehicle service use are as follows (and will be intended to be included as a condition of approval): That the uses associated with the use be limited to no more than 6,800 square feet located as shown on the accompanying site plan and shall include only the following services: a. Tire Services; b. Alignment Services; c. Cooling System Services; d. Air Conditioning Services; e. Oil Change Services; f. Wheel Services; g. Brake Services; h. Shocks and Struts Services; i. Electrical Services; j. Preventative Maintenance; k. Drivetrain Services; and l. Battery Services. Response: The request has been modified to reflect vehicle service only. See revised Exhibit B. 10. The landscape plan indicates that the proposed use of the building will be retail at 6,65 square feet. This is inconsistent with the request which is for Vehicle Service at 6,622 square feet. Please clarify and correct, as needed. Response: See revised landscape plan. 11. Foundation landscaping is not provided as otherwise required by CDC Section 3-1202.E. The original application did include a comprehensive landscape program but it was for the reduction in landscape buffer along the south property line. It did not mention anything about foundation landscaping. In the interest of accuracy, either revise the landscape and site plan to provide for the requisite foundation landscaping or submit a Comprehensive Landscape Program. Response: See revised landscape plan. 12. Clarify what methods will be used to limit the impact of noise and the like on adjacent properties. These methodologies will be included as a condition of approval. Response: The Kauffman Tires store work bays are located on the rear of the building facing the Wal-mart parking area to minimize any impact to nearby residences. The anticipated residual noise will likely be less than the traffc along Gulf to Bay Blvd. 13. In the amendment to Section 4.1 of the development agreement include language which limits the amount of vehicle service to no more than 6,800 square feet of GFA within a single building. Response: See revised Development Agreement Planning Review: General Applicability Criteria Comments 14. Criterion 1- As it stands, it appears that we are still dealing with one property. The Development Agreement is clear that the overall intensity of use in the form of FAR is limited to 0.178. You will probably want to keep the discussion limited to just your amendment to the plan. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 15. Criterion 2- Technically, the site is not vacant as I believe there is a spiffy new Wal-Mart grocery store rapidly approaching completion. Maybe talk about how the proposal maintains all approved setbacks, landscape buffers and the like and how the proposal will be consistent with the architectural style approved for the site. Also talk about what sorts of uses are in the area already like vehicle sales, gas stations, etc. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 16. Criterion 3- We can probably dismiss with the Traffic Study as one wasn't submitted with this proposal. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 17. Criterion 4- Again, we can probably skip the Traffic Study discussion and maybe just mention that traffc issues have been mitigated with the approved site plan currently under construction. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 18. Criterion 5- Include a discussion as how the proposed building is consistent with the architectural style approved for the site already. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 19. Criterion 6- I suggest you limit your discussion to how the building will blend into the rest of the retail plaza and how the building has been design and placed to do just that - such as location of service bays, hint, hint. Response: See revised Exhibit B. Planning Review: Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) Criteria Comments 20. Criterion 1- I think we need to focus on why the office use approved for the site will not work and why the proposed vehicular use is the only option available. I do not think we need to revisit any aspect already approved as part of FLD2011-04018, DVA DVA2009-00005 or DVA2011-04001. Remember, the only thing changing is the use of one building from office to vehicle service. I do not think that you need to request a two-year development order as the this is merely an amendment to an approved site plan - since building have already been applied for the site is vested. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 21. Criterion 2- It may be worthwhile to provide any pertinent examples from the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City Comprehensive Plan which support the requested variations from the Code. In addition, you may want to mention that Section 2.3.3.4.3 of the Countywide Land Use Rules permits commerciaUbusiness services and that Article 7 of the Rules provides that commerciaUbusiness service uses include an occupation or service involving the repair, service or rental of motor vehicles. You may want to focus less on the fact that retail sales and service and restaurant uses are permitted in the C District as that has nothing to do w'ith the request with that being permission to establish a Vehicle Service use in the C District. Finally, you will want to have a peek at the intent of the Code CDC Section 1-103. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 22. Criterion 3- You may want to consider adding a conversation noting that the proposal, outside of a swap of use, includes no material changes from the approved site plan. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 23. Criterion 4- No comments. 24. Criterion 5- Again, you may want to reference the Countywide Rules as they relate to permitted uses in the ROR FLUP. You probably want to focus you attention on subsection c and e of this criterion. Response: See revised Exhibit B. 25. Criterion 6- You may want to focus on how the proposal is consistent with regard to form and appearance with what was approved for the site already. While there are no formal design guidelines associated with the site or area it could be argued that design guidelines were adopted as part of the overall site plan approval. You may want to discuss how the proposal is consistent with the architectural style approved for the site. Again, you probably want to focus on the specific request rather than rehashing the entire site. Finally, you missed a discussion of subsection e of this criterion. Response: See revised Exhibit B. Planning Review: Disclaimer 26. Please note that additional comments may be generated at or subsequent to the DRC meeting based on responses to DRC comments. Response: Acknowledged. 27. Please carefully review the listed request. It is ultimately the responsibly of the applicant to ensure that the request reflects what is wanted. Response: Acknowledged Solid Waste Review: 1. I would like you to consider double enclosure for garbage and recycling at BLDG 12. Response: There is not a need for a double enclosure as the Applicant and user, Kauffman Tire, removes trash on a regular basis from its site and, therefore, there is no need for cardboard recycling. The other buildings, upon building permit review, will consider double enclosures when necessary to accommodate the site plan. Stormwater Review: Prior to Building Permit: 1. Please show clearly on the plans the storm sheet flow path around proposed buildings 15. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Show roof runoff/downspouts location on plans. Direct runoff away from Belcher Rd to ensure no ponding in the r-o-w. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Show proposed spot elevation of site and building on paving, grading, and drainage plans. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Submit a Paving/Grading plan demonstrating how all of the above conditions are met. Response: Acknowledged. General Comments 1. Please cloud any/all changes on the plans before returning them for re-review. 2. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. 3. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application 4. Additional conditions may be forth coming based on the responses to the above conditions or to new information not on hand at time of review. Traffic Eng Review: Prior to a CDB: 1. Provide a loading area (12' x 35') exclusive of aisle and maneuvering area. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1406 A.) Response: Acknowledged. Please see revised Site Plan Prior to a Building Permit: 1. Provide accessible parking stall and accessible sign details compliant with City standards. The details can be accessed through the City's web address below, please use Index No. 118 & 119. http://www.myclearwater.com/�ov/depts/pwa/en�in/Production/stddet/index as� Response: Acknowledged. General Note(s): 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. o � Planning & Development Department � � earwater Fl Xi e ble Development Application " Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses orNon-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 1414 W. Swann Avenue, Suite 150, Tampa, FI., 33606 PHONE NUMBER: 813-579-2014 EMAII: aingersoll@npprop.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: RS Clearwater LLC c/o Redstone Construction, Inc. Attn: Peter Flint MAILING ADDRESS: 1501 W. Cleveland Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FI., 33606 PHONE NUMBER: 813-254-6200 EMAIL: Pflint@redstoneinvestments.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, FI. PARCEL NUMBER(S): 13-29-15-48611-000-0030 13-29-15-48611-000-0040 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3; Lakeside at Clearwater, as Recorded in Plat Book 138, Page 70 Lot 4; Lakeside at Clearwater, as Recorded in Plat Book 138, Page 70 PROPOSED USE(S): Vehicle Service (tire center); convenience with gas; coffee, retail and restaurant DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Request approval of vehicle service for a tire store on the northwest parcel (Lot 3) and Specifically identijy the request approval of changes in square footages of certain uses, chan e in overall square footage (include all requested code j/exibility; consistent with Development Agreement dated 3/25/2010 and modification of e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, heighr, setbacks, lot Development Order dated 7/19/2011 of said uses and square footages. size, lot width, specific use, etc.): Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 LL ° � earwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site) C ROR Vacant PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): CommerCial SITE AREA: 506,892 sq. ft. 11.637 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 0 sq. ft. Proposed: 64,333 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 59,159* sq. ft. * Per D.O dated 7/19/11. Per Dev. Agree. dated 3/25/10, commercial property is limited to no more than 90,OOOsf of retail and restaurant GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: (Tire Center) 6,622 sq. ft. Fourth use: (Retail) 6,720 sq. ft. Second use: (Wawa) 5,559 sq. ft. Fifth use: (Restaurant) 4,370 sq. ft. Third use: (Coffee) 1,860 sq. ft. Sixth use: (Retail) 39,202 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 0 Overall Commercial Redstone Outparcels Proposed: 12.69% 64,333/506,892 25,131/247,439 = 10.16% Maximum Allowable: 11.67% 59,159/506,892 per D.O 19,159/247,499 = 7.74% 17.76% 90,000/506,892 per D.A BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15` floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: � sq. ft. ( 0 % of site) Proposed: 64,333 sq. ft. ( 12.69 % of site) Entire Commercial Area Maximum Permitted: 59,159 sq. ft. ( 11.67 % of site) 90,000 17.76% of site GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: N/A sq. ft. ( N/A �o of site) Entire Commercial Area Proposed: 84,146 sq. ft. ( 2g,7 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( 0 Proposed: 283,692 sq. ft. ( 55.97 % of site) Entire Commercial Area % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMP�RVIQUS SUfiFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site}: Existing: Q Proposed: 74,27�10 Maxirrrum Perrnitted: 85% DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existi ng: N/A Proposed: N!A Maxlrnum Permitted: N/A QFF-STREE7 PARKIf�G: Existing: � Proposed: 400 Minimum Required: 364 BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: Praposed: Maximum Permitted: WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED 707AL VAlUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? ZONING DISTRICi'S FOR ALL ADJACENT PR�PERN: Narth: � South: MDR East: C West: � N/A 35' 35' �c�rI�;��iTi � � � STATE OF FLl3R[DA, COUNTY OF PINElLA5 1, the underslgned, acicnowledge that a!I Sw rn to and subscribed before me this ,.�/ day of representations made in thls application are true and �� j...o � �� ,. accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize � •�L� • ta me and/or by City representatives to visit and photograph the ,.✓D,Le+-� yii✓�,e.;�r„_ , who ' personally known s praperty described in this appfication. produced as identification, � . o i � representative fVotary public, My cvmmission '"�Y �OM��SSfON # QD96555i �XpERES February 24. 2014 Alann[ng 8 Development Department, 140 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01112 ° ea r Planning & Development Department ' V �a�� Flexi 1 b e Development Application � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: ❑ Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. 0 North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. ❑ Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater 5torm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01N2 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. ❑ A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. ❑ Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. ❑ Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ❑ Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. ❑ Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revlsed 01/12 � a � C e r�vat�r See Exhibit A and B Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application " General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 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 the appropriate 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 or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the communiry character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 See Exhibit A and B o � Planning & Development Department � C earwate Flexible Develo ment A lication P PP � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Planning & Development Departrnent, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01M2 L "� �ar�Vater Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application `� Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: Lot 3 and Lot 4: Lakeside at Clearwater, As recorded in Plat Book 138, Page 70 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Request approval of vehicle service- major for a tire store on the northwest parcel (Lot 3) and approval of changes in square footages of certain uses, chanqe in overall square footaqe consistent with Development Aqreement dated 3/25/2010 and modification of Development Order dated 7/19/2011 of said uses and square footages. 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/we)� dersigned authorit , h y certify that the foregoing is true and correct. � P perty Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS �� DAY OF ��tLl=✓��<<'- , ��/ � , PERSONALLY APPEARED �/1��-�.�`� J /�✓��.i�j p G WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN ..� DEPOSED AND SAYS THPc�,.H�l8}1E FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. tv'otary •s2al/S!amp Notary Public Signature My Commission Expires: � - ��_ � . ��,, �w, ;;�? �(�t,r. 'U�^'' `'.•.Ui�F��.:a't�l� _.�-.�_�.��.'�,..�.�..:.a._ planning & Development Department, 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 Exhibit A Legal Description Lot 3; Lakeside at Clearwater, as Recorded in Plat Book 138, Page 70 together with Lot 4; Lakeside at Clearwater, as recorded in Plat Book 138, Page 70 EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Lakeside at Clearwater 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Section B. Description of Request The applicant, Nickel Plate Properties, Inc., proposes to amend the conditions of the Development Order dated July 19, 2011 for case FLD2011-04018 ("Existing DO") which controls the development of the property described on Exhibit "A" attached ("Property"). The Existing DO permits 59,159 square feet of commercial floor area which includes the following uses: (i) 40,000 sq. ft. retail sales and service use, (ii) Automobile Service Station use of 5,559 sq. ft., and (iii) 9,400 sq. ft. of restaurant use. Since the time of approval, the applicant has transferred ownership of a subparcel for a Walmart Neighborhood Market ("Walmart Parcel") and recorded a plat consistent with case no. PLT2011-04002 which subdivides the Property subject to the Development Order. The Walmart Parcel includes 39,202 sq. ft of retail sales space. The commercial property, inclusive of the Walmart Parcel, is 11.637 acres; for the purposes of this application, the request is for specified uses on 5.68 acres defined as the Property. For the purposes of this application, the subparcel previously transferred to Walmart is included for comparison to the previously approved project. Specifically, Sections 3, 3A and 4 of the site ptan are included in this amendment. The existing Walmart and permitted Wawa are not included in this request. The applicant requests an amendment to the existing development order, specific to the Property, for the flexible development approval of a comprehensive infill redevelopment project to permit (i) 6,720 sq. ft. retail sales and service use, (ii) Automobile Service Station use of 5,559 sq. ft., (iii) 6,230 sq. ft. of restaurant use, and (iv) 6,622 sq. ft. of vehicle repair (major) in the Commercial (C) District, with a. a Lot Area of 11.637 acres (506,892 square feet) (including Walmart Parcel) and 5.68 acres (247,439 sq. feet) excluding Walmart Parcel, where 10,000 square feet is required; b. a Lot Width of 820', where 100' is required; c. a maximum height (above BFE) of 32.5', where 25' is allowed; d. Setbacks as follows: Section 2 (Approved Wawa) Front (North) Per FLD 2011-04018 Side (West) Per FLD 2011-04018 Rear (South) Per FLD 2011-04018 Side (East) Per FLD 2011-04018 Section 3 (Belcher Road Retail) Front (East) 72 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Side (North) 72.8 ft. to Building; 95.8 to Pavement Rear (South) 96.7 to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 42.6 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Section 3A Front (North) 61.9 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Front (East) 102.1 ft. to Building; 95.8 to Pavement Rear (South) 24 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 84.5 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Section 4 (Kauffman� Front (North) 75.1 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 10 ft. to existing structure; 51.7 ft. to Building; 22.6 ft. to Pavement Rear (South) 76.1 ft. to Building; 30.5 ft. to Pavement Side (East) 43.5 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Existing Curb Section 5(Existinq Wal-mart� - Per FLD 2011-04018 NOTE: Sections 2, 3 and 3A are a common parcel pursuant to the Plat but property lines are anticipated as shown on the site plan and referenced above. e. 400 parking spaces, where 364 spaces are required per Shared Parking Calculation; f. 25-foot landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road, where 15-foot landscape buffers are required; and g. direct access to two arterial streets (Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Be�cher Road); under the provisions of Section 2-704(C) of the Clearwater Community Development Code ("Code"). The request is outlined below exclusive of the Walmart Parcel, for your reference. Additionally, attached as Exhibit "B" is a spreadsheet of each individual outparcel, its proposed use, and its proposed dimensional criteria. 2011 Development Walmart Parcel Property/Remaining Order Develo ment Retail Sales and 40,000 39,202 6,720 Service 2 Automobile Service 5559 5,559 Station Restaurant 9400 6,230 Vehicle Service n/a 6,622 Repair (Major) Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 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. The proposed FAR of the Property is .127. The FAR of the Walmart Parcel plus the Property is .127, where an FAR of 0.17 is allowed per the approved Development Agreement encumbering the Property (while an FAR of .40 is permitted in the R/O/R district). The proposed ISR is 74.27 percent where the maximum allowed is 85 percent. The other three corners of the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher are also developed with established retail uses — Albertson's, CVS and Publix; however, these three parcels have a land use designation of Commercial General, which allows an FAR of .55 and an ISR of .90 such that the proposed development is tess intense than its neighbors. The proposed height of 32.5' is reasonable given the increased setbacks to building, low floor area ratio and increased landscape buffers. The following are the parcels adjacent to the subject property: 3 Location Zoning Land Use Designation Actual Use North Commercial (C) Commercial General Albertson's (across Gulf-to- Gas station Bay) East Commercial (C) Commercial General Publix/Office Depot (across Shopping Center Belcher Road) South MDR Proposed Residential Medium Currently vacant (Parcel 2) Proposed Owned by the applicant and proposed for 243- unit multi-family residential project West C Commercial General Ancillary parking MDR Residential Urban for car dealership 2) The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The subject property is the commercial portion of the redeveloped Lakeside Mobile Home Park, which was occupied by 295 mobile homes in existence since the 1950s. The land is located amid established neighborhoods to the south and west, the established office uses at the northeast corner of Belcher and Druid and the recently redeveloped commercial parcel at the southeast corner of Gulf- to-Bay and Belcher. The approved plan includes 25' perimeter landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher, where 15' buffers are required which witl enhance this corner of the intersection. The site plan depicts an open space area at the northeast corner of the site. The property to the south was permitted for development of a multi-family project concurrent with the initial approval of the commercial development of the Property. The Walmart Neighborhood Market has completed construction and should open soon; the Wawa gas station market has been permitted and construction is soon to start. There are other gas stations and vehicle tire stores in the vicinity, including a new tire store within a mile east on Gulf to Bay Blvd. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. � The applicant previously submitted a Traffic Study, described in detail in Response 4 below which confirms that the approved project will not impact the roadway network, with certain improvements being made by the applicant. The adjacent neighborhoods and parcels will also benefit from the improved traffic flow provided by these improvements. The proposed project shares an entrance drive on Belcher with the approved multifamily housing project at the rear of the site (NOTE: the housing project is not included in this request). 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed change of use to vehicle service and repair and other adjustments included in this request does not impact the traffic around the site. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The overall commercial property is currently undergoing site development work and the Walmart Neighborhood Market is under construction at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher. This intersection is clearly of a commercial character with retail located on the three developed corners—a Publix and Office Depot shopping center on the southeast corner, a CVS on the northeast corner and an Albertson's and gas station/convenience mart on the northwest corner. The proposed change in the previous approval to inc�ude the vehicle sales and service is not out of character. Nearby, the Sam's Club, Clearwater Mall, and several independent parcels include such a use. The architecture design of the proposed Vehicle Service facility is consistent with the other buildings in the retail center to create a uniform look. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The approved site plan includes 25' perimeter landscape buffers on the roadways and a pocket park at the corner of Gulf to Bay and Belcher. Traffic will enter and exit on Gulf-to-Bay or Belcher. The proposed residential development to the south will be gated so customers visiting the retail area will not be able to cut through the residential area (therefore avoiding Belcher Road) to access Druid Road. The proposed trash collection area is screened at the grade level so as not to impact passersby. The design of the building locates the service bays to the rear of the site so they are not visible except for internal to the site. There is a false fa�ade facing Gulf to Bay to generate pedestrian interaction to the 5 building. The design is consistent with the balance of the proposed elevations (and existing Walmart Neighborhood Market) within the commercial area. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. This request is specific to amending the prior approval to permit 6,622 sq. ft of Vehicle Repair and Service and other minor modifications to the mix of uses. The proposed deviations from Code, which are discussed in detail below, were necessary and minimal in order to redevelop the site upon the original development approval. None of the previously approved deviations are being modified by this request. The prior approval included the office use to accommodate a retail banking location with a drive through. Instead of a bank, this tire store will be located on the northwest portion of the development. 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. Retail sales and service and restaurant uses are permitted uses in the "Commercial" zoning district. Vehicle Repair and Service is a permitted use within the Commercial zoning district. There are several commercial developments that include this retail-focused use. Generally, such a use such as a Kauffman Tires, provides a service to patrons of the retail establishes nearby. As stated above, on Gulf to Bay, there are several other vehicle repair/service types of uses including those located at Clearwater Mall and at Sam's Club. The ROR land use category is a mixed use plan category that will allow the retail, restaurant and personal services that are anticipated for this location. The Countywide rules specifically permit, as commercial/business service use, the repair, service or rental of motor vehicles. The mix of uses is supported by the Code and the Countywide Rules and consistent with an area of redevelopment. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below and as previously approved. This proposal has no material changes to the previously approved plan but is necessitated by the change of use from retail to Vehicle Service. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. C. As a result of redevelopment of a former mobile home park site, the vacant land is located amid established neighborhoods to the south and west, the established office uses at the northeast corner of Belcher and Druid and the recently redeveloped commercial parcel at the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher. The following are the parcels adjacent to the subject property: Location Zonin Land Use Desi nation Actual Use North Commercial (C) Commercial General Albertson's (across Gulf-to- Gas station Bay) East Commercial (C) Commercial General Publix/Office Depot (across Shopping Center Belcher Road) South MDR Residential Medium Currently vacant; Proposed Proposed approved for 243- unit multi-family residential project West C Commercial General Ancillary parking MDR Residential Urban for car dealership The approved plan includes 25' perimeter landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher which witl enhance this corner of the intersection as viewed from the surrounding commercial neighbors. The previously approved building setback of 79' from the southerly property line which adjoins the proposed residential development to the south. Since the subsequent development of the Walmart Parcel, a proposed outparcel use will in fact be 76.8 ft. from the newly created Walmart Parcel (south). 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 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; 7 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. Vehicle Repair and Service is permitted by the "Residential/Office/Retail" land use category and in the "Commercial" zoning district as a flexible use and within the Countywide Rules. This is an economic contributor as the development as a whole till provide additional jobs and the proposed vehicle service use will provide an affordable service for residents. It would not be appropriate to have an industrial or commercial land use category adjacent to the surrounding neighborhoods; however the commercial zoning is consistent with a parcel that fronts a major commercial corridor. 6. 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. The proposed use is consistent with other commercial shopping centers in the city, even though it is not an articulated use in the zoning district. As previously discussed in detail in General Applicability Criteria 1, the proposed project will not impede the surrounding properties and is simply a change of use. The architectural style is compatible with the other buildings in the previously approved commercial development. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. There are no applicable design guidelines at this location. The proposed project complies with Code to height and landscape buffer requirements and the proposed amendment does not modify prior approvals on this site. E: c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; The character of this area is well-established as commercial. Please see the response to General Applicability Criteria 1 which describes how the bulk, scale and coverage of the project fits in with surrounding 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. These elements are incorporated into the design as shown on building elevations. The buildings on the site have been arranged to form a visually interesting appearance through site design, landscaping and architectural variety within a consistent theme. For each building, the architectural design employs a variety of materials, cofors, and fenestration patterns. Due to the commercial nature of the buildings, all buildings are planned to be one story but a variety of roof heights and forms will be utilized to create an attractive appearance for the project. As there are different users for each building, there are different architectural aspects unique to each user. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Two sides of the Property are building facades fronting on public-rights-of-way. The landscape plan has been prepared in accordance with Code and provides the necessary foundation and vehicular use area landscaping and perimeter landscaping of 25' where only 15' is required by Code. The proposed development of this use does not modify the previously approved landscape buffers. 10/31/2013 12:17 PM 4892934_1 E SETBACKS (Lakeside Commercial) Section 2 (Approved Wawa� Front (North) Per FLD 2011-04018 Side (West) Per FLD 2011-04018 Rear (South) Per FLD 2011-04018 Side (East) Per FLD 2011-04018 Section 3 (Belcher Road Retail� Front (East) 72 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Side (North) 72.8 ft. to Building; 95.8 to Pavement Rear (South) 96.7 to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 42.6 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Section 3A Front (North) 61.9 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Front (East) 102.1 ft. to Building; 95.8 to Pavement Rear (South) 24 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 84.5 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Pavement Section 4 (Kauffinan� Front (North) 75.1 ft. to Building; 25 ft. to Pavement Side (West) 10 ft. to existing structure; 51.7 ft. to Building; 22.6 ft. to Pavement Rear (South) 76.1 ft. to Building; 30.5 ft. to Pavement Side (East) 43.5 ft. to Building; 0 ft. to Existing Curb Section 5(Existing Wal-mart� - Per FLD 2011-04018 NOTE: Sections 2, 3 and 3A are a common parcel pursuant to the Plat but property lines are anticipated as shown on the site plan and referenced above. 5027555v1 l� 4 � � ! '�?]� �2 � it:lr• . - � - fif91 �� . � . �qpp� BET� . . ' . ' .. [�.'' mAf7AF��: \\ FIR91'� SGO�y�►A'TERM ... I IATiEIV1 -'"'_' � '� 'fF6'� � � /iJ'•0�`z � t..-� ._._.. � i/G PARAa' I -.^ . _ " _ __ J' e i,G PlR.Yii I ir-e� = ___.:. _ _ � effs a -� i . .. � _. : . . . . . _ .� . . _ .._ _. �. ..4 ; - - - � En a �:: . . . . . . . _ . . . � , . �. , •iC S-�1�RR.t � , , , � �--� 3;.-• � I � . 1 . j �, - MR. . �� . _ ._. - _ I . , � ; �s�_ } _ � ..;�� , ; � �� .� �;, � - F . � � ,, ;.� < �, �,�: .� . - _ J � ' - , �,_.; — � _ —, — � I I °`'y �° °' �-r—�T"� I �" ,�� i i i! I If=111 11.;-' l i I_I— I I' l l I-� I I—I 11=� 11 � 11= I I—1 l l- I I, � .�,, , I I-� 11- �, ��., i'_ I�� I I I I � � � ' � � � _ , `, I I I I�._ I I"� i 1;�, l': II � 11=-�il 11�=�11 Il� i ��II� II- �II 'll—'ll II;--,I��I�� i II�"�_I� I�� I- = II 11 �II—�II—�� II� �I—�II— li � II—�� II �� 1-��'il� 11— II �II- II � II—If �11�11—'�II �ii� ��I ��II I� 'i� i'i�li �1—�i� 50UTH ELE��TION : � �-� �; ,, — � ; � , ; � ` - wrs � � �:��{ _ �- { r,n rsieoe�T 3 '. f /9 ] � p'}3 `"_'1v.T I 'J°91 _ . . , �. _ �_� - _- __� -: ,:. .-._ .� `. _ _ - - �.e; �q °nRME' 7 .: ... . -t' ' - . . .. �� _... -_.. ' _ _ . .' 3 � �7 3 a �_ _ V_ - - --- - - � i -- — — - --. _ _ . � _.�_ a 'R o.,R,�- , _ _ -- - — - -�. : f E T�_--- G�'', ., . � � f:� u �� ., � < � :.�_ _H_ i � , ___ _ � . . . _ . i � -� � � ; � t i ` r , � �I °� " - _ _: „,t., k � �, ; , -• � 3 3 -�a� z ��c e-a�,-�a � _ _ . _ . 3 � - ---,� - -- - �; � '..ii 3�v" . .# �. I � � � �� . , h - � � , . � •i i� .a; _ . , � � j � � � � I , ,. . . � y'�, �Y. . y� f�� yr.� � V _ � ,. N , � � , , �' PN14w'L00R � . . . _. °h�. FiIXR ° �—,-=;�� il-.-_. �� : ��— �i� �� ,��-;, I� �i�_:ill �_� �i' I� 11�- �� !I! . i� I. ��`':�� ;= ii �;�'-. �; II-� ,!', �,� _-!�i �i._:!�� I� -:'I� !__._ -a't'�` � 1—I i 1.— ! �-; I I— I I-- I I I 1..-- I,— � i- I I, �T-� I I.� .; I i— �,— � � I t,— I I � 1,—. I � I;. °T __ I 1-� I�-', I-,- n� i � i_i I I 1=. �;—; � I� I I—. I 1- I 1._, i� I I-,—i I 1= I!- 11=�11—�11_-11—II_-11—�11_=�11—'ll=�ll=+ll _��I__ 11—�11_ il-�IL �II_�.II_ :IL_II �II_�II �II _�.II_ il i� �I� �� I �I II _�I �� .�� II i�ORTH ELE��TION �.�� •�, ��.� CM 9 \ a 6 p.t� p♦ �� C C' `\ Cb L�'D�'.�C " , D BF51. C \ .. ... .. . fIOPhRl.YE13 1DPdR4�13 _ . [ __ 1�^r PCR6F41 { �' �� ' � i� ., jy.,o� 35'�0' ... ` /'/3 t'. .... _.. - .� �� '� � '. ' iN PARAfEt a itC P4RG1'Et i ' ��. �9 "" ____ _. .. .. . ._ _:- ._.. . . � _..____ 1 G v:Rl.'f? : • .. . - � ' . .-73'�0' . . � � 73'-0" . . . 6 � -� NO • � ''` _� �'�+IR� � ;-- ; � � _ �.s � �: , ' , , ; � . � ; „� ., �� 3 I �=-5�� , — �-9 3:T i �:�;- I � F . _. . J. . �- .q' -- DF9-J . � 1 ' (EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH 5Y5TEM) EIFS-1 GHINA WHITE � —�, (EXTERIOR INSULATION FIN15H 5Y5TEM) � EIFS-2 FRENGH �/ANILLA DF5-4 FRENGH VP�NILL./� � �`J (STUGGO) (EXTERIOR INSULATION FIN15H SYSTEM) ; EIFS-3 V,4N DYKE � j DF5-2 VAN DYKE � (STUGGO) � DFS-1 GHLOE � � (STUGGO) ; � DF5-3 BROWN DERBY (STUGGO) �-�� -- _--.'� ST-1 GUTURED STONE :��.�i 50UTHWEST BLEND D ♦ � '°P'�` � MTL-1 - BLAGK � "` .. � (METAL) ,3 �. �--C�� fPl' ;• I� ! 3' y ��.. +'-;t _ ��,,. - n• �a�.,�tm .z..T' a - .,};��. s,.�„°''i,... ' .�y: cNiW R�P . � i— i �—. �—��', I�. I I� �I . I I I �. I I I I '. I'— I I .��_�I— � I.�.I I I I. .—I.I I � I� m 0�..� --- I� �-'�'T . �.r-', _ I—�.. I I— I I I! � I I ! I I '; _i „'•.�. I) _I_ ._ I!— I� I ._ — ._. p•.p• 1 i— I� I—_ _ _ _ _ "LAMD6 TONC� UI-0PY . ._. � ��"�o�� -,•°`-� r, �� '1 �- �'_� �— � � _� � � �—� I � � � i� � � _� �.— ��- � �—i � �_ I � �.— I �— '� �_— I � ' � j— � �-_� �!.i ��! �.� .� I �,1— ( �- � �—;.1.�— .�. ��.5— �.� �. �..''�.� i I i-, I � — I I— I 1- , _ �5T EL��/�TION Y�lEST ELEVA�TION PROPOSED ELEV�TIONS KAUFFMAN TIRE CLEARWATER, FL SCHEME 1 4640 Powers Ferrv P.cau B�dd�no One Manetta Ga 3� i'�? rF ':'D au1 R44e 'nR ��n RSn Aou?. _.,�j-�;�,�, i i DUMPSTER ENCL�SURE ELEV 5 „2. , ,..� DUMPSTER ENCL�SURE ELEV 6 ,�. m i,.,. l.yman a�,.•�d��,�, Da�lcy, Inc. Pt.�ipp p�+pR FR+Y'E � � V!" r'ETAt !D DOOIt DECKhY i� [F4 DR�'VIt V41 D1'XE � fNl&7 T V.4i Dl'1� !' S?� fIPE L qFE 9CLLAfID �' � UN GQiC1�lE :,� oag ur :�r ER7tk DEf�T ORY`/Ii ORP1N DEiDT FM,�M �� v�� a�: cEac a Tb6 C X 3' X l�1i• DOt71t PRRi-PdMifD t0111?CN CICVN DEI6St' 6" 81&i °IPE Bd.lN� av CGrJC�fTE DCfE LAP �DUMPSTER ENCL�SURE ELEV 4 „�. , ,..�, �� M � �,�I� T �,�� 6 +& ;Q �o ! '4 I � i \ }. DUMPSTER ENCL�SURE ELEV 3 vr = r-r �� DRy1�+1 V.eh "J71� 9Nili! rTtYt ERCW. OE1mr :N18u SIGHTLINE STUDY SECTION 2 „�. E ,..,. SIGHTLINE STUDY ELEVATIDN �� !/8' • t'-0' PROPOSED ELEVATIONS KAUFFMAN TIRE CLEARWATER, FL 1640 Powers Feaxv Roatl &nicricw CMe l.Sanetta GA 30p5y _ tel 770 B.50 [ia90 - fax 77� 85n A99'i � „�:.