08/19/2003
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 19,2003
Present: Carlen A. Petersen
Ed Hooper
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
John Doran
Kathy Milam
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Acting Board Member
Absent: Edward Mazur, Jr.
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cyndi Tarapani
Lisa Fierce
Frank Gerlock
Gina Clayton
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Long Range Planning Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: July 15, 2003
Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 2003,
as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
D. CONTINUED ITEM:
1. Case: TA2003-01002 - Code Amendments Leve/3 Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code as relating to
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, prohibited signs, public purpose signs,
signs in residential areas, adopt-a-park and portable storage unit signage, changes to
the length of time for Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible)
development reviews, various clarifications to which level of review (Minimum Standard,
Flexible Standard or Flexible) a particular subsection refers, clarification of the effect of a
Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible) approvals, minor amendment
provisions regarding changes to Level Two development approvals, increasing the
number of times and under what circumstances Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level
Two (Flexible) approvals can be extended and adding a definition for adopt-a-park signs.
Presenter: Mark 1. Parry, Planner.
.
The Planning Department hosted a Frequent Users Group (FUG) meeting on November 15,
2002 in order to solicit concerns and suggestions for the further improvement of the development
Community Development 2003-08-19
1
8/19/03
.
review process. Enhancements to the Code with regards to criteria for Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects, site plan revisions subsequent to Level Two (Flexible Development)
approvals, the timeframe for Level One (Flexible Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible
Development) development review were included among the suggestions submitted at that
meeting. In addition, Staff has identified several additional portions of the Code, which warrant
improvement and/or clarification.
One amendment contained in this ordinance also addresses the result of a lawsuit filed in
Pinellas County court, State v. PODS, and settled on April 3, 2003, with regards to the amount of
signage permitted on portable storage units. As a part of that settlement the City agreed to put
forward a proposed amendment to the Code increasing the amount of such signage.
Proposed Ordinance No. 7106-03 includes amendments addressing the items listed in the
request above. Please find a description of each proposed amendment with the corresponding
ordinance page number below.
1. Amending Article 2, Zoning Districts, by deleting one of the flexibility criteria for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects in the Commercial (page 2), Tourist
(page 2), Downtown (page 2), Office (page 3), Institutional (page 3), Industrial
Research Technology (page 3) and Open Space and Recreation Districts (page 3);
.
This amendment will delete the fifth criterion common to all Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Projects requiring evidence to be submitted to Staff indicating that
suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are not otherwise available in the City of
Clearwater. The City has reviewed numerous applications which include a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project since the inception of the Code and it has
become evident to Staff that this requirement is onerous and unreasonable if not
impossible. The remaining criteria are primarily performance based and are effective in
ensuring and encouraging quality development consistent with the purpose and goals of
the Code.
2. Amending Article 3, Development Standards, Division 18 Signs, by making revisions
and/or adding provisions to prohibited signs (page 3), signs allowed in residential
zoning districts, decorative street signs for identification of subdivisions within city
rights-of-way (page 5) and adopt-a-park signs located in city rights-of-way or on
other city owned properties (page 5);
This amendment simplifies this portion of the Code by combining the two subsections
addressing signage permitted for single- and multi-family residential developments into
one subsection. The signage permitted for both single- and multi-family developments
will be up to two signs with a maximum of 12 square feet for each entry into single- and
multi-family residential developments. This subsection will also be expanded to provide
greater clarification with regards to where and under what conditions such signs may be
located.
.
A new subsection permitting decorative additions to street signs located within the City
rights-of-way is proposed with this ordinance. These signs may be used to identify
neighborhoods. The City will compile a selection of several sign types from which
neighborhoods may choose. Section 3-1803.L, regarding prohibited signs, will be
amended to permit these signs to be located within street rights-of-way.
Community Development 2003-08-19
2
8/19/03
.
A fourth subsection is further proposed which will permit "Adopt-a-park" signs within City
rights-of-way or on City-owned properties. The City will also compile a selection of
several sign types from which adopt-a-park participants may choose.
3. Amending Article 3, Development Standards, Section 3-2103 (page 6), by increasing the
amount of signage permitted on portable storage units;
A portion of this ordinance addresses the result of a lawsuit filed in Pinellas County court,
State v. PODS, and settled on April 3, 2003, with regards to the amount of signage permitted
on portable storage units. The amount of signage currently permitted includes two signs of
12 square inches each. As a part of that settlement the staff agreed to put forward a
proposed amendment to the Code increasing the amount of such signage to two signs of 12
square feet each.
.
4. Amending Article 4 Development Review and Procedures by making revisions to the
timeframe for determining application completeness and sufficiency for Level One
(Standard and Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible Development) development
reviews and making certain clarifications with regards to the type of development review
to which these sections refer:
a) Section 4-202, Determination of Completeness/Sufficiency, C.1, Determination of
Completeness (page 6), C2, Determination of Legal Sufficiency (page 6) and C.3,
Determination of Legal Sufficiency (page 7), by changing the length of time for Level
One (Flexible Standard) Development Review and providing clarification with regards
to which level of review the section refers;
b) Article 4. Division 3. Permitted Uses: Level One diagram on page CD4:16 of the
Code (page 7);
c) Section 4-302.A (page 7), Level One approval, by changing the length of time for
Level One (Flexible Standard) Development Review and clarifying the type of
development review to which the section refers;
d) Section 4-302.B (page 8), Level One approval (Flexible Development), by clarifying
the type of development review to which the section refers;
e) Division 4 Permitted Uses Level Two Chart (page 9) by changing the length of time
for a Level Two (Flexible Development) Review; and
f) Section 4-404 (page 10), Community Development Board Decision, by changing the
length of time for a Level Two (Flexible Development) Review.
.
Since the inception of the Code in early 1999, the DRC and CDB have reviewed
hundreds of applications. The timeframe provided for by the Code has proven too
limiting for an accurate, efficient and effective review of submitted applications. The
Code provides for a maximum of 21 days to DRC review for Level One (Flexible
Standard Development) applications and 45 days from submittal date to CDB review
for Level Two (Flexible Development) applications. The above changes (A.3.a-f) will
provide up to an additional 10 working days resulting in a maximum total of 31
working days with which to review Level One (Flexible Standard Development)
applications, increase the amount of time available to review Level Two (Flexible
Development) applications by up to 13 working days providing a maximum total of 58
working days and provide additions which clarify to which level of review (Minimum
Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible) a particular subsection refers. The
additional time provided by this Code change will result in a direct benefit to all
applicants with a more accurate and efficient submittal review.
Community Development 2003-08-19
3
8/19/03
. 5. Amending Section 4-303 (page 8), Effect of Level One approval, by clarifying the
effective date of a Level One Approval and by changing the number of times such
an approval can be extended;
The Code is currently silent regarding the effective date of Level One (Flexible Standard
Development) approvals. This amendment provides that the date of the signing of the
Development Order (the letter which indicates the decision of the Community
Development Coordinator) constitutes the approval date.
In addition, the Code provides that the community development coordinator may grant a
one-time, one-year time extension for an approved Level One (Flexible Standard
Development) application. This Code amendment will enable an applicant to receive up
to two, one-year time extensions by the community development coordinator. Each time
extension will be required to be granted within the period of validity of the previous
approval whether that be the original date of approval or the first time extension. The
amendment also requires that the applicant provide proof of good cause documented in
writing. Good causes may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis
(acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.).
6. Amending Section 4-405 (page 10), Effect of Decision, by clarifying the effective
date of a Level Two (Flexible Development) approval;
.
The Code is currently silent regarding the effective date of Level Two (Flexible
Development) approvals. This amendment provides that the date of the CDB meeting
approving an application constitutes the approval date.
7. Amending Section 4-406.A. (page 11) revising minor amendment provisions for
Level Two development approvals;
This amendment will provide a greater degree of flexibility with regards to changes to
approved Level Two (Flexible Development) applications. Specifically, the amendment
will increase the amount by which a street may be moved from five to 20 feet, allow
changes of an approved use provided such a change is less intense than that originally
approved, allow the quantification of required landscaping and permits minor,
unsubstantial changes to conditions part of an approval.
8. Amending Section 4-407 (page 11), Expiration of Approval, by changing the
number of times a Level Two (Flexible Development) approval can be extended;
The CDB may grant a one-time, one year time extension for an approved Level Two
(Flexible Development). This Code amendment will enable an applicant to receive a
one-time, one year time extension by the community development coordinator and a
second, one-time, one year time extension by the CDB. Each time extension will be
required to be granted within the period of validity of the previous approval whether that
be the original date of approval or the first time extension. The amendment also
requires that the applicant provide proof of good cause and documented in writing. Good
causes may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.).
.
Community Development 2003-08-19
4
8/19/03
.
.
.
9. Amending Article 8, Article 8. Definitions and Rules of Construction, Section 8-102
Definitions (page 12) by adding a definition for adopt-a-park signs;
This definition will further clarify the addition of Section 3-1806.A.4 which permits adopt-a-
park signs to be located within City rights-of-way or on other City owned properties.
10. Provision of an effective date of this ordinance;
The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 7, 2003 contingent upon City
Commission approval.
The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed amendments are not inconsistent with goals, policies, or objectives from
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan;
The proposed text amendments increase the effectiveness of the Code and the
efficiency of staff. These proposed amendments further the following purposes of the Code.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 7106-03, which
revises the Community Development Code as relating to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Projects, prohibited signs, residential, adopt-a-park and portable storage unit signage, changes
to the length of time for Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible) development
reviews, various clarifications with regards to Level One and Level Two reviews, clarification of
the effect of a Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible) approvals, minor
amendment provisions regarding changes to Level Two development approvals, increasing the
number of times and under what circumstances Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two
(Flexible) approvals can be extended, adding a definition for adopt-a-park signs and providing
an effective date of this ordinance.
Planner Mark Parry distributed alternate language for Section 11. Article 3. Division 21.
Section 3-2103.8.3.1 Temporary Uses to allow up to two signs of 12 square feet each rather
than one 24 square foot sign, as stated below:
f. A maximum of two signs no more than 12 square feet in area each may be
located on parallel sides of a portable storage unit.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the alternative does not change the current
settlement agreement. He also said that the date in Item #10 amending Provision of an
effective date of this ordinance; the effective date of this ordinance should be corrected from
"August 7,2003" to "contingent upon City Commission approval."
It was requested that Section 4-406.A revising minor amendment provisions for Level
Two development approvals, be clarified as it implies a street could be moved. Mr. Parry said
that section is meant to address internal circulation streets or driveways, not public streets.
Community Development 2003-08-19
5
8/19/03
.
Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said staff anticipates the second reading of this
ordinance by the Commission on September 18, 2003, at which time it would become effective.
In response to a question regarding Item 6 - Amending Section 4-405), Effect of
Decision, by clarifying the effective date of a Level Two (Flexible Development) approval, Mr.
Parry said if someone chose to appeal the decision of the CDB, the appeal would remain in
effect until a final decision is made by the Circuit Court or an Administrative Law Judge. City
Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said it clarifies the effect date of the decision being appealed.
In response to a question regarding Item 1 - Amending Article 2, Zoning Districts, by
deleting one of the flexibility criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects in the
Commercial, Tourist, Downtown), Office, Institutional" Industrial Research Technology, and
Open Space and Recreation Districts, Mr. Parry said the issue of sandwich boards in the
downtown could be included in the next round of text amendments. It was remarked that staff
already had indicated that sandwich boards would be addressed, but they were not. Planning
Director Cyndi Tarapani said there would be two different groups of text amendments to the
Code forthcoming; one for the downtown, and one for the rest of the City.
.
In response to a question regarding Item 2 - Amending Article 3, Development Standards,
Division 18 Signs, by making revisions and/or adding provisions to prohibited signs, signs allowed
in residential zoning districts, decorative street signs for identification of subdivisions within city
rights-of-way and adopt-a-park signs located in city rights-of-way or on other city owned properties,
Mr. Parry said Adopt-a-Highway and Adopt-a-Shore signs are not addressed in the Code. It was
remarked that those two agencies pick up litter, etc., and there already are some signs in place by
those agencies. A comment was made that some of those signs are on County roadways. It was
remarked that when Alternate 19 becomes a City road, the signs in place would have to be
addressed. Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said this amendment was prompted by
citizens wishing to ensure their streets are kept clean. Staff can speak with the County regarding
those signs and how the City can address them.
In response to a question regarding the removal of restrictions of TDRs (Transfer of Density
Rights) as a percentage on the downtown and in the tourist district, Ms. Clayton said staff would
address that restriction when the amendments to the downtown are being reviewed. She said the
removal of the restriction would probably apply to the downtown and the beach, however in some
parts of the downtown that have a land use designation other than Central Business District, the
20% limitation cannot be removed. The PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) has indicated that only
the areas that are designated Central Business District or Community Redevelopment District on
the Future Land Use Map may have unlimited TORs.
.
Member Hooper moved to recommend approval of Case TA2003-01002, amendments to
the Community Development Code relating to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects,
prohibited signs, signs in residential areas and portable storage unit signage, changes to the
length of time for Level One (Flexible.Standard) and Level Two (Flexible) development reviews,
various clarifications to which level of review (Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible)
a particular subsection refers, clarification of the effect of a Level One (Flexible Standard) and
Level Two (Flexible) approvals, minor amendment provisions regarding changes to Level Two
development approvals, increasing the number of times and under what circumstances Level
One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible) approvals can be extended and adding a
definition for adopt-a-park signs. The motion was duly seconded.
Community Development 2003-08-19
6
8/19/03
.
.
.
Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested the motion include the additional amendments proposed
today by staff and the board regarding Section 3-2103.B.3.1, Section 4-406.A, and Section 4-
405.
Member Hooper agreed to amend his motion to include the additional amendments
proposed. The seconder agreed. The motion carried unanimously.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of
the meeting (Items 1-3).
1.
Case: FLD2003-06026 - 500 Mandalay Avenue Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
Representative: Mr. E. D. Armstrong (911 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756;
work: 727-461-1818, fax: 727-441-8617; email: ed@jpfirm.com)
Location: 5.554 acres located on the northwest corner of Mandalay Avenue and
Baymont Street.
Zoning: T, Tourist District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for
density and number of parking spaces within the Tourist District, under the provisions of
Section 6-109 (C). (Note: The configuration of parking was also advertised for
Termination, but was determined unnecessary.)
Proposed Use: Existing overnight accommodation use with 137 rooms and 95
parking spaces.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Pres. David MacNamee,
827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone 727-446-5801.
Conditions of Approval: 1) Existing freestanding signage be brought into conformance
with Code requirements by October 19, 2003, or a Comprehensive Sign Program
application shall be submitted to Staff by October 19, 2003, to retain or modify these
existing freestanding signs, and 2) the existing dumpster on Baymont Street be
enclosed in accordance with City standards with appropriate building permits by October
19, 2003.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner.
This irregularly shaped site of 5.5 total acres is located at the northwest corner of
Baymont Street and Mandalay Avenue. It includes 3.2 acres east of the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) and 2.3 acres west of the CCCL. A transfer of development rights (11.5
units) from that land area lying seaward of the CCCL was approved by the City Commission on
November 6, 1986, with five conditions. On March 5,1987, the City Manager certified minor
revisions to the previously approved (by the City Commission) site plan with two additional
conditions. The site is presently developed with 137 overnight accommodation rooms, whereas
the maximum number of rooms permitted landward of the CCCL is 131 rooms. The density for
the subject area is 41.6 rooms per acre, which exceeds the current land use maximum of 40
rooms per acre.
The site is developed with eight overnight accommodation buildings, including seven,
two-story buildings and the main, six-story building. No changes are proposed for the site or
buildings. The main entrance is located on Mandalay Avenue just north of Baymont Street. The
site also has access to Baymont Street on its south side and to Ambler Street on its north side.
The submittal indicates a total of 98 parking spaces in three parking areas: under the main hotel
building (29 spaces), north of the hotel buildings (30 spaces) and south of the hotel buildings
Community Development 2003-08-19
7
8/19/03
.
(39 spaces). A total of 137 parking spaces are required under the current Community
Development Code. Three spaces on the north side of the property that back out into the
Ambler Street right-of-way are included in the 98-space count. These three parking spaces
cannot be counted, as a minor change to a certified site plan (approved by the City Manager on
March 5, 1987) required eliminating these spaces or to use these spaces for loading purposes
only. With this previous restriction, the site only has 95 parking spaces, resulting in a deficit of
42 parking spaces.
The applicant is requesting to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density and
number of parking spaces. The purpose of this request to allow for the release of a Unity of
Title with property to the south of the subject area so that the southern portion may be marketed
for redevelopment.
.
The applicant has submitted a parking study to support the Termination request and
demonstrate that existing parking on-site is sufficient to accommodate parking demand for the
hotel. In addition to the 137 rooms, the hotel has banquet facilities, meeting rooms, a 160-seat
restaurant and a 40-seat lounge/dining room with live entertainment on Friday and Saturday
nights. The restaurant is open seven days a week serving breakfast, lunch and dinner. The
hotel has concierge services to call vans/taxis to transport guests that do not keep a car on-site.
The Jolly Trolley also serves the hotel and other beach locations. The parking analysis showed
that there were unused parking spaces within the study area throughout the evening. The
parking analysis did not include 51 parking spaces along Mandalay Avenue/San Marco
Street/Papaya Street that are presently still under reconstruction. Additionally, there is a
parking garage to be built at the Pelican Walk Shopping Center at 483 Mandalay Avenue within
the near future that will provide public parking. The parking analysis demonstrates that
municipal lots and on-street parking within 1,000 feet of the hotel provide parking opportunities
to meet the parking demand of the hotel and accessory restaurant patrons, banquet attendees
and other local businesses.
The existing landscaping substantially meets the intent of Code. The site has extensive
landscaping along Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. Parking lots meet landscaping
requirements. An existing dumpster on Baymont Street heavily used by the hotel should be
enclosed in accordance with City standards within 60 days of any Community Development
Board approval.
The site has three freestanding signs, where Code permits two for corner lots. One sign
is on Baymont Street and is a total of 12 square feet (six feet wide by two feet high). There is a
sign on the corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street that is 48 square feet (six feet wide
by eight feet high). Finally, there is a sign facing Mandalay Avenue in front of the hotel of 36
square feet (12 feet wide by three feet high). Signage is required to be brought into
conformance with Code requirements or a Comprehensive Sign Program is required to be
submitted to Staff to request retaining and/or modifying the existing three freestanding signs. It
is noted that the maximum height of freestanding signs under the Comprehensive Sign Program
in the Tourist District is six feet.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on July 17, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
request to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density and number of parking spaces
within the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 6-109.C for the site at 500 Mandalay
Avenue, with the following bases and conditions:
Community Development 2003-08-19
8
8/19/03
.
.
.
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria to Terminate the Status of a
Nonconformity (density and number of parking spaces) per Section 6-109.C;
2. The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and
3. The development is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Existing freestanding signage be brought into conformance with Code requirements by
October 19, 2003, or a Comprehensive Sign Program application shall be submitted to Staff
by October 19, 2003, to retain or modify these existing freestanding signs; and
2. The existing dumpster on Baymont Street be enclosed in accordance with City
standards with appropriate building permits by July 1, 2004.
Ms. Fierce said a copy of a revision to Condition #2 in the Staff Report was distributed to
the board today which revises the date by which the existing dumpster must be removed or
enclosed in accordance with City standards and permits. She said the applicant has agreed to
the revised condition prior to this meeting.
See Item E3.
2.
Case: FLD2003-05023 - 922 South Missouri Avenue Level 2 Application
Owner: Clearwater Retail Group, Ltd.
Applicant: Amscot Financial, Inc.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19N., Ste 300, Clearwater, FL
33761; Phone 727-726-8683 / Cell 727-804-1760 / Fax: 727-669-8114 / E-mail:
pressinc@aol.com).
Location: 0.61 acres located on the west side of Missouri Avenue approximately 500
feet south of Druid Road.
Atlas Page: 296A.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use, under the
provisions of Section 2-704.L.
Proposed Use: Check cashing (problematic use).
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Michael Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner.
This case was removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
The rectangular site is 0.69 acres on the west side of Missouri Avenue approximately
500 feet south of Druid Road, with approximately 180 feet of frontage on Missouri Avenue. The
site is part of the overall Renaissance Square development originally approved as a Certified
Site Plan on March 12,1998. On July 17, 2001, the CDB approved a Flexible Development
application (FL 01-01-05) for the overall site as an amendment to the Certified Site Plan which
included an expansion of permitted uses to include attached dwellings. It also subdivided the
site into separate lots. Site requirements including setbacks, impervious surface ratio and
parking are dictated by the Certified Site Plan. An amendment to the site plan was approved by
Community Development 2003-08-19
9
8/19/03
.
the CDB on April 16, 2002 (FL 02-02-06) with several conditions relative to architecture, signage
and landscaping.
Amscot Financial Inc. proposes to occupy the southern three units (4,725 square feet) of
a 6,300 square foot building on Lot 7. This is currently vacant. Lot 7 immediately abuts Lot 8,
occupied by the Vision Works building to the north. Access to Lot 7 is by an ingress/egress
curb cut on Missouri Avenue on the southeast corner of the lot. A second ingress/egress, from
the north, is through the parking lots of Lots 8 and 9 to a curb cut from Lot 9 to Missouri Avenue.
There is a proposed modification to the previously approved site plan to improve traffic
circulation and landscaping. Problematic uses require five parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area. This building will require 32 spaces. All required parking will be
contained on-site.
The applicant is seeking Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use
(check cashing), under the provisions of Section 2-704.L. The Code permits the location of
problematic uses adjacent to residentially-used (not residentially-zoned) properties.
Amscot Financial is a privately held company with an estimated 66-retaillocations
currently open or in the process of opening in the Tampa Bay area. The major components and
percentages of the retail operations performed, according to the applicant, are 30 percent in the
sale of money orders, 25 percent cashing payroll and government checks, 20 percent tax
preparation and IRS electronic filing, 15 percent cashing of deferred presentment checks, and
10 percent sale of stamps, envelopes, foreign currency transactions, fax service, and
Mastercard stored value cards. The proposed hours of operation of this site are Monday
through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The number of
. employees runs one to three per shift.
Because Amscot performs the service of check cashing, the City of Clearwater
recognizes the use as "problematic," by the Community Development Code. Problematic uses
may create negative impacts on adjacent properties. Staff has recognized that the portion of
the business considered "problematic" accounts for approximately 25 percent of its activities
and should not create negative effects on surrounding sites.
As part of the review of this application, staff reviewed data regarding the existing
Amscot business located at the southeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Virginia Lane.
That site is part of the highly visible Gulf to Bay Boulevard commercial corridor where the
surrounding uses are commercial. The Planning Department requested a Call Activity Report
from the Police Department for the Amscot business located at 1825 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The
report was from January 1, 1999 to June 3, 2003. Since the opening date to June 3, 2003 (day
the report was printed), there have been a total of 41 calls for service placed to the Police
Department. This averages to be once every two weeks that an officer was called to respond to
the business. In order to determine if the calls of service were excessive in relation to the nature
of the business, a Call Activity Report for two separate banks at 1680 and 1640 Gulf to Bay
Boulevard. The results revealed a similar number of police response calls within the same time
frame.
it
Signage for Renaissance Square was approved by the CDB through a Comprehensive
Sign Program on April 15, 2003 (SGN2003-02009). It included five freestanding monument
style signs, with four signs along South Missouri Avenue, and one sign along Druid Road, an
increase the area of an attached sign on Lot 8 (Visionworks) and an increase the area and
number of attached signs on Lot 9 (Wendy's). The specific design approved for attached signs
Community Development 2003-08-19
10
8/19/03
.
.
.
for the subject site includes channels-style, black letters. Any tenant panel on freestanding
signage will be limited to either red background with white letters or white background with red
letters, depending on which of the freestanding signs is utilized. The Board approved the
Comprehensive Sign Program with the conditions that the final design, height, area, color, etc.
of the signs be consistent with the drawings submitted to, or as modified by, the COB and that
the signs for future tenants of the retail center have the same background and text colors as
approved or modified by the COB. The applicant has submitted a letter stating a commitment to
comply with the approved Comprehensive Sign Program. However, subsequent to this case
being advertised for the August 19, 2003, meeting, a request to amend the signage was
submitted. It will need to be forwarded to the Board for review at a later date.
There is an active Code Enforcement case regarding this site (BIZ2003-02853). An
illegal v-angle freestanding sign advertising "Am scot Coming Soon" is located along Missouri
Avenue, readily visible from the road. A notice was sent to the property owner to remove the
signage by June 20, 2003. The site is still in violation as the signage has not been removed.
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on June 12 and July 17, 2003. The proposal is in compliance with the standards
and criteria for Flexible Development approval and with all applicable standards of the
Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development request to
permit a problematic use, check cashing, under the provisions of Section 2-704.L, for the site at
922 South Missouri Avenue, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of
Section 2-704.L;
2. The project complies with General Applicability Criteria under the provisions of Section
3-913; and
3. The proposal is consistent with the approved site plans for the Renaissance Square
development.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Any further additions or changes to the site plan (approved on April 16, 2002) be
reviewed by the COB;
2. All signage comply with the approved Comprehensive Sign Program application FLD 02-
02-06A/SGN2003-02009 (approved April 17, 2003), and specifically Conditions of Approval
1 and 2;
3. Any references to check cashing (problematic use) be prohibited on any signs visible from
the public right-of-way or from adjacent properties no advertising of the check cashing
function;
4. Traffic impact fees be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy; and
5. The illegal signage be removed by August 29, 2003. The Certificate of Occupancy will
not be issued until all illegal signage is removed from site.
Community Development 2003-08-19
11
8/19/03
.
Concern was expressed that the applicant continues to display an illegal freestanding
sign advertising "Am scot Coming Soon".
Todd Pressman, representative said the applicant would have the entire illegal
freestanding sign structure removed by 5:00 p.m. on August 20, 2003.
Member Doran moved to approve Item E2, Case FLD2003-05023 for 922 South
Missouri Avenue, with a revision to Condition #5 that adds that the applicant must remove the
entire illegal freestanding sign structure advertising "Amscot Coming Soon" by 5:00 p.m. on
August 20,2003. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3.
Case: ANX2003-06013 - 1420 Lime Street Level 3 Application
Owners/Applicants: Dawn M. Simpson (phone 727-446-7159).
Location: 0.15-acres located on the north side of Lime Street, approximately 730 feet
east of Hillcrest Avenue.
Atlas Page: 307 A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.15-acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RL, Residential Low Category (County) to
the RL, Residential Low Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from the R3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR,
Low Medium Density Residential District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s): None.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
.
This property is at 1420 Lime Street, on the north side of the street approximately 730
feet east of Hillcrest Avenue. The applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City sewer
service. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the west; therefore, the
proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. It
is proposed that the abutting right-of-way not currently within the City limits also be annexed.
The site is approximately 0.15-acres and is occupied by an existing single-family detached
dwelling. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant is aware of the assessment fee and the impact fee
payments required for sewer connection, as well as any additional costs to extend City sewer
service to the property.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future
Land Use Map, as well as the goals and policies. The existing and proposed use of this site as
a single-family dwelling is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed
annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency
with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration.
(. - Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions
. on the request:
Community Development 2003-08-19
12
8/19/03
. 1. Approval of the annexation of the property located at 1420 Lime Street;
2. Approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and
.
.
3. Approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the
City's Community Development Code.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Consent Agenda Item E1, Case FLD2003-
06026 for 500 Mandalay Avenue, including the revision to Condition #2 that the existing
dumpster on Baymont Street be removed or enclosed in accordance with City standards with
appropriate building permits by July 1, 2004, and recommend approval of Consent Agenda Item
E3, Case ANX2003-06013 for 1420 Lime Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
F. NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1-2):
1.
Case: FLD2003-06025 - 1350 Gulf Boulevard Level 2 Application
Owner/Applicant: Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, #930, Clearwater, FL 33755; work: 727-443-2869/ fax: 727-446-8036/ email:
nestech@mindsprina.com).
Location: 1.87 acres on the west side of Gulf Boulevard, approximately one mile south
of the Clearwater Pass Bridge. This includes 1.05 acres of HDR and 0.82 acres of
OS/R.
Atlas Page: 303B.
Zoning: HDR, High Density Residential District and OS/R, Open Space and Recreation
District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a proposed building
from 30 feet to 80 feet, reduce the required front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet
(to pavement), reduce the side (north) setback from 10 feet to eight feet to pavement,
reduce the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pool and decking) and
reduce the required amount of interior landscaping from 10 percent of the vehicular use
area to 1.5 percent, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section
2-504.A .
Proposed Use: A 31-unit attached dwelling building (condominium) with eight
stories of living area above parking.
Neighborhood Association: Sand Key Civic Association (Mr. Bob Henion, President,
1480 Gulf Boulevard #102, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone 596-4348 or 392-6027 / e-mail:
Dbo1438013@aol.com).
Presenter: Michael Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner.
Ms. Fierce said staff received a letter of objection from a neighboring property owner,
who later rescinded their objection, a letter of support, and a letter of objection from a property
owner who resides in New York.
The rectangular site is a total 1.87 acres, of which 1.05 acres is zoned HDR, High
Density Residential District and 0.82 acres is zoned OSR, Open Space/Recreation District. The
site is located approximately one mile south of the Clearwater Pass bridge on the west side of
Community Development 2003-08-19
13
8/19/03
.
Gulf Boulevard. It is currently vacant, but there is an existing asphalt surface remaining from
prior development.
The proposal is for the construction of 31 attached dwelling units within a single building.
The project will have ground level parking with eight floors of dwelling units above. There are
53 vehicular parking spaces on the site plan. A pool and spa are proposed at ground level on
the west side of the building.
The proposal is for an 80-foot high building with units oriented toward the Gulf of Mexico.
This height, as an increase from 30-feet per Code, requires Flexible Development approval.
The plans show balconies on both the east and west elevations. The size, scale and bulk of this
proposed building is smaller than some multifamily residential projects on the west side of Gulf
Boulevard. Immediately abutting the site to the south is the Bella Rosa development, also 80
feet in height and with 31 residential units, recently approved by the COB on August 20,2002
(FLD2002-05014). The Sand Key Club (south of Bella Rosa) is approximately 130 feet in height
with units oriented facing north and south. The Crescent Beach Club, abutting to the north, is
approximately 180 feet in height with units oriented toward the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed
building will be in harmony with the character of surrounding properties.
.
An access driveway is proposed approximately midpoint on the east of the property
along Gulf Boulevard. A 20-foot wide emergency access is proposed at the northeast corner of
the site from Gulf Boulevard to the parking lot area. While not shown, a sidewalk along Gulf
Boulevard will still be necessary. To restrict access to only emergency vehicles, a barrier
(bollards and chain) should be installed, as well as signage at the parking lot to prevent parking
within this emergency access area. There is a five-foot wide beach access easement and
sidewalk located along the north property line providing access for pedestrians.
A reduction of the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet to pavement is requested, which
is consistent with the established character of Gulf Boulevard. While most parking spaces will
be under the building, there are open-air parking spaces on the east side of the site. Off-street
parking will be screened from adjacent parcels and Gulf Boulevard by landscaping. The
applicant is requesting a reduction of interior landscaping from 10 percent of the vehicular use
area to 1.5 percent. Landscaping otherwise will exceed Code requirements and will be
consistent and provide continuity with installations on adjacent properties.
Stormwater management will be handled through a retention basin located at the
northwest corner of the property. The plans submitted will need to be amended to meet the
requirements within the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. A private
sanitary sewage lift station is proposed at 1370 Gulf Boulevard to service both the Bella Rosa
project and this development. A maintenance agreement between all parties benefiting from
this private lift station will be needed to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
A dumpster staging area is shown located within the northwest area of the site, just east
of the swimming pool and spa deck. Waste containers will be rolled to the staging area on
pickup days. A six-foot high monument sign is proposed along Gulf Boulevard at the south side
of the access driveway, which will need to be coordinated/consistent with the architecture and
color of the building.
.
There are no outstanding violations associated with this site, however, there are City
liens against this property due to prior Code enforcement activity that will need to be paid prior
to the issuance of any permits.
Community Development 2003-08-19
14
8/19/03
.
.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on July 17, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to increase the height of a proposed building from 30 feet to 80 feet, reduce the
required front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), reduce the side (north)
setback from 10 feet to eight feet (to pavement), and reduce the required amount of interior
landscaping from 10 percent of the vehicular use area to 1.5 percent, as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, and as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-504. F for the site at 1350 Gulf Boulevard, with the following bases and
conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of
Section 2-504;
2. The project complies with General Applicability Criteria under the provisions of Section
3-913; and
3. The project is compatible with properties within the surrounding area.
Conditions of Approval:
1. All City liens be paid prior to issuance of any permits;
2. The final design of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted
to or as modified by the CDB;
3.
Stormwater requirements be met prior to issuance of any permits, including the removal
of the retaining wall shown (within the proposed pond) and the provision of a properly
designed dewatering device that meets the 24-hour drawdown requirement. Any
significant changes may require re-approval of the site plan by the CDB;
4. The applicant request an amendment to the building permit for the lift station being built
for 1370 Gulf Boulevard (Bella Rosa) to also provide for this development. A
maintenance agreement between all parties benefiting from this private lift station must
be submitted prior to issuance of any permits;
5. Any off-site utility easements be recorded prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy;
6. A Pinellas County rights-of-way permit be obtained (copy provided to the City) for all
work within the right-of-way prior to issuance of any permits;
7. All Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits;
8. The emergency access be designed to restrict access to only emergency vehicles with a
barrier (such as bollards and chain), as well as signage at the parking lot to prevent
parking within this emergency access area, prior to the issuance of any permits;
9. The monument sign be limited to six feet in height and be consistent with the
architecture and color of the building; and
10.
The cabanas meet a minimum of 10 feet side setback.
Community Development 2003-08-19
15
8/19/03
.
.
.
Senior Planner Michael Reynolds said the applicant contacted him yesterday to request
a change to the side setback on the south side to 10 feet instead of 11.7 feet as indicated on the
site plan. Mr. Reynolds said the 10- foot side setback still meets the Code.
Mr. Reynolds said the letter of objection from one of the residents did not state their
reasons for the objection to this application.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said there are liens against this property
which post-dated the mortgage and are still valid. One is for a $250 lot clearing lien and the
other was imposed by the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) for $50,250 for various
other violations. Those fines would have to be paid prior to issuance of a permit.
It was remarked that it appears there is a large reduction in landscaping by the applicant
for the front portion of the property. Mr. Reynolds said a reduction for landscaping only applies
to the area encompassing the parking lot. The applicant has exceeded the requirements for
landscaping elsewhere on the site.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said the applicant prefers to go before the MCEB to
request a reduction of the fines on the property. In response to a question, Mr. Ghovaee said to
date the applicant has not submitted a request to the MCEB. The applicant still hopes to obtain
applicable permits prior to meeting with the MCEB. Discussion ensued and it was questioned
how the applicant was able to acquire the property with these liens. Mr. Ghovaee said the
applicant inherited the liens. It was remarked that he probably received the property subject to
the liens. Ms. Dougall-Sides said staff and the City Attorney's office is recommending the liens
be paid prior to issuance of any permits. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the
$50,250 fine was recorded in June of 1999, and the $250 fine was recorded in February of
1994. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed the status of the fines with respect to the foreclosure.
Brian Taub, owner, said his attorneys handled the transfer of the property and he
received a clear title during the process of foreclosure. He found out about the liens during the
design process. His attorney is discussing the matter with the City Attorney. Mr. Taub said he
understands that the issue regarding the liens must be resolved prior to issuing any permits.
Four persons spoke in support of the application.
Two persons spoke in opposition to the application.
Ms. Fierce said the applicant is going to provide a greater setback along Gulf Boulevard
than other existing sites. She suggested that the applicant could be asked to reduce the
setback to recapture the interior landscaping. The perimeter currently is planned to have the
most landscaping and there would be landscaping diamonds in the parking lot area for shade.
Mr. Ghovaee said the applicant could have taken the five feet on Gulf Boulevard as part
of the interior landscape plan, but felt the extra wide strip of landscaping along Gulf Boulevard
would be better than small shrubs in between parking spaces.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the front yard greenspace will appear wider
due to the setback to the property line plus grassed right-of-way area. Mr. Ghovaee said the
applicant's parking lot is smaller than the adjacent property's owned by Bellarosa and has more
landscaping on the site.
Community Development 2003-08-19
16
8/19/03
.
.
.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2003-06025 for 1350 Gulf
Boulevard. The motion was duly seconded.
It was suggested that Condition #1 be amended to state that "all City lines be paid or
cancelled prior the issuance of any permits."
Member Gildersleeve agreed to amend his motion. The seconder agreed. The motion
carried unanimously.
2.
Case: FLD2003-05022 - 2010 Drew Street Level 2 Application
Owner: Equities Holdings Group.
Applicant: Amscot Financial, Inc.
Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19N., Ste 300, Clearwater, FL
33761; Phone 727-726-8683 1 Cell 727-804-1760 1 Fax 727-669-8114 1 E-mail:
pressinc@aol.com).
Location: 0.415 acres located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia
Avenue.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a problematic use abutting
residential designated property to the north, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Check cashing (problematic use).
Neighborhood Association: Skycrest Neighbors (Ms. Elizabeth France, 1629
Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone 442-5856 1 e-mail:
eaf5054@earthlink.net).
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
The 0.41-acre site is at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue,
approximately 150 feet east of North Hercules Avenue. It was redeveloped in 2002 with a new
rectangular building of 4,068 square feet and oriented north to south on the west side of the
parcel. The site has one driveway with full, two-way access along Patricia Avenue and one
driveway with a one-way (right-in/right-out) only along Drew Street.
The Community Development Board (CDB) approved the building and lot layout on
March 19, 2002, through a Flexible Development application (Case FL 01-12-36) as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. A reduction in parking was granted from 11
spaces (five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to nine spaces (four spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area) for a proposed retail sales and services establishment,
along with a reduction in the required parking from 27 spaces (15 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area) to 13 spaces (seven spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) for
the current Subway restaurant. The overall reduction granted for the 2004-2010 Drew Street
parking lot was from 38 required parking spaces to 22. This was a 42 percent total reduction in
the amount of required parking, based on the identified uses. The approval was conditional and
that any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and
parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board. One of the
original tenants (Fritz's Bicycle and Skate Shop) proposed to occupy the designated retail sales
and service portion of the building never occupied its intended space. Amscot Financial is now
seeking approval to occupy this vacant tenant space.
Amscot Financial is a privately held company with an estimated 66-retaillocations
currently open or in the process of opening in the Tampa Bay area. The major components and
Community Development 2003-08-19
17
8/19/03
.
.
.
percentages of the retail operations performed, according to the applicant, are 30 percent in the
sale of money orders, 25 percent cashing payroll and government checks, 20 percent tax
preparation and IRS electronic filing, 15 percent cashing of deferred presentment checks, and
10 percent sale of stamps, envelopes, foreign currency transactions, fax service, and
MasterCard stored value cards. Because Amscot performs the service of check cashing, the
City of Clearwater recognizes the use as "problematic," by the Community Development Code.
Due to residential zoning adjacent to the north and the Flexible Development criteria prohibiting
problematic uses adjacent to residential zoning, this case is being processed as a
Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project.
The proposed hours of operation for the Amscot are: Monday through Saturday, 8:00
a.m. - 9:00 p.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. The number of employees ranges
from two to three. There are no proposed site changes with this request and the building
exterior will remain unchanged. On April 17, 2003, a Comprehensive Sign Program was
approved for the existing Subway and future tenant. The attached sign for the future tenant was
approved at 25 square feet. Amscot has submitted an attached contour sign at 23.7 square feet,
which would be permitted. The future tenant panel to be placed below the Subway panel on the
monument sign must have a white background. The proposed tenant panel sign submitted by
Amscot has a white background with a blue box around the lettering.
In December of 2000, Amscot Financial was approved to operate at 1825 Gulf to Bay
Boulevard (Case FL 00-10-47). This provides some information about how the applicant has
performed elsewhere in the City of Clearwater. Prior to opening, Amscot Financial made fayade
renovations to the existing building along with basic maintenance such as painting, landscaping,
and having the parking lot resurfaced and striped. Amscot Financial has been operational since
October 11,2001. Over this 21-month span of business, Amscot has had two code violations
both for signage (extra window signage including advertising "check cashing" which was
specifically restricted by the CDB). Both citations were rectified in a timely manner.
The Planning Department requested a Call Activity Report from the Police Department
for the Amscot business located at 1825 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The report was from January 1,
1999 to June 3, 2003. Since the opening date to June 3,2003 (day the report was printed),
there have been a total of 41 calls for service placed to the Police Department. This averages to
be once every two weeks that an officer was called to respond to the business. In order to
determine if the calls of service were excessive in relation to the nature of the business, a Call
Activity Report for two separate banks at 1680 and 1640 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The results
revealed a similar number of police response calls within the same time frame.
A parking study was conducted by the applicant at 2010 Drew Street and an existing
Amscot at 1825 Gulf to Bay Boulevard for comparison. The parameters of the study were to
determine if the 22-space parking lot located at 2004-2010 Drew Street could accommodate the
parking demands for both the existing Subway and a proposed Amscot Financial business. The
parking observations were undertaken at each location identified above on Friday, June 6,
2003, and on Saturday, June 7,2003, for the period from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The parking
observations consisted of identifying the number of parking spaces occupied (at 30-second
intervals), and differentiating the user of each space as either employee or customer.
The two-day study for the existing Subway location revealed customers occupied an
average of 3.6 spaces, with employees occupying three spaces, for a total average of 6.6
spaces. The maximum number of spaces occupied at anyone time for the two-day period at
Subway was 11 spaces. This was verified by city staff, who visited the site at various weekdays
Community Development 2003-08-19
18
8/19/03
.
.
.
throughout the week (at approximately noon) and noted anywhere between nine and 12 cars in
the parking lot.
The two-day study for the existing Amscot location (1825 Gulf to Bay Boulevard)
revealed customers occupied an average of 5.2 spaces, with employees occupying three
spaces, for a total average of 8.2 spaces. The maximum number of spaces occupied at anyone
time for the two-day period at Amscot was 12. According Exhibit B of the applicant's parking
demand analysis, the combined customer and employee parking demand would have exceeded
the available number of parking spaces for approximately one hour and 45 minutes during the
time from 12:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. on Friday, June 6,2003.
The applicant has proposed modifications (reductions of parking requirements) to the
parking study. The first modification states that the proposed Amscot (2010 Drew Street) is
approximately 15 percent smaller in gross floor area than the existing Amscot (1825 Gulf to Bay
Boulevard) and thus should have an equal amount of parking reduction. Although this is a
consistent practice in calculating parking demand, the reduction has already been accounted for
at the 2010 Drew Street location. The parking calculation originally utilized for FL 01-12-36
(Subway & Fritz's Bicycle Shop) was granted a 42 percent parking reduction due to the types of
uses. The parking calculation according to the Community Development Code for a Problematic
Use would be five spaces per 1,000 square feet, requiring 11 spaces at 2004-2010 Drew Street.
The previously approved site plan (FL 01-12-36) was granted a reduction from five spaces per
1,000 square feet of floor area to four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (2004-2010
Drew Street, Fritz's Bicycle Shop and proposed Amscot) along with an additional reduction for
Subway from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area to seven spaces per 1,000 square
feet of floor area.
The second requested modification was based on the Annual Average Daily Traffic
(MDT) volumes for 2004-2010 Drew Street and 1825 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Data from the
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) indicates that the MDT volume
along Drew Street near the proposed Amscot generates approximately 67 percent of the traffic
count that is generated on Gulf to Bay Boulevard near the existing Amscot. The applicant
proposes to reduce the amount of required parking by approximately 30 percent, due to this
difference in traffic volumes. Although Gulf to Bay Boulevard's traffic counts are considerably
higher, the type and nature of Amscot's business was not considered in the applicant's
methodology. Most businesses that benefit more from increased exposure are those considered
as impulse stops. The services rendered by Amscot are not considered as an impulse
purchase. Based on the services offered, Amscot may be seen as a primary destination and to
reduce the amount of parking based solely on MDT does not seem to be applicable.
The parking lot must be sufficient to accommodate the amount of shared parking
generated by both the Subway and proposed Amscot at all times. The weekday peak-hours of
12:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., still reveal the parking lot to be inadequate to accommodate the parking
demand generated from both the Subway and Amscot Financial (according to Exhibit B in the
parking demand analysis). Due to the geographic location of 2004-2010 Drew Street, there are
no surrounding parking lots in the neighboring vicinity to accommodate additional parking. The
result would be overflow parking displaced onto the residential neighborhood to the north. The
burden of inadequate parking should not be placed on the neighboring residential streets.
Additionally, the modifications proposed by the applicant to the parking demand analysis do not
follow an accepted methodology. There are three patio tables and umbrellas with signage that
have not been permitted at the Subway.
Community Development 2003-08-19
19
8/19/03
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 12, and July 17 of 2003. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible
Development application to allow a problematic use, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C., at 2010 Drew Street, with the following bases:
Bases for_Denial: 1) The proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project criteria, per Section 2-704.C.; 2) the proposal does not comply with the
General Applicability criteria, under Section 3-913; and 3) the proposed project will generate a
parking demand, which exceeds the existing available parking on-site.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said staff would require the details regarding any
available parking that the applicant could provide on adjacent sites.
Todd Pressman, applicant's representative, gave an overview of Amscot's business. He
said Amscot has greatly improved the image of the business and its employees. He discussed
a parking study of various Amscot sites done by Mike Razor, a traffic engineer employed by the
applicant to perform the study. The study included statistics on the Amscot on Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard and the Subway shop on Drew Street. He referred to photographs and drawings of
the proposed site. Adjustments were made to parking needs at the proposed site, as it is
smaller than the Amscot on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The study also considered the difference in
traffic on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard versus traffic on Drew Street, which are modifications with
which staff disagrees. Mr. Pressman said the Amscot on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard also serves as
a training facility for employees.
.
Mr. Pressman said he had met with Mr. Ron Reed of the Skycrest United Methodist
Church and has a signed overflow parking agreement dated August 12, 2003, from their
Trustee, Frederick Ball to allow Subway to use 3 parking spaces for overflow parking.
Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said Pastor Frederick Ball of Skycrest
United Methodist Church filed a letter of objection to this application dated August 15, 2003.
Mr. Pressman said the parking would be sufficient given the additional three parking
spaces being provided for overflow parking for Subway. He said the traffic report presented to
the City was presented in error as it listed four Amscot employees, whereas there are actually
only three.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said there may be some attached signage in
addition to the monument sign.
In response to a question, Richard Holland, Director of Compliance and Fraud
Prevention for Amscot, said one of Amscot's main way to attract people is by being in a good
location. He said most customers come from within a five-mile radius. In response to a
question, Mr. Holland said although there is a store a half a mile away from this proposed
Amscot, Amscot feels this location would draw those people in that would not want to visit the
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard store.
.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman said he does not have an agreement with
Subway that states that Subway employees would park in the overflow parking at the church.
Mr. Pressman said he spoke to Mr. Reed of the church regarding the issue of parking at the
church. Mr. Gerlock said Pastor Ball called him personally regarding the parking issue. Staff
has a letter dated August 15, 2003, from Pastor Ball stating that the church and the board of
Community Development 2003-08-19
20
8/19/03
.
.
.
trustees are objecting to the location of Amscot at this site. Mr. Pressman said the board of
trustees meets once a week. He said he has a letter dated August 12, 2003, from Mr. Reed
regarding the parking. After reviewing the letter provided by staff from Pastor Ball dated August
15, 2003, Mr. Pressman said he took exception to the letter, and to Pastor Ball's objections. Mr.
Pressman said even without the additional parking spaces at the church, the applicant meets
the criteria in the Code for parking requirements.
Two persons spoke against the application.
Concern was expressed that with recent improvements to Drew Street, people traveling
eastbound cannot turn left onto Drew Street to get into Subway.
In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the two reductions on the parking analysis
done on behalf of the applicant were not consistent with accepted methodology.
Ms. Fierce said regarding the Amscot at Gulf-to-Bay BoulevardNirginia, there was a
prohibition on check cashing services included in any signage and no freestanding sign was
requested or permitted for that site.
Mr. Pressman said this site and all along Drew Street is zoned commercial. He said this
request is primarily an office use. The hours of operation have been reduced. Amscot has
greatly improved the image of this type of business, is well-run and well-managed, and has an
exemplary reputation in the City. He said the number of police reports for such as business is
similar to the banks in the area.
Discussion ensued and it was felt that although there were no objections to Amscot as a
business and the services they offer, this is not the best location for it due to traffic concerns
and the configuration of the road.
It was requested that staff research the outside seating areas at Subway.
Member Hooper moved to deny Item F2, Case FLD2003-05022 for 2010 Drew Street.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
No were discussed.
Other Business
Discussion ensued regarding why only one CDB member at a time can attend the
Clearwater 101 training class. Ms. Dougall-Sides said it is possible that the City Clerk's office
was concerned that the Sunshine Law would prevent more than one member at a time to
attend. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she would pass on the CDB's comments. It was remarked that
Member Milam would be attending the next session. The Chair requested that prior to board
members' attendance at such classes, the matter first be brought up at a board meeting. She
also requested that if only one member can attend such functions, the board be notified in
advance.
Community Development 2003-08-19
21
8/19/03
.
.
.
H.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
~r~~
Chair
Community Development Board
At~t: f
(~!J/Le1i /rh' 7 lit u J()
Board Reporter
Community Development 2003-08-19
22
8/19/03
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: AU2ust 19'1 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
1350 Gulf Boulevard
FLD2003-06025
Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
yes
I
no
yes
7~:3-06026
Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
500 Mandalay Avenue
922 South Missouri Avenue
FLD2003-05023
Clearwater Retail Group. Ltd.
yes
j no
2010 Drew Street
FLD2003-05022
Equities Holdings Group
yes
J no
...-\PI",,,,;,,/( nepurtnumllC D BIlIgeml"s DRC cf CDB\CDB\lOf1J\()!I-AUGU~T J9, ]OOJICDB AUGU.ITOj Pmp.m:l'fnvuIiXllli01!doc Page 1 0[2
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
yes
703-06013
no
1420 Lime Street
Signature:
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003
Dawn M. Simpson
Date:
8 //7 h3
f /
:i:\PIrl",lillg O"pm1",eIlIIC DBli/pm/us DRect CDB\CDB\l()()j\O/l-AUGUST 19. :orJJICDB AUGUSTO) Prr>pcrl)'lnv",s/igflll'm,Joc Page 2 (!f2
j
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: AU2ust 19" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
1350 Gulf Boulevard
FLD2003-06025
Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
~
no
500 Mandalay AV/
V. yes
FLD2003-06026
Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
no
922 South Misso7ue
FLD2003-05023
Clearwater Retail Group. Ltd.
yes
no
2010 Drew Stree/
yes
FLD2003-05022
Equities Holdings Group
no
S"\Pfrm"lnK D"I'''rfm.mIIC D 8Ing,,,,,d,u DRCd CDBICDB\2f!OJ\O/l-AUGU,\T 19, ]O(JjICDB AUGUSTO) Propi'rlyjltwuliWfll/m..doc Page I of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003
1420 Lime Street
ANX2003-06013
Dawn M. Simpson
no
Signature:
Date:
S:l.PImlfl;"1f fJIlpllrtmfl./J/\C D BIt/g6m/", DRe d CDBICDBllooj\OlI- AUGUST 19. ::!(}OJ\CDB AUGUSTO) Prop"'1yln"'fl.ltigllllmI.Jac Page 2 c!f2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: AU2ust 19" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
1350 Gulf Boulevard
FLD2003-06025
Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
-----
yes
no
500 Mandalay Avenue
FLD2003-06026
Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
~
yes
no
922 South Missouri Avenue
FLD2003-05023
Clearwater Retail Group. Ltd.
~ yes
no
2010 Drew Street
FLD2003-05022
Equities Holdings Group
~ yes
no
Ii. \P{m",ing D~pm1menllC D Blag"mlll! DRe d CD81CDB1~(JOj\OS .AUGU.~T /9. :Qr)J\CDB AUGWiTOj PropllrlY Jllw81!gfllimuJoc Page l 012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003
1420 Lime Street
ANX2003-060 13
Dawn M. Simpson
~ yes
no
Signatur~~~
Date:
~~~ ~3
. \
S''J1wm;''t: De}J<mm....,IC DB\1lg~",J"s DRCd CDBICDB\200]\OIl- AUGUST /9. ~()(JJ\CDB AUGUSTO) Propt!r1)1lnv.wigatir",_dvc Page 2 (?f2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: AU2ust 19" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
1350 Gulf Boulevard
FLD2003-06025
Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
~s
no
500 Mandalay Avenue
FLD2003-06026
Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
/
yes
no
922 South Missouri Avenue
FLD2003-05023
Clearwater Retail Group. Ltd.
~
yes
2010 Drew Street
FLD2003-05022
Equities Holdings Group
Les
no
SIi't"'''''''K D~p,m""ml\C DBklg..",I".. DRe of CD8ICDBI~lJ()j\OH. AUGUST /9. ~()(JJ\CDB AUGUSTO) Pm~11yl"vestig(/(;fmr/oc Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003
1420 Lime Street
Signature:
yes
ANX2003-060 13
~
Dawn M. Simpson
Date:
FfjJ(p/O ~
"'''';''1/ D,,-p(mm~""C DB~IK,md(/~ DRC& CDBICDB\100JlfJH . AUGUST /9. ~(J(J3\CDB AUGUSTO] Pmpl'rtylnv"$ligut;rm,Jvc Page 2 (if2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: AU2ust 19" 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
1350 Gulf Boulevard
FLD2003-06025
Taub Beach Properties, Inc.
yes
K
no
500 Mandalay Avenue
FLD2003-06026
Hunter Hotel Company, Inc.
yes ;( no
922 South Missouri Avenue
FLD2003-05023
Clearwater Retail Group. Ltd.
yes
x
no
2010 Drew Street
FLD2003-05022
Equities Holdings Group
X yes
-
no
S' iPf",,,,;ng D"l'urtmentIC D 81agend"4 DRC d CD8\CDB\20aJ\OII- AUGU~7 19. JO()!J1CDB AUGUST OJ Propt'rty 'nW$lignlimulfJC Page I 0/2
j
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003
1420 Lime Street
ANX2003-060 13
Dawn M. Simpson
yes ~ no
Signature:
Date:
S:iPl"'m'ng DepmTNumllC DB~'g""d(l~ DRe <tCDBICDB\200jlO/l. AUGUST f9. 20fJJ\CDB AUGUSTO) Proptt'1ylnvesligali,m,Jul' Page 2 (~r2