APP2014-00003
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: G.1.
CASE: APP2014-00003
REQUEST: An appeal, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-501.A.3, of the denial
of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) application to permit a retail sales and
service use with a height of 26.25 feet as measured from grade to the top of the roof deck
and 55 parking spaces in the Downtown (D) District under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-902.Q.
GENERAL DATA:
Agent……………………… Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq.
Applicant/ Owner……....... East Development Associates LLC
Location………….............. 703 Court Street; southwest corner of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue
Property Size…................. 1.64 acres
Future Land Use Plan...... Central Business District (CBD)
Zoning…………………….. Downtown (D) District
Special Area Plan.............. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Core
Adjacent Zoning.... North: Downtown (D) District
South: Downtown (D) District
East: Downtown (D) District
West: Downtown (D) District
Existing Land Use............. Retail Sales and Service (703 Court Street);
Vacant (705 Court Street);
Office (700 Chestnut Street)
Proposed Land Use……… Retail Sales and Service (16,510 square feet)
Community Development Board September 16, 2014
APP2014-00003 – Page 1
Level I Appeal Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
ANALYSIS:
Site History:
On September 23, 2013, a Level I Flexible Standard Development application (FLS2013-09035)
was received by the Planning and Development Department to permit a retail sales and service
use with a height of 26.25 feet as measured from grade to the top of the roof deck and 55 parking
spaces in the Downtown (D) District under the provisions of Section 2-902.Q., Community
Development Code. That application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee
(DRC) at its meeting of November 7, 2013. The DRC was unable to recommend approval of
the application and issued a list of comments. The applicant, in response to this list of
comments, resubmitted a revised site plan on December 26, 2013. The DRC was unable to
approve this site plan. Subsequent revisions were submitted in February, March, May and June,
2014. On July 14, 2014, the application was denied with the following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the desired pattern of development and
redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood as outlined by the Downtown Core
character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
2. That the proposal is inconsistent with the Vision of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan:
Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; and
To encourage pedestrian activity, some automobile-oriented uses should not be
permitted
3. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan including Goals 2 and 3, Objectives 1A, 2I and
3D and Policies 1 through 3, 13 and 25;
4. That the proposal is not applicable vis-à-vis any Policies of the Downtown Core character
district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
5. That the proposal is inconsistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Design
Guidelines;
6. That the proposal is inconsistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning
objectives of the CDC including Sections 1-103.B.1 – 3 and D;
7. That the proposal is consistent with intent of the D District and the CBD Future Land Use
Plan classification pursuant to CDC Section 2-901.1 and the Countywide Land Use Rules;
8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per CDC Table 2-902;
9. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level One and
Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A.1, 2, 4 and 5;
10. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC
Section 2-902.Q.3;
11. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4;
12. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan
including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.5.5, A.6.1, A.6.2, A.6.4 and
A.6.8 and Policies A.5.5.1, A.6.2.1, A.6.2.2, A.6.8.1, A.6.8.3, A.6.8.7 and A.6.10.8;
13. That the proposal is inconsistent with the requirements for sight visibility triangles pursuant
to CDC Section 3-904.A; and
LMDR HDR I C C C
Community Development Board September 16, 2014
APP2014-00003 – Page 2
Level I Appeal Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
14. That the application is inconsistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4.
Appeal Process:
The appeal of the aforementioned determination was filed on July 21, 2014 by Mr. Brian J,
Aungst, Jr., Esq. on behalf of the appellant, East Development Associates, LLC. Pursuant to
Section 4-501.A.1., CDC, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear
appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative
official in the administration of the development code.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation
of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 -206.D.5., CDC,
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of
this development code; and
2. The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this development code; and
3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs; FLS Staff Report
MARK T. PARRY
1855 Linwood Drive Tel: (727) 742.2461
Clesrwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry tampabay.rr.com
SUMMARY OF QUALIFlCATIONS
A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributin� ta the field of Urban Pianning
experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellsnt commurncator, able to effectively interact
with clients, local govemment officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various
aspects of urban design and planning, zoning �egulations and permitting.
OBJECTIVL
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.
EDUCATlON
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ
B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification
B.S. Environmental Planning and Deaign
Certificate Urban Planning
Go/den Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha
Rmsrican Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member
AJCP #02059T
40-hour OSHA {Nazwoper) Training
PLANNER III PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Preasnt
08/98 — �4/05
• Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting.
• Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Develapment Code.
. Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments.
• Land Development Code de�elopment, interpretation and application.
• Provide, inspect and direct landscape reviewldesign.
• Acting Developrnent Review Manager 9/99 —11/99 and 01/05 — �3/05.
• Manage and direct Associate Planners.
. Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexatian
applications at in-house and public review meetings.
• Principal Planner in creating and irnplementing Cleanaater's Downtown Design Guidelines.
Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan.
SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT b ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES� CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12
• Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clea►water and Town oi 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 suppo►t for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments.
� Research and write Evaivadan and Appraisal Reports.
• Create and update Special Area PlanslForm-based Codes.
. Provide CADD support.
. Assist with creating redevelopment marlceting material.
• Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling.
_ lilLfil t1Mbl Level I Appeal Review �i.:�hr�m<c,� oFVei.oi��tevr
� -
DEVIiLOPNfiN7 RAVIFW I)IVISIOti
��
Appeal Process:
The appeal of the aforementioned determinatian was filed on July 21, 2014 by Mr. Brian J,
Aungst, Jr., Esq. on behalf of the appellant, East Development Associates, LLC. Pursuant to
Section 4-SOI.A.1., CDC, the Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear
appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative
o�cial in the administration of the development code.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation
of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5., CDC,
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
l. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of
this development code; and
2. The decision of the CDB will be in hatmony with the general intent and purpose of
this development code; and
3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
s
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs; FLS Staff Report
Community Development Board September 16, 2014
APP2014-00003 — Page 2
. + 4 + r
.-..,..,,,,. � � �..
�. � .� �.,� � �..-
�.,,:-° ...��J,,;""'.��_:��..�
MEETIMG DATE:
AGENDA TIME:
CASE:
REQUEST:
GENERAL DATA:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
November 7, 2013 (material resubmitted December 26, 2013, and
February 24, March 28, May 6 and June 6, 2014)
1030 a.m.
FLS2013-09035
Flexible Standard Development application to permit a retail sales and service use with
a height of 26,25 feet as measured from grade to the top of the roof deck and 55
parking spaces in the Downtown (D) District under the provisions of Community
Development Code Scction 2-902.Q.
Agenf ............................. Meagan Vieren; Paradise Ventures, Inc.
Applicant ........................... PV-Court, LLC
Owner ............................... East Development Associates LLC C/O DiCicco Development Inc and
Kapetanopoulos, Dimitrios
Location .... ... ..................... 703 Court Street (705 Court Street and 700 Chestnut Street); southwest corner of Court
Street and South Myrt(e Avenue.
Property Size ..................... 1.64 acres
Futut'e Land Use PlBn....... Central Business District (CBD)
Zoning ........................... Downtown (D) District
SpeCiBl A►i9a Plan ............. Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Core
AdjaCerlf Zoning..... NoRh: Downtown (D) District
South: Downtown (D} District
Easf: Downtown (D} District
West: Downtown (D} District
Existing Lend Use............ Retail Sales and Service (7Q3 Court Street);
Vacant (705 Court Street);
Office (700 Chestnut Street)
P/oposed Land Use.......... Retail Sales and Service (16,510 square feet)
y�.,+l�.Ra A�itbl Level I Flexibie Standard Development Application Review ri �x�mc� orvEi.�m��r�ur
' � UE�'6LOVMENFRk:V`TH�Vp�VIS10\
°
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.64-acre site is lacated at the southwest corner of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue.
The site is a quad-frontage (ot bound by Court Street (north), Chestnut Street (south), South
Myrtle Avenue (east) and East Avenue (west). The subject site consists of three parcets with
approximately 275 feet of frontage along Court Street, 163 feet of frontage along Chestnut
Street, I75 feet of frontage along South Myrtle Avenue and 318 feet of frontage along East
Avenue. The property is within the D district, CBD Future Land Use Plan classification and the
Downtown Core Character District (District) of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan
(Plan).
1'he site, developed between 1946 and 1962, is occupied by three buildings ranging between one
and two stories in height. A one-story building at 703 Court Street (southeast corner of East
Avenue and Court Street) is 7,000 square feet and houses a bicycle repair and sales shop. This
building is located directly along the north property line alang Court Street. A two-story
building at 7Q0 Chestnut Street (southwest corner of the site) is approximately 19,000 square feet
and is associated with a current Business Tax Receipt (BTR-0028003) for a general contractor.
This building is located approximately l2 feet from the west and south property lines along Fast
Avenue and Chestnut Street, respectively. A one-story building at 705 Court Street (northeast
corner of site) is approximately 12,500 square feet and is vacant. This building is located
directly along the north and east property lines along Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue,
respectively. The last BTR associated with this parcel expired in January of 2012. A vacated
right-of-way approximately 1 Q feet in width bifurcates the site north to south.
Vertical curbs aze lacking along the north, west and south sides of the site along Court Street,
East Avenue and Chestnut Street, respectively, resulting in unrestrected aceess along those sides.
Back out parking is provided along Court Street. This parking appears to be mostly if not
entirely within the Cvurt Street right-of-way. A single driveway is located at the southeast
comer of 705 Court Street atong South Myrtle Avenue.
It should be noted that East Avenue, Court Street and Chestttut Street are all one-way streets,
northbound, eastbound and westbound, respectively.
Surrounding properties contain a wide variety of nonresidential uses including gas station, office,
retails sales and service and governmental uses. Several nearby properties aze vacant.
Surrounding properties west of South Myrtle Avenue are located within the D District and the
Plan's Downtown Core Character District. Properties on the east side of South Myrtle Avenue
are also located with the D District but aze located within the Plan's Town Lake Residential
Character District.
1'he property is aeross from the Pinellas Trail that runs north-south along the west side of East
Avenue.
Site History:
There are no previous requests for site plan approval associated with the subject site.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS20L3-0903S—Page t
_�uii �1Rlbl Levei I Flexible Standard Devel ment �'�'`"�"' R°FVF'i.��Pti�i``r
op Applfcation Review
• nr:vH.�orNF�r k�:vir.w orvisiov
0
Development Proposal:
The current proposal is, to remove the existing buildings and other structures and construct a
one-story 16,510 square foot Retail Sales and Service use (Walgreens}.
The building will be located at the northwest corner of the site approximately eight feet from the
north property line along Court Street and 13 feet from the east property line along South Myrtle
Avenue. A sidewalk eight feet in width is shown along Court Street, a five-foot sidewaik along
Chestnut Street and a six-foot sidewalk along South Myrtle Avenue. There are no sidewalks
along East Avenue adjacent to the subject site. The Pinellas Trail is located on the west side of
East Avenue.
The proposed building can be characterized as a modern style of azchitecture. The primary
entrance into the building is located at the northeast corner of the building facing the primary
portion of the parking lot located at the northeast corner vf the site at the intersection Court
Street and South Myrtle Avenue. Store windows are located along portions of the north and east
elevations and begin between four and five feet above grade. The south and west elevations
facing Chestnut Street and East Avenue, respectively, are generaliy windowless with the
exception of the drive-through window on the sauth fa�ade.
Access to the site includes four, two-way driveways with one each located along each side of the
site. The driveway along East Avenue will be right-in/right-out only and the driveways on Court
Street and Chestnut Street will be left-in/lefl-out only. The turning movements for the driveways
on East Avenue, Court Street and Chestnut Street are consistent with their respective one-way
travel directions. South Myrtle Avenue is a two-way, four-lane road and the driveway proposed
on this street is two-way with unrestricted inbound movements and a right-out only. The site
will include 55 parking spaces (3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA} located along the west
side of the site. A drive-through component will be located on the south side of the building. A
loading azea and solid waste staging area is located on the west side of the building along East
Avenue. A stvrmwater facility is located at the southwest corner of the site. A bike rack is
shorvn neaz the northeast corner of the building.
While perimeter landscape buffers are not required within the D District per CDC Section 3-
1202.D., the Plan's Design Guidelines require that parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way be
screened with either a landscaped buffer or a solid wall or fence three feet in height.
Landscaping is proposed around the stormwater facility at the southwest corner of the site and
along the south side of the South Myrtle Avenue driveway. A wall three feet in height is
proposed along the north and east sides of the primary portian of the parking lot at the northeast
corner of the site. The wall will be masonry with a stucco finish painted to match the primary
color of the building {Buf�} and will include decorative stone columns and a white cap. Plant
material proposed for the site includes crepe myrtle, privet, elm, sabal palm, hawthorn and
juniper. The proposed landscapc plan meets the requirements of the Plan's Design Guidelines
and is discussed in detail further in this document. While perimeter landscape buffers aze not
required within the D District interior landscape requirements per CDC Section 3-1202.E must
be met. The proposal includes 5,892 square feet of interior landscaped area which constitutes 21
percent of the vehicular use area where 10 percent (2,812 square feet) is required. This CDC
Section also provides that interior islands provide a minimum dirnensian of eight feet from back
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 2
'- ��l T�!falbl Level I Fiexible Standard Develapment App�ication Review �'� ^`����� & ��-�7 ���P�+r.;vr
' nfVF9LOP�lANTRE�'IFW I7IVISIOV
° �
of curb to back of curb where the proposal includes islands with dimensions of eight feet. In
addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E also limits the number of consecutive parking spaces which
may be in a row to 10 although Staff may increase that number to 15 spaces in a row. Typically,
Staff will permit more than 10 spaces in a row when those spaces are interior to the site. The
proposal includes one instance where 12 spaces are provided in a row directly along South
Myrtle Avenue.
A second building location is shown centrally along the south side of the site along Chestnut
Street although no details regarding that building have been submitted.
Speciat Area Plan: Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan; Downtown Core
Character District
The subject property is located within the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan area the
intent of which is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a
place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The impetus for the creation of the Plan
was the realization that that a commercial exodus and disinvestment had resulted from a self-
perpetuating cycle of decline of the traditional downtown through neglect, decay and
inappropriate development. The purposes of the Plan aze posited on the belief that every city
should have a unique place that fosters community interaction and fun. The Plan and its
Guidelines were created with the understanding that Form follows Function; a functional
downtown needs to look like a downtown. In this spirit, the Plan's core purpose is to sever that
cycte of decline and, as such, recognizes that (1) the form of development which has occurred in
mar�y areas of the Planning area are contrary to that purpose and {2) new development must
conform to ihe requirements of the Pfan in order for the Plan to be effective. The argument that
there is no point in creating a pedestrian-friendly environment because there are no pedestrians,
for example, is simultaneously self-defeating and self-ful�lling.
Special azea plans, such as this one, while resuiting in additional serutiny and design
considerations, do provide a defined set of expectations with regard to the ultimate provided
develapment whether it be retail, restaurant or mixed use. They also provide assurances to
neighboring property owners, whether in the Plan area or adjacent to it, with regard to what sorts
of uses can be expected to be developed and the physical form those development may take and
how they will tit into the fabric of the neighborhood. The Plan is divided into six character
districts. The site is located within the Downtown Core character district. The Flan states that a
key component to diversify the Downtown Core is to attract residential uses with a variety of
housing types and prices with retail, restaurant and services to follow. The Plan further states
that this District shall have the highest density for residential uses and the highest intensity for
retail, commercial and office uses. Specifically, the most intense developrnent within the
Downtown Core w�ill occur in the center of the District defined as from Osceola Avenue east to
Myrtle Avenue and from Drew Street south to Cottrt Street. The Ptan atso provides that the
Downtown Core shall be redeveloped as a pedestrian-friendiy place achieved through a diversity
of land uses, urban design and streetscape improvements. The suburban-style site plan is
oriented towards a parking lot which in turn is located directly at the intersection of South Myrtle
Avenue and Court Street. The building is placed at the intersection of Court Street and East
Avenue. The general site design is inherently inconsistent with the Vision of the Plan, Vision
and Function of the District and the Plan's Design Guidelines.
Development Review Cornrnittee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 3
'�� �tal�.l Level I Fle�ubie Standard Devel ment vi.:��tii�o � or:��r�.ae�ac� r
ap Applicadon Review
u � DEKGLOPAIF:A7' REVIEW DIYLSfO\
..... arae� .. .
A thorough review of the Plan was conducted and a myriad of Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies were identified as applicable to the proposal and are discussed and explored in detail
below.
Plan=
The intent of the Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown
into a place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The Vision of the Downtown Plan
have been articulated into a series of Principles the following of which are not supported by the
proposal:
Principle: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings.
The development proposal incorporates a modern-style building located within a parking lot.
The overall impact is that of a suburban-style development rather than an urban, pedestrian-
friendly design. The building is placed along the CSX railroad tracks to the west which runs
along East Avenue rather than at the significant intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle
Avenue. Rather than place the building at this significant intersection the applicant has opted to
locate a parking lot in this location. Therefore, the proposal does not support this Principle.
PrinciQle: To encourage pedestrian activity, svme automobile-ariented uses should not 8e
permitted.
The proposal includes a retail use with a drive-through component and curb cuts along al1 four
adjacent street frontages. One of the primary features of the plan is a pazking lot located, as
mentianed, at the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle
Avenue. The overall effect of the design is a suburban-style, automobile-oriented use.
T'herefore, the proposal does not support this Principle.
Summarv:
White the proposed use, retail, is supported by the Plan, the site design is inconsistent with
several Principles including those outlined above. One of the primary goals of the Plan, as
examined further in this report, is to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposal
achieves the opposite and is patently automobile-oriented manifested through the building design
which is oriented towards a parking lot located at the intersection of Court Street and South
Myrtle Avenue. The site design is equally automobile-oriented through the provisian of curb
cuts along every side of the site.
PMn Goals and ObiecNves•
In order to guide the revitalization of Downtown, three overriding gaals are established with
supporting Objectives and Policies developed to aid in reaching these goals. The propvsal is
inconsistent with and dces not support the following Goals and �bjectives:
Objective lA: AII development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies
of this Plan and shall be consisterrt with the character districts, the Downtown Design
Guidelines a»d the Downtown zoning district.
This Objective will be found to be generally and specifically unfulfilled as the follawing Goals,
Objectives and Policies are addressed.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2413
FLS2013-09035— Page 4
'_ \�lbal n�l�l Level I Flexible Standard Deve4 ment iicatian Review ri .a�r:i�c & nevei.ov,�nnr
oP apP uF� t:i ovnievr RrviH�v pivisiov
6 „
Goal 2: Create an environment where both people and vehicles can circulate throughout
Downtown safely and efj`'ectively.
Objective 2I: Redevelopment and pu8lic improvements shall create and contrib:rte to
pedestrian linkages throughoiit the Downtown.
The redevelopment of the site includes curb cuts along all four adjacent street frontages and
does not contribute to any pedestrian linkages. The building does not contribute to an active
pedestrian environment because the building is set away from the intersection of Court Street
and South Myrtle Avenue and more directly addresses the parking lot located at this
significant street intersection. Therefore, the prop�sal does not further this Objective.
Goal 3: Crente Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that
capitalizes on Clearwater's wnterfront location, natural resources, built environmenr and
history.
Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment
containinR a variety of 6uilding forms and styles that respect Downtown's character and
heritage.
The proposal includes a low-slung modern building and a suburban-style site design where
the building is oriented towards a parking lot rather than the streets which border it. The
applicant has not clarified how the building form andlor style respects the Downtown
character and heritage. Therefore, the proposal does not further this Goal and Objective.
Summarv:
The building and site design are inconsistent with and/or patently contrary• to several Goals and
Objectives including those outlined above rendering the proposal unsupportable.
Plan Policies•
Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected
for renovation, redevelopment and new construction rn the Dow�town with which all projects
misst be consistent.
The development proposal is inconsistent with the vazious aspects of the Guidelines including,
but not limited to: Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation/Access and Parking, Scale and Height,
Rhythm/Spacing, Architecture, Primary and Corner Fa�ades, Windows and Doors, Materials and
Color. The details of these items are discussed in detail farther in this document. Therefore, the
proposal is inconsistent with this Policy.
Policy 2: The character of each drstrict shal! be rernforced through the site plan and desigrr
review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the
character district in which it is located. �
As discussed throughout this document, the proposal is inconsistent with the policies governing
development within the Downtown Core District. Among the Downtown character districts, the
Downtown Core is intended to have the highest intensity for retail/commercialloffice uses with
the most intense development occurring in the center of the District defined as from Osceola
Avenue east to Myrtle Avenue and from Drew Street south to Court Street. Intensity of use for
nonresidential uses is typically gauged through Flaor Area Rario (FAR). The permitted FAR for
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page S
CUi��� RRt�i Levei I Flexible Standard Development Application Review P� .axnnc d nEdr.i_c�a»r�xr
u � . . . . . �,,,, . ... 6EVE1 f)PMEK'I"RF:41EW 171VISIC7h
the District is 4.0 where 0.21 is proposed. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this
Folicy.
Polic�3: The design of al! projects in Downtown shall make meaning�ul contributions ta the
pedestrian environment through site and b:eilding design.
The architectural elevations of the proposed buildings aze designed with an emphasis, including
the primary entrance, on the east-facing fapade facing the parking lot. The design is overtly
automobile-oriented and places the bulk of the parking directly along Court Street and South
Myrtte Avenue. Theref`c�re, the proposal is inconsistent with this Policy.
Policy 13: Drive-through facilities shall only be permitted as an accessory :ese and through a
design that mrnimizes the views of the facility from rights-of-way and preserves the tirban
character of Downtown.
The development proposal includes a drive-through located on the south side of the building.
The drive-through component includes a southbound exiting movement across the proposed two-
way driveway from South Myrtle Avenue. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that there
is inadequate distance between the egress of the drive-through and incoming and outgoing traffic
of the Myrtle Avenue driveway and is unsafe, The drive-through wiil add to the amount of
vehicular movement through the South Myrtle Avenue driveway increasing the possibility of
conflicts betwe�n pedestrian and vehiculaz tra�c and does not create an urban character.
Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this Policy.
Policy 25: The City pre, f'ers and shall encourage alternative stormwater management sola�tions
rather than installation of on-site stormwater reterrtion ponds. These alternatives may include
neighhorhood or regional stormwater programs 1ha1 make signifrcant improvements to the
overall stormwater system and environment.
The proposal includes a large on-site stormwater retention pond located at the southeast corner of
the site. Staff has identified alternative sotutions to the proposal including bioswales. Therefore,
the praposal is inconsistent with this Policy.
Downtown Core Diatrict Policies•
None of the T�awntown Core District Polieies are strictly applicable to the site or proposal.
Downtown Design Guidelines•
Design Guidelines have been established to ensure that public and private development projects
implement the C'Joals, Objectives, Policies and Character District Visions of the Downtown Plan.
The Guidelines provide a framewark for:
• Enhancing the quality of the Downtown built environment;
• Achieving quality contextual design;
• Achieving design that implements the vision of the character district in which the
• property is located, thereby promoting an identity for powntown Clearwater;
• Encouraging a diversity of azchitectural styles;
• Providing design fleribility instead of sesthetic control;
• Guiding the appropriate rehabilitation and preservation of designated historic structures;
• Creating a pedestrian-oriented cnvironment built upon the City's history and activities;
• Pmtecting and improving property values; and
• Providing investor and property owner confidence through desigr� continuity.
Deve}opment Review Comtnittee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 6
'- C��`�� Cevel I Plexible SWndard Development Application Review r�.������ x uE� �:i ur�t[ ��
� .�.... ULVFLOP�IL.N�I" RF\'If:W UI\'ltil0\
The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with
regazd to various elements associated with new construction and redevelapment in the
Downtown Plan azea. Most of the proposed elements of the site plan are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Plan's Design Guidelines and are examined in detail below:
Site Design
Block and Lot Characteristics •
The Guidelines state that the existing street grid pattern shall be retained where it contributes to
an active pedestrian environment, and that blocks should be designed to promote easy pedestrian
access and encourage cross-use. While the development proposal maintains the existing street
grid pattern and does not propose to vacate any rights-of-way the site design does not contribute
to an active pedestrian environment by provide numerous driveways including one along South
Myrtle Avenue which combines site access with the drive-through egress. Therefore, the project
is inconsistent with this set of guidelines.
Vehicular Circulationl.4ccess and Parkin � '
The Guidelines state that the location, number and design of driveways shall maintain the urban
fabric of the downtown; and that interior lot access shall be lirnited to the minimum number of
curb cuts to adequately serve the site and be from secondary street frontages or alleys. The site
is bound by Court Street (north), Chestnut Street (south), South Myrtle Avenue (east) and East
Avenue (west). Court Street and Chestnut Street aze both designated as Beach Access Corridors.
South Myrtle Avenue is designated as a Commercial A Street. In addition, the Court
StreetJ5outh Myrtle Avenue intersection is classified as a Secondary Gateway within the Plan's
Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Ptan. As discussed in detail in the Development Proposal
section of this report, the proposal consists of four curb cuts with one each along each adjacent
street three of which are classified as arterial streets. The curb cuts are all generally located mid-
block. Based upon the scale of the development the number of curb cuts is excessive and
provides for an automobile-oriented, suburban style of development and do not maintain the
urban fabric of the downtawn. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with this set of guidelines.
Pedestrian Circulatio»/Access•
The Guidelines state that clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian
pathways should be provided between streets, pazking areas and buildings. The development
proposal includes providing a 13-foot wide sidewalk along Court Street, a five-fQOt wide
sidewatk along Chestnut Street and maintaining the six-foot wide sidewalk along South Vlyrtle
Avenue. A sidewalk is not proposed alang East Avenue. The propvsal provides vehicular
access on all four sides of the site unnecessarily inereasing the potential points of pedestrian-
vehicular conflict. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with this set of guidelines.
Landscapirrg.:
The proposal includes fencing and/or landscaping along the parking lot on all street frontages
Landscape materials include crepe myrtle, privet, live oak, royal palm, elm, sabal palm,
hawthom and juniper ail of which are compatible with the climatic conditions of West Central
Fiorida and are appr�priate to the space in which they will occupy with regard to water needs,
growth rates, size, etc. in order to conserve water, reduce maintenance and promote plant health.
Large areas along the north and east sides of the sitc along Court Street and South Myrtle
Avenue which are shown with a hatch pattern on the site plan (Sheet C2.1) indicating landscaped
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 7
� Vildal R�IVl LevN I Flexible Standard Development Application Review p� :���i'�c, m �afvei.ar��r•�r
- � UEVFLOPb11•NT RF.VIGW DIVItilOV
Y ' yp
area are not actually proposed to be landscaped as seen on the landscape plan (L1.1}. 7'hese
areas will receive no landscape treatment although room exists to provide landscaping. This is
contrary to the intent of this Guideline. In addition, this is contrary to CDC Section 3-1 807.B.a.h
which requires all freestanding signs to be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs
and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign.
Fences and Walls:
T'he Guidelines provide that fences and walls shall be utilized around service/loading areas,
dumpsters and rnechanical/utility equipment to buffer these uses from sunounding properties and
rights-of-way and to provide security for this equipment. In addition, fences and walls may be
incorporated as a design element to assist in defining property boundaries and entrances, open
spaces and to provide a transition between public and private realms. The proposal includes a
wall three feet in height located along the north and east sides of the site adjacent to the parking
l�t at the northeast corner of the site. Screening walls eight feet in height are provided around
the dumpsters and service area located on the west side of the site along East Avenue. However,
those walls are proposed at eight feet in height which is contrary to CDC Section 3-SQ4 which
limits the height of fences and walls in the D District (among other districts) to six feet.
Therefore, the project is inconsistent with this set of Guidelines however, the height of the walls
around the service areas are inconsistent with the CDC.
Building Placement
Location:
The Guidelines include that the appropriate location of a building should help define and provide
a coherent streetscape and appeazance of an area resulting in a defined sense of space and place.
The appropriate location of a building on a site varies depending on the character district in
which the development is located. The site is located in the Downtown Core which is intended
to be the most intensely developed Character District. Furthermore, the site is also located
within the area designated to be the most intensely developed azea of the Downtown Core. As
briefly mentioned earlier in this report, a building footprint for a second building is shown along
the south property lint along Chestnut Street. While this building is not a part of this application
the shown location must be considered as it relates to the overall site development. The location
of the subject building is relegated to the effective back of the property developing the most
visible portian of the site as a parking lot. Considering the location of the future building, the
overall impact will be a suburban-, outparcel-style development �vhich will not define and/or
provide a coherent streetscape and appearance of the area and will not result in a defined sense of
space and place. Based upon the above, the development proposal does not comply with the
above applicable Guidelines.
Urientation:
?he Guidelines state that it is appropriate to orient buildings towards the street and that the front
fa�ades of buildings along the streetscape should contribute to pedestrian interest. The
Guidelines specifcally provide that buildings that turn perpendicular to the public right of-way
or have their sole access from rear parking lots create an environment that is unfriendly for
pedestrians. The proposal includes a suburban-style development with a building oriented
towards the parking lot which serves it. The pazking lot, as mentioned, is located at the northeast
corner of the site at the intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue. In essence, the
building is placed at the back of the site along railroad tracks and the most visible corner of the
Devetopment Review Committee November 7, 2013
ELS2013-09035— Page 8
'- L1�.NJ. !7 lLl Level I Fle�ci6le Standard Developme�t Applicaqon Review N' ����^� &�'��`��-�>P�+��`�r
u � .,..... f)LVF.I UY\iF.N'C REVIEW DI�`ItiIC)N
site is designed as a parking lot. Based upon the above, the development proposal does not
comply with the above applicable Guideline.
Separation:
The Guidelines provide that the existing and/or desired character of the area should define the
distance between buildings. Separation between buildings should be determined based on its
surroundings, the character district's vision and development pattern, intensity of development,
pedestrian activity and height of the building. The subject building and the proposed location of
a future building are separated by a drive-through component. As mentioned, while specific
details regarding the proposed future building locateci along the south side of the site are not
provided with this application its general location must be considered and judged against the
Design Guidelines. Given the fact that the site is located within the azea designated to received
the most intense level of development within the district intended for the most intense tevel of
development within the Downtown Planning area the building separation, which will resuft in a
suburban-style development, is inappropriate and contrary to this Guidelines.
Covera�
The Guidelines provide that a high percentage of ground coverage is encouraged in a downtown
to create a critical mass of activity and that the amount of ground coverage varies among
character districts with the most intense coverage found in the Downtown Care and the
commercial areas of the other districts. This section states that development are to provide
coverage either similar to sunounding properties or that meet the desired vision of the character
district. The Plan provides that this character district is to be the most intensely developed
within the Downtown Planning Area. The Plan further provides that the most intense
development within the Downtown Core is ta be located between Dre�v Street and Court Street
and between Osceola Avenue and Myrtle Avenue. Intensity of use far nonresidential uses is
typically gauged through Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The permiried FAR for the District is 4.0
where 0.21 is proposed. This constitutes approximately fve percent of the permitted intensity of
use in the District. This section also provides that buildings are to be oriented to face public
rights of-way where the proposed building is placed at the effective back of the site property.
Based upon the abave, the development proposal does not comply with the above applicable
Guidelines.
Buildin Desi
The purpose of building design requirements is to establish design standards so that new
construction is compatible with its surroundings. The first step in design is to identify a
building's orientation and placement to contribute to a unified streetscape creating a sense of
place. The second critical part in design is a building whose form and architecture contributes to
its character district. Successful building design is a mamage between form and architecture to
visually c�nnect with the existing and/ar desired character af the sunounding area. In other
words, it is recognized that there may be a disconnect between existing and desired patterns of
development and that qualiry urban design balances a respect for an area's existing or desired
pattern with the design of new structures.
With that said, it canrtot be averemphasized that the subject site is located with an area identified
as the most desirous of the most intense land use within the most intense character district.
Development Review Cornmittee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 9
' v+� n�y�l Level I Fl�ible Standard Development Appiication Review P''`���`6 �°E�i:'-�N'��FVr
u � .., UFVFtOP�fE\TRCYIfCW`f)149tiit1Y
Form. Mass. Scale Height Width and Depth•
The Guidelines state that the size and proportions of new development should be related ta the
scate of nearby buildings. Even if much larger than its neighbors in terms of syuare footage, the
building should maintain the same scale and rhythm as the existing buildings. In addition, the
Guidelines state that the apparent height of a building/development can be influenced and
augmented by a combination of step backs, varying building heights and horizontal features.
Ultimately, quality urban design balances a respect for an area's existing or desired pattern with
the design of new structures. The Plan provides the desired intensity of development and the
area in which the subject site is located is targeted for the most intense level of development
within the character district targeted for the most intense level of development. The proposed
one-story building using less than five percent of the permitted development potential placed at
the back of the site is not consistent with the level of development outlined by the Vision of the
Downtown Core district. Based upon the above, the development proposal does not comply with
the above referenced Guidelines.
Rhvthm/Spacin�:
The Guidelines state that builciings shall have a distinct "base", "middle" and "cap".
Furthermore, the Guidelines require that building form visually retate to the desired character of
the area with regard to mass, scale, height, width and depth. The modern building will
incorporate a subtte "base", "middle" and "cap" that is identified by material changes and other
architectural features. The "base" of the building is primarily characterized by blank walls. The
"middle" of the building comprising the bulk of the building also consists primazily of blank
walls with provided window space beginning between four and five feet above grade. The "cap"
consists of a thin architectural trim line. While a"base", "middle" and "cap" are provided the
building does not adequately address the surrounding streets or sidewalks and is indicative of a
suburban-style of development characterized by a low building which faces a pazking lot rather
than abutting street and does not suppori this Guideline.
Architecture:
The Guidelines provide that new development shall complement the architectural heritage of the
district in which it is located; however new buildings rnay use a variety of azchitectural styles as
appropriate to the intended use of the building. The existing buildings will be removed and the
new building will embody a generic, non-descript modern architectural style. As noted, the
design of the building is relegated to the back of the site along East Avenue. Based upon the
above, the development proposal does not comply with the above referenced Guidelines.
Facades - Primar� Corner and Secondarv Fa�ades �
The Qruidelines require that the primary fa�ades be the most highly designed fa�ades and utilize
plane changes (i.e, projections and recesses), azchitectural details, vaziety in color, material and
textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. Further, the Guidelines state that
buitdings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location through the use of additionai
height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing features. In
addition, the Guidelines provide that buildings on corner lots at the intersections of streets
designated on the Master Streetscape Plan are considered to have two primary facades and
should receive the highest level of design treatment on those facades. Finally, the Guidelines
providr: that buildings on corner lots that emphasize their prominent location using additional
height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing features. As
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 10
: vi�.R�l nRt�,.l Level I FlexiWe Standard Deve P�-��������+�F+`f=f�orr�e.;vr
lopment Rpplicadon Review
i Ul;YF�.pP!1Q�TT REV(E1V ll1VI81pK
mentioned earlier in the report, the site is located at the Court Street/South Myrtle Avenue
intersection which is classified as a Secondary Gateway within the Plan's Master Streetscape and
Wayfinding Plan. The design of the building provides a primary fagade facing a parking lot
which is propased at the intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue; the corner of the
site is effectively ignored. The building design does not address the fact that the building is
located at the corner of two designated streets within the Downtown Planning Area. Based upon
the above, the development proposal does not comply with the above referenced Guidelines.
Windows and Daors:
The Guidelines state that it is appropriate for windows in commercial azeas that are appropriately
sized and located to allow or display and/or view into the interior of the building. As mentioned,
the display windows begin approximately five feet above grade and would not allow views into
the interior of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal does not comply
with the above referenced Guidelines.
Community Development Code
➢ Puroose, lntent and Basic Planning, Obiectives
Section 1-103. B.1. Allawing property owners to enhance the value of their property through
innovative and creative redevelopment.
The praposed retail development consists of a singie-use building with an accompanying parking
lot. The building constitutes 21 percent of the lot coverage while the parking lot covers 44
percent of the site. The proposal is, in essence, a suburban-style retail building and site design,
as examined in detail previously in this report, is inconsistent with the requirements of the
Downtown Plan and its Design Guidelines with regard to building and site design and will result
in a project inconsistent with etements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Clearwater powntown
Redevelopment Plan. The proposal does not constitute an innovative and/or creative
redevelopment. Therefore, the propasal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 1-103. B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative
impact on the value o, f surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development
and redevelopment which will enha»ce the value ofsurrourrdingproperties.
Surrounding properties include a variety of uses including attached dwellings, governmental use,
restaurant, retail, offce and indoor recreation/entertainment. The progosed developrnent
provides far a new retail use. The proposal is inconsistent with the Plan and Design Guidelines.
As mentioned, the Plan provides certain assurances and predictability with regard to potential
development and redevelopment. Eliminating those assurances and predictability will likely
discourage the appropriate and desired development and use of adjacent lands and buitdings.
Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Sectiort 1-103. B. 3. Strengthening the cily's economy and irrcreasing its tcr,r base as a whole.
The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing lot with a retail sales and service project
including 16,514 square feet of commercial space. The proposal will be inconsistent with the
desired character of the azea with regard to size, scope and scale as outlined in the Cleazwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan as examined in detail in this repvrt. It should be noted that the
proposal will replace the existing 15,000 square foot Walgreens at the northeast corner of
Cleveland Street and North Myrtle Avenue approximately '/. mile north of the subject site. The
proposal is expected to have no net increase in the tax base as a whole essentially trading one set
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page I 1
'_ V11�fi,L �!'f�l�.l Level I Fiexible 5tandard Deve ment P4 �+h�mc R ot:vFt.arnti�:vr
, lop Appliwtion Review ur_vFi.or�tFnrer.vit:w rnv�s�a�:
�
.... . A1t-,.... ... .�... ..
of vacant buildings for a new vacant building. As noted, special area plans, such as this one,
while resulting in additional scrutiny and design considerations, do provide a defined set of
expectations with regard to the ultimate provided product. They also provide assurances to
neighboring property owners, whether in the Plan area or adjacent to it, with regard to the types
of uses that can be expected to be developed and the physical form those development may take
and how they will fit into the fabric of the neighborhood. The City has an obligation to adhere to
the Intent, Vision, Goals, Objectives and Policies of special azea plans just as it does with the
Comprehensive Pian and CDC in order to effectively guide and foster development. A lack of
such assurances will likely lead to uncertainty which in turn can ultimately negatively affect the
City's economy and its tax base as a whale. Therefore, the proposal is incansistent with this
CDC Section.
Section 1-103. D. !t is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautifrcatican of
the ciry a matter of the highest priority arrd 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 1b,510 square foot commercial use. The building and site design,
as examined in detail in this report, are inconsistent with the Intent and Vision of the Plan and its
Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposal does not support this Code section.
Section 2-901.1 Intent oithe D District and CBD FLUP classi�cation
The CDC provides that it is the intent of the D District that development be consistent with the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan as reyuired by state law. The uses and development potential
of a parcel of land within the D 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 Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For
those pazcels within the D District that have a Future Land Use of Central Business District
("CBD"}, maximum development potential shall be as set forth far each classifieation of use and
location in the approved redevelopment plan.
Section 2.3.3.9.5 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the CBD FLUP
classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now designated, or appropriate to be
designated, as urban centers for redevelopment in accord with a special area plan. The category
is generally appropriate to those central business districts designed to serve as the primary retail,
financial, governmental, residential, and employment focal points for a community; and to
reflect those urban centers in the county served by adeyuate vehicular and rnass transit service to
accommodate their more intensive urban chazacter. Permitted uses include residential, office and
commercial. This section also requires that the utilization of this category shall require a special
area plan as set forth in Countywide Land Use Rules section 4.2.7.5.
The site is proposed to be developed with a retail sales and service use which is a use permitted
by the CBD FLUP classification.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 12
' v+w�l ►�f�1�Q1 Level I Flexible Standard Development Applicakion Review P''`v"�`��� °��`'k���P`{�=�T
� osvei.orwEVr R�vic:w nrvis�o�
➢ Development Parameters
Intensitv of Use:
Pursuant to the Downtown Core character district of the Plan, the maximum Ftoor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 4.0). The proposed FAR is 0.2I. The proposal is within the maximum limits af the
Plan hawever, the Plan, as noted, has designated the area in which the subject site is located as
targeted for the most intense level of development within the Planning area. T'he proposed FAR
of U.21 is inconsistent with the tevel of desired development is, therefore, inconsistent with the
Plan.
Maximum Building Height•
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-942, the maximum height for a Retail Sales and Service use is 3Q to 50
feet. Furthermore, the Plan provides that, with the exception of properties along Cleveland
Street, there is no maximum height. The proposed building height of 31 feet (to the top of
parapet wall and architectural detailing) is within the maximum allowable height provided by the
CDC and the Plan.
Minimum Off-Street Parking •
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-902, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Retail Sales and
Service use is between two and four spaces per 1,000 squaze feet of GFA. Therefore, the
required parking far the proposed building and use is between 33 and 66 spaces where 55 spaces
are provided. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this CDC section.
Mechanical Equipment •
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, atl outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as
not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. As mentioned, the majority of the
mechanical equipment for the building will be located on the roof and will be screened i'rom
view via pazapet walls. Therefore, the proposal me�ts the intent of this CDC sectian.
SiQht Yrsibrlitv Triangles •
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Court and
Chestnut Streets and East and North Myrtle Avenues, 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 visibiliry triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's
Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be unacceptable. The City's Traffic Engineer
as determined that the building is within the FDOT sight visibility triangle (FDOT Index#546).
Court Street is an arterial road with an (AADT) generation of approximately 34,000 AADT
(Average Annual Daily Trips). Therefore, the City's Tra�c Engineer requires that the building
moved or redesigned so as to not cause a sight obstruction for motorists traveling northbound on
East Avenue and/or for pedestrian/cyclist traffic traveling westbound on Court Street (on the
sidewalk) on the south side of the street. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the intent of this
CDC section.
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. C�verhead utilities are lo�ated adjacent to the site aIong the east, north and a
portion of the south sides. These utilities will be placed underground with the proposal with the
exception of those along South Myrtle Avenue which are high capacity lines and are impractical
ta lacate underground. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this CDC section.
Development Review Comrnittee November 7, 2013
FLS2�13-09035—Page I3
0 }
' t��Level I Flexibie Standard Development Application Review ����ti��NU� ni �ri.oM�t�;vr
' 1?EV1ilOPMFNI'Rk VIFW n��'fSlp!�
Y
Landscapin�
While perimeter landscape buffers are not required within the D District per CDC Secdan 3-
1202.D the Plan's Design Guidelines required that parking tots adjacent to rights-of-way that are
screened with either a landscaped buffer or a solid wall or fence three feet in height. Landscaping
is proposed azound the stormwater facility at the southwest corner of the site and the south side
of the South Myrtle Avenue driveway. Landscaping is also provided within the interior of the
site. Extensive azeas are proposed along the north and east sides of the site which would be
suitable for landscape treatments although none are proposed. A low wall three feet in height is
proposed to be located along the north and east sides of the parking area at the northeast carner
of the site. Plant material proposed for the site includes crepe myrtle, privet, elm, sabal palm,
hawtharn and juniper. The proposed (andscape plan meets the requirements of the Plan's Design
Guidelines although it is uncleaz as to why vacant areas are proposed which lend themselves to
landseaping. It should be noted that the proposal is inconsistent with the CDC section which
requires freestanding signs to include landscaping. While perimeter landscape buffers are not
required within the D District interior landscape requirements per CDC Sectivn 3-1202.E must
be met. The proposal includes 5,892 square feet of interior landscaped area which constitutes 21
percent of the vehicular use area where 10 percent (2,953 square feet) is required. This CDC
Section also pravides that interior islands provide a minimum dimension of eight feet from back
of curb to back of curb where the proposal includes islands with dimensions of eight feet. In
addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E also limits the number of consecutive parking spaces which
may be in a row to 10 although Stafi may increase that number to 15 spaces in a row. Typieally
Staff will allow up to 15 spaces in row where those spaces are internal to the site. In this case,
there is one instance where 12 spaces in a row are proposed along South Myrtle Avenue.
Permitting this configuration is inconsistent with how this Code provision has been consistently
applied over the last 15 years. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the intent of this CDC
section.
Solid Waste:
Twp dumpsters are pravided along the west side of the site along East Avenue. The dumpsters
are proposed to be enctosed with walls eight feet in height where a maximum of six feet is
pc;rmitted. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department
however the walls may not be more than six feet in height.
Si a e:
The proposal does not include the details of any signage. Freestanding signs are indicated near
the driveways along Chestnut Street, East Avenue and South Myrtle Avenue as well as at the
northeast corner of the site at the intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue.
Attached signs are portrayed on the north, south, east and west elevations. The details pertaining
to the signs including dimensions, areas and materials has not been furnished to Staff as of the
writing of this report. The applicant is aware that any proposed signage will need to be permitted
through the Planning and Development Department and will need to meet the requirements of
CDC Section 3-1807 and the Plan's Design Guidelines.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 14
C\�.�I.N�i n�i141 Level I Flexfble Standard Development Application Review vi,�;�vrnc� o��r�.�nn+i:ui
� ... ...::,a, ,. . . . D�VEI.OPMFNTR�,ViF.�VDI�ItiiClti
➢ General AnnlicabilitY Criteria Requirements
The proposal does not support most of the General Applicability requirements of this Code as
follows:
Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmvny with the scale, bul�
coverage, density and character vf adjacent properties in which it is located.
As previ�usly discussed in detail, the Downtown Core character district of the Plan is intend�d to
be the most intensely developed area within the Downtown Planning area and the area within the
Downtown Core between Drew and Court Streets and �sceola and Myrtle Avenues is intended
to be the most intensely developed area of the Downtown Core. The proposal includes a low-
intensity development with an FAR of 0.21 which constitutes approximately five percent of the
development potential uf the site. It should be noted that while the building constitutes 21
percent of the site the parking lot covers approximately 40 percent of the site. The proposal is
inconsistent with the desired character of the area as provided by the Plan and its Design
Guidelines. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this Code section.
Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discor�rage development and
use of adjacent lund and buildirrgs or signifrcantly impair the valt�e thereof.
The proposal is incansistent with the desired character of the Downtown Core character district
and is inconsistent vvith many aspects of the Plan and Design Guidelines as examined in detail in
this report. As mentioned, the Plan provides certain assurances and predictability with regard to
potential development and redevelopment. Eliminating those assurances and predictability will
Iikely discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent lands and buildings.
Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-91�.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely aff'ect the health or safery of
persons resrdrng or working in the neighborhood.
The proposal will result in the removal of three largely vacant buildings and the construction of a
new retail use. The proposal will likely no adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing of working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
Section 3-914.A. 4. The proposed developmerrt is designed to mini»rize tra�c congestio».
As discussed in detail in the Development Proposal section of this document, the proposal
consists of four curb cuts with one each along each adjacent street. The curb cuts are all
generally located mid-block. Based upon the scale of the development the number of curb cuts is
excessive and provides for an automobile-oriented style of development. �'herefore, the proposal
is inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediale vicinity.
As previously discussed in detail, the Downtown Core character district of the Plan is intended to
the be the most intensely developed area within the Downtown Planning area and the area within
the Downtown Core between Drew and Court Streets and Osceola and Myrtle Avenues is
intended to be the rnost intensely development area of the Downtown Core. The proposal
includes a low-intensity development with an FAR of 0.21 which constitutes approximately five
percent of the development potential of the site. The proposal is inconsistent with the desired
chazacter of the Downtown Core character district and is inconsistent with many aspects of the
Development Review C�mrnittee Novernber 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page I S
� Ll�ii �tAtlrl Level I Flexible 5tandard Development Applicatlo� Review P� a������� ����vruyPn�r:�:r
- ��cvF-_u�Qan:�r Revir:w prvistoh
° ..,
Plan and Design Guidelines as examined in detail in this report. Therefore, the proposal is
inconsistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A.6. The design oJthe proposed developmerrt mrnimrzes adverse e�'ects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and
acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
9 Retails Sales and Service Criteria Requirements
The proposal daes not support all of the specifc flexibility criteria of this Code as follows:
,Section 2-902. Q. Retail Sales arrd Service.
1. Height: The increased height results in an improved site pdan and/or improved design and
appearance.
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-902, the maximum height for a Retail Sales and Service use is 30 to
SO feet. Furthermore, the Plan provides that, with the exception of properties along Cleveland
Street, there is no maximum height. The proposed building height of 31 feet (to the top of
parapet wall and architectural detailing) is at the bottom end of the perrnitted range of height
for the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
2. Off-street parking.•
a. The physical cha�•acteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the
property will require ferver parki»g spaces per Jloor area than otherwise required or the
physical context, including adjacent buildings ar�d uses are such that there is a high
probability that patrons will use modes of transportation other than the automobile to
access the use;
b. Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses
within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed.f'or development or parking is available through
c�ny existing or planned and committed parking facilities or the shared parking farmula in
Article 2, Division 1 �;
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-902, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Retail
Sales and Service use is between two and four spaces per 1,000 squaze feet of GFA.
Therefore, the required parking for the proposed building and use is between 33 and 66
sgaces where 55 spaces are provided. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
3. The design of al! buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division
S ofArricle 3.
As examined in detail within this report the design of the building is not in compliance with
the Downt�wn District Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this
CDC Section.
➢ Burden of Pm�f
Section 4-206.D.d: Burden of nraaf The burden of proof is upon the an�licant to show bv
substantral comvetent evrdence that he is entitled to the approval reguested
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 16
' C��`�i Level I Fiexible Standa�d t7evebpment Applicatlon Review r�..aNn��vr, � oc� r� ornu,,�T
u ....,��� . .. . DE1,7?L6P�fE\T RBV1�W OFV'ISIUK
The applicant has not 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 contrary to the following Goals, Objectives andJor Policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Elemer�t
Objective A.S.S - Promote high qi�ality design sta�dards that support Clearwater's image and
contribute to its identiry.
Policy A.S.S.1 Developmerrt shottld be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
As previously discussed in detail, the Downtown Core character district of the Plan is intended to
the be the most intensely developed azea within the Downtown Planning area and the area within
the Downtown Core between Drew and Court Streets and Osceola and Myrtle Avenues is
intended to the be the most intensely development azea of the Downtown Core. The proposal
includes a low-density development with an FAR of 0.21 which constitutes approxirnately five
percent of the development potential of the site. It should be noted that while the building
constitutes 21 percent of the site the parking lot covers approximately 40 percent of the site.
The proposal is inconsistent with the desired character of the area as provided by the Plan and its
Design Guidelines. In short, the site and building design is inconsistent with the intent af the
development pararneters set by the Clearwater potivntown Redevelopment, the Downtown Core
character district and the Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposal is not in support of this
Objective and Policy.
Goal A.6 - The City af Clearwater shall utilize inrrovative and flexible Planning and engineering
practices, und urban design standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure
neighborhoodpreservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage irrfill development;
Objective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, ine�cient and/or obsolete areas
shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment a»d special
area plarrs, the consiruction of catalytic private projects, city im�estment, and continued
emphasis on property mainte»ance srandards; and
Objective A.6.2 — The City of Cleanvater shall corrtinue to support inrrovative planned
development arrd mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill develnpment
that is consistent nnd compatible with the surrounding environment.
Policy A. b.2.1 - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approvul prvicess sha11 he utilized in promoting infill developmerrt and/ar planned developments
that are compatihle.
Policy A.6.2.2 - Encvurage land use conversions on economically undertrtiliaed parcels and
corridors, ancl prnmote redevelopment activities i» these areas.
Development Review Cummittee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page t 7
9 li��N�l nf�t�Levei I Flexible SWndard Development Applicadon Review P� AhTMncR r�E:vHi.ar+�esr
. . _ �. �, �. ,,. ,. �
ll}it'BI.OP�IGN'I' RE.V(EW DIVI51f7V
Ubjectrve A.6.4 — 1?ue to the built-out character of the city of Clearwater, compact urban
developmerit within the urban service area shall be promoted through applicatian of the
Clearwater Community Development Code; and
As mentioned, the proposal is essentially a low-intensity suburban-style development utilizing a
one-story building which presents it primary fa�ade to a parking lot while not addressing the
primary adjacent stmets Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue. In addition, the developrnent
provides for a parking at the intersection of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue. The site is
located within an azea targeted for the most intense development within the character district
targeted for the most intense level of development within the P(an area. 1'he proposal is
inconsistent with the desired character of the Downtown Care character district and is
inconsistent with many aspects of the Plan and Design Guidelines as examined in detail in this
report. As mentioned, the Plan provides certain assurances and predictability with regard to
patential development and redevelopment. Eliminating those assurances and predictability will
likeiy discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent lands and buildings.
Theref'ore, the proposal does nat support these Goals, Objectives and Poticies.
Objective A.6.8 - Identify those areas of the City that are appropriate for redevelopment as
livable communities and require that specifc sustairiable elements be used in the redevelopment
of these areas.
Policy A.6.8.1 Build active, attractive cornmunities that are designed at a human scale and
encourage walking, cycling and use of mass transit.
Policy A.6.8.3 - T3�here appropriate, development shall provide a serrse of pedestrian scale on
streets through minimal front setbacks, similar barilding heights, street trees and proportionality
of building heights to street widths.
Policy A.6.8.7 - Create mixed-use, higher density, livable communities thraugh design, layout
and use of walkability techniques within existirag and propvsed transit corridors, rncluding
proposed TBARTA lines and statians.
Podicy A.6.10.$ - Optimize the potential of trartsit oriented development to s�pport trarrsit
investments and create livable and sustainable urban communities by adhering to the fallowing
guiding principdes in the planning, design, a�d development of transit station area plans:
b. Land Use
1. Mix complementary, compact and well-integrated land uses within statian areas and
the area of inJluence up to one mile around stations
2. Promote a rartge of higher-density artd intensity uses in station areas, including
residential, o�ce, service-oriented retail and civic uses that support transit ridership
arrd takes advantage of the major public investment in transit.
7. Require active uses that attract/generate pedestrian activity such as retail and o�ce
on the ground floor of buildings, including parking garages.
d. Parking
5. Discourage large surface parking lots within %. mile af transit stations.
e. Urbarr Design
1. Use ur8an design to create sense of place, enhartce community identtty and make
attractive, safe and convenient environments within station areas.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 18
' Vi4ii�i/'��{��level[FlexibieStdndardDevelo Pia;.-�t�r;�nevFi,e�p�ar�r
-
pment AppllcaGOn Review uicveLOnn�exr xrvii>w nivisior:
Y. . . . .. ...s.�-:
2, Adopt building design guidelines based on street rypes such as pedestrian priority
streets where building fronts, doors, windows, and elements that protect the
pedestrian from rain and surr are emphasized and secvndary streets where builciings
rears and service areas may be tolerated.
3. Require 6uilding frontage to be oriented to pa�blic streets or open space with minimal
setbacks.
4. Require building enrrances to be located ta minimize the walkang distance behveen
the transit station and the building entrance.
As discussed in detail previously in this report, the proposal includes a retail use
development located in the Downtown Core character distrect of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan planning area. This area has been specifically targeted
for revitalization and commercia! developments are seen as a vital component of that
goal. The existing buildings will be removed and replaced with a low-intensity suburban-
style development consisting of a single-story retait use within a 16,510 square foot
building. The building is oriented towards its parking lot rather than towards the corner
of Court Street and South Myrtle Avenue. The proposed parking lat covers nearly half
the site. The site is near numerous mass transit elements including the Pazk Street
Terminal and PSTA Routes J, l8, 52, 6Q, 6b, 73, 78 and 98. The Locally Pre�'erred
Alternative Analysis identifies a I)awntown Clearwater light rail station near this
property and City Council has purchased land for that purpose across Court Street to the
north of the development site. The proposed light rail route will connect Clearwater,
Largo, the Greater Gateway area, Pinellas Park and St. Petersburg in Pinellas County
with a future regional conr�ection across Tarnpa Bay to Hillsborough County. The site is
located adjacent to the Pinellas Trail (located to the west across East Avenue). The
propasaI is inconsistent with the desired character of the Downtown Core character
district and is inconsistent with many aspects of the Plan and Design Guidelines as
examined in detail in this report. As mentioned, the Plan provides certain assurances and
predictability with regard to potential development and redevelopment. Eliminating
those assurances and predictability will likely discourage the appropriate development
and use of adjacent lands and buildings. Therefore, the proposal does not support these
Objectives and Policies.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Compliance case for the subject property. The parcel located at 705
Court Street has one active CDC case including CDC2011-00658 (extensive mildew/peeling;
failing paint/damaged exterior surfaces) with liens accruing.
COMPLIANCE WITH DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES• The fottowing table depicts
the development proposals level of consistency with the applicable Downtown Design
Guidelines as per the Plan;
1. Site Qesign
2. Building Ptacement
3. Building Design
� See analysrs in 5ra„�`Report
Develapment Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 19
Conai�tent I Ineonsistent
X'
X�
'���ii �f Al\.l Level I Flexible Standard Development AppUcation Review
� � ,.. . ..:. . .
F'LANAffi(i1F UI �`P_i_OP�tENT
DG\'};1 Ot'MEKT RCVfEW' Uib'ISiON
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA•
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for
Retail Sales and Service uses as per CDC Tables 2-903 and the Downtown Core character
district:
Floor Are� Ratio
Maximum Height (feet)
Minimum
Off-Strcet ParkinQ
� See a�tyais rn Stq�''Repor!
Standard
4.0
30 - 50
2- 4 spaces/1,OOQ sq.ft. GFA
t33 - 66 snaces
Proposed
o.z�
26'-6" to roof
30'-8" to top of parapet
wall/architectural features
3.33 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. GFA
Consistent Incoasistent
x
x
E3
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILiTY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the deve(opment proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-902.Q. (Retail Sales and Service):
I. Height: 'fhe increased height results in an improved site pinn and/or improved
design and appearance.
2. Off-street parking:
a. The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses
of the property will rcquire fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise
required or the physical context, including adjacent buildings and uses aze such
that there is a high probability that patrons �vill use modes of transpanution
other than the automobile to access the use;
b. Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing
land uses within 1,000 feet of the pucel proposed for development or parking is
available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities or
the shared parking formula in Anicle 2, Division 14;
3. 'The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown Disttict design guidetines
in Division 5 of Article 3.
r See nrwlysis in S!a„�Repo�r
Consistent
X'
X�
Inconsistent
�'
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standazds for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
L The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, densiry and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage dcvelopment and use of
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the vatue thereof.
3. The proposcd development will not adversely affectihe health or ssfety of persons
residing or wotking in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize trafic congestion.
i. The proposcd dcvelapment is cansistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 20
Con�istent Inconwtent
X�
X'
X'
X`
X`
9\�lbt�l �7�1\.l Level I Fiexible Standard Develo ment ri �vrvi�c� uevr.i.r>rNt:�r
_ p Applicatiwn Review uE:vH:i or�Trhr RFwEw oi� �sccau
° .,.,.�
Conaiatent ( Inconaiatent
. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and oifactory and hours of operation impacts on ad'acent properties
� See axalysis in Sta,,�"Report
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of November 7, 2013 (additional material submitted December 26, 2013, and
February 24, March 28, May 6 and June 6, 2014) and deemed the development proposal to be
legally insufficient, based upon the follawing findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findin�s of Fact
The Development Review Committee, 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:
l. That the 1.64 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Court Street and South Myrtle
Avenue;
2. That the subject site is located within the D district;
3. That the subject property is located within the CBD FLUP category;
4. That the subject property is located in the Dovmtown Core character district of the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan special plan area;
5. The subject site consists of three parce(s with approximately 275 feet of frontage along Court
Street, 163 feet of frontage along Chestnut Street, 175 feet of frontage along South Myrtle
Avenue and 318 feet of frontage along East Avenue;
6. That the site was originally developed between 1946 and 1962 with three buildings ranging
between one and two stories in height;
7. That the proposal is to redevelop the site with a retail sales and service use with 16,510
square feet of floor area;
8. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Vision, Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the Ctearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Core chazacter district;
9. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Downtown I?esign Guidelines;
10. That the proposed retail sales and service use is consistent with the pmvisions af the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan;
1 l. That the sunounding area is dominated by a variety of residential and non-residential
develapment; and,
12. That the parcel located at 705 Court Street has one active CDC case including CDC2011-
00658 {exterisive mildew/pee(ing; failing paint/damaged exterior surfaces) with liens
accruing.
Conclusions of Law
The Development Review Committee, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the
following conc(usions of law:
1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the desired pattern of development and
redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood as outlined by the Downtown Core
character district of the Clearwater powntown Redovelopment Plan;
2. That the proposal is inconsistent with the Vision of the Clearwater powntawn
Redevelapment Plan;
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS2013-09035— Page 21
: Vli�lbl Level I Ffexibie Standard Devel ment A licatton Review p� ��*���«& �f vFi_oa����r
�p pP nr:��r�orti�*��rRi.wruwnivtstat�
u�� M�,� .
3. That the proposai is inconsistent with applicable Gvals, Objectives and Policies of the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan including Goals 2 and 3, Objectives 1 A, 2I and
3D and Policies 1 through 3, 13 and 25;
4. That the proposal is not applicable vis-�-vis any Policies of the Downtown Core charACter
district af the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan;
5. That the proposal is inconsistent with the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan Design
Guidelines;
6. That the proposal is inconsistent with the general purpose, intent and basic ptanning
objectives of the CDC including Sections 1-103.B.1— 3 and D;
7. That the proposal is consistent with intent of the D District and the CBD Future Land Use
Plan classification pursuant to CDC Section 2-901.1 and the Countywide Land Use Rules;
8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per CDC Table 2-902;
9. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for I.evel One and
Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A.1, 2, 4 and 5;
10. That the development proposal is incansistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC
Section 2-902.Q.3;
i l. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4;
12. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Ptan
including Future Land Use Plan Elcment Goal A.6, Objectives A.5.5, A.6.1, A.6.2, A.6.4 and
A.6.8 and Policies A.5.5.1, A.b.2.1, A.6.2.2, A.6.8.1, A.f>.8.3, A.6.8.7 and A.6.14.8;
13. That the proposal is inconsistent with the requirements for sight visibility triangles pursuant
to CDC Section 3-904.A; and
14. That the application is inconsistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4.
Based upon the above, the Develapment Review Committee recommends DENIAL of the
Flexible Standazd Development application to permit a retail sales and service use with a height
of 26.25 feet as measured from grade to the top of the roof deck and 55 parking spaces in the
Downtown (D) District under the provisions of Community Devel�pment Code Section 2-902.Q.
___-----_"_�
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: �
Mazk T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs
Development Review Committee November 7, 2013
FLS20 1 3-09035— Page 22
i n�_ ,
s- _� a �„ ,�.
'�� - : --�' T ,( EAST '�
� �T,��
��„-����
�� - �-�� .
_���- t9 ,6Q'
� �^
�.�
.,. �..��� �
�� .� _.,
�- _
�. *� � , "�_. ,. E
_-
i
,: ,
r `1
�
� �� � � �
,�,
^'+� _R r '
I _ . � .,:�
� . �' �� .N.ri'i ' - ...,. - _
� . _�
�� ��
„ � �-rc .�. , �' ..
�.
: � �� � ;�.�.
. ' _ , w . � ;" °�y,,..�. . . � . .
�I .,
I �u+l�d�t�'� G�i,;yi 'Y11 ��,r¢�rr nE ,iti
�t�' ���.�. ��
. �
V..r^...a.'�m ..,�:�<°a..�_..
I � <,� ._ A1� �:n1+.,rIF• I�,n �•,1�,�•I�, 1�.�
� � � �; m T �
� ,�
� � � , r """,.'"� ` �
� � � ��� ' , . ��� �,
� . �
� ; � �� � �
I � � ,�.ir�_ � _, ;:� :ciii.; �I , �Ic �,I �.n�
, � „F.iii:_ .�.,u�,;il; ,�!�„ ! �I�_ t�I�,i'
�
703 COURT STREET
FLS2013-09035
703 COURT ST
ppp2014-00003
1
LL Walgreens
� �1 Zoning: Downtown
1.. �.s .. wvvt
U
Atlas #: 2866
Planning & Development Department
Appeal Application
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 CITY CLERKS OFFICE.
SECTION 4-502.A: AN APPEAL OF A LEVEL ONE (FLEXIBLE STANDARD) APPLICATION MAY BE INITIATED BY AN APPLICANT OR
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE REQUIRED NOTICE AREA AND WHO PRESENTED COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE
LEVEL ONE REVIEW, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE DATE THE DEVELOPMENT
ORDER IS ISSUED. THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION/NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL STAY THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION PENDING THE
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.
SECTION 4-502.B: APPEAL Of ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS OTHER THAN LEVEL ONE APPROVAL FLEXIBLE STANDARD MAY BE
INITIATED BY THE APPLICANT, OR BY ANY PERSON GRANTED PARTY STATUS WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DECISION. SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK IN A FORM SPECIfIED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
IDENTIFYING WITH SPECIfICITY THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL AND ACCOMPANIED BY A fEE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 4202(E).
THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION/NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL STAY THE EfFECT OF THE DECISION PENDING THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.
APPEALS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: $250
APPEALS TO HEARING OFFICER: $.�
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): EaSt DevelOpment ASSOCIateS LLC
MAILING ADDRESS: 1550 COfBOpOIIS H21ghtS R08d MOOfI TOWtlShlp PA 15108
PHONE NUMBER:
EMAIL:
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Brian J. Aunqst Jr., Esq.
MAILING ADDRESS: 625 COUrt StfeSt, SUlte 200, Clearwater, FL 33756
PHONE NUMBER: 727-441-8966
EMAIL: bla macfar.com
ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: 703 COUrt Stfeet (705 COUrt Stfeet and 700 CheStnut Stfeet
PARCE� NunnBER(S): 15-29-15-54450-014-0010
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Att8Ch2d
CASE NUMBER TO BE APPEALED: FLS2O13 - 09035
DATE OF DECISION: .IUIV 14, 2014
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 1 of 2 Revised 01/12
SELECT THE SPEGFIC APPEAL•
APPEALS TO THE COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT BOARD (CDBJ:
❑ Orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made
by an administrative official in the administration of the
Community Development Code, except for enforcement
actions.
❑ Administrative interpretations of the Community
Development Code.
� Level One (Flexible Standard Development and Minimum
Standard) approval decisions.
APPEALS TO A HEARING OFFICER:
❑ Decisions of the Community Development Board regarding
Level One applications.
❑ Any denials deemed to have occurred as result of the
failure of the Community Development Coordinator to act
within the time limits provided in this Community
Development Code.
❑ Denials of any permit or license issued under the
provisions of the Community Development Code.
❑ Decisions of the Community Development eoard regarding
Level Two applications.
❑ Any denials deemed to have occurred as a result of the failure of the Community Development Board to act within the time
limits provided in the Community Development Code, or as a result of the failure of any other administrative official or body
(other than the Community Development Coordinator or the City Council) to act within the time limits provided by any other
applicable law, rule, policy, or regulation then in effect.
BA51S Of APPEAL (Explain in detail the basis for the appeal):
The Applicant has demonstrated through competent, substantial evidence that Application #FLS2013-09035
meets or exceeds the requirements for a Level One approvat. The findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the Development Order are in error as a result of a misinterpretation of the Community
Development Code and the Lonq-term Downtown Master Plan.
��� Notary Public StatN o� = .�nd8
. . Valerie A BfaKe
��� My Commission kF 35r,�53
pr Expirea 02HOi2017
" _ ' _ _ ! _ ! _ ! - - � ' ' - �STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �,
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this %��� day of
representations made in this application are true and ��,� ��� L� . to me and/or by
accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize
City representatives to visit and photograph the L � t�.{�� �� J who is personally known has
property described in this application. producecy, as identification.
�� � i
^� � .�.�t�. . ,
Signature of property o ner or rep esentative Notary public, _ ,
My commission expires: ��. � / � �,� � %
Pianning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tei: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12
I#: 2006047724 BK: 14919 PG: 2460, 02/O8/2006 at 12:15 PM, RECORDING 3 PAGES
$27.00 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK:
CLKDMC6
This Instrument Prepared By:
and Retarrrto:
REPKA & JENNINGS, P.A.
703 Court Street
Ciearwater, Florida 33756
File: 954.03
;�
,�
�'
,�
___ � ,
_ ,
- ��
,, �
��
�� ' ` .,
,� `,�
,� ,�
__, `,. ��
���" --
�� -
,�
„ ��
„ „
,
-- "
CORRECTIVE _ �
WARRANTY DEED', �,
� ,�,, �. �. ,','
THIS INDENTURE made this � day,o� Febr,U��; 20Q$,vbetween H. H. BASKIN, SR.
RENTAL PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporatiori; whog�* Post Office Address is 703 Court
Street, Clearwater, FL 33756, hereinafter c�Ned �he GrdntqP, and EAST DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC, whose Post Office q�dd'ress is: 15513 Gbraopolis Heights Rd., Moon
Township, PA, 15108, hereinafter called t�� Grantee.� �
,. „
That the Grantor, for and iq-�oflsi�eYa�ion-of ihe sum of Ten Dollars ($10.04), and other
good and valuable consideration�.td said,�raritar in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt
whereoi is nereby acicnowieagea; by.ihese�►�senis does grani, �argain, seii, aiien, remise,
release, convey and confirrr►,uhtb.��said G►'�ntee, and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns
forever, the following des.�ribed pr,operty situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to-wit:
SEE EXHIBIT "X1'^�P,�'`f�CHED'HERETO
THIS DEED IS BEINGR'fCO�DED TO CORRECT THE GRANTEE'S NAME DUE TO ERROR
DEED RECORbED IN d��BOOK 14912, PAGE 1292, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS
COUNTY,,�LOF�dDA. ; ;
, SUB���T�o-earsements, restrictions and reservations of record and taxes for the current
year'and subseq�.rent years.
,'. TO�ETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging
, or in �riq±nris�appertaining.
', �
�'Tb HAVE AND 70 HOLD the same in fee simple, forever.
AND SAID GRANTOR hereby covenants with said grantee that it is lawfully seized of said
land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it
hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all
persons whornsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances.
"Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as conte� requires.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor, has caused these presents to be
PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 14919 PG 2461
�`
��
�'
,�
___ ,,
_ ,
- ��
., �
.�
.
- - `.
,� �� � �
,� `,�
�' ,�
�� ,,
executed in its name the day and year first above written. -_ __''
�' - -
, �' .
�, ,`
SIGNATURE OF WITNESSES: � � ' '
H. H. BASKIN, SR. F2E�t-TfCI�'
PROP TIES, INC., a Florida corporat'o
Sign: /���11t-1_� L��ac..�t.w B�. � ' '
Print name: �+- FA.��AHEE- ��.� �. �i KIN, VI E PRESIDENT
``., , ,
„
, „',
Sign: i �"'a�w"°'' •�'r.'r"".'''�� ,
,�
Print name: �lottAS ��-Nti � cp` v S--_ ��
,
,�, �,
� � - .,
„ „
, , , �
„
STATE OF FLORIDA _ _
COUNTY OF PINELLAS - -
I hereby certify that on'tJiis da�i persorrally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized
to administer oaths and take'acli�orerledgments, JOYCE S. B���ce esident of H. H.
Baskin, Sr. Rental Prope�Yes„Itac.,'a �,lorida corporation, to ersenall k d known to
me to be the individual�lescrib�d herein (or who produced � _ as
identification), whatook ar�a,ath and wh� acknowledged that this instrument was freely and
voluntarily execl�fetttor.th,e puKposes herein expressed.
WI�NE$5 my hari� and official seal, this � ay of February, 2006.
,
_ _ _ �WRY K FN1A1'1EE —
�, ��� cw�r �� NOTAR PUBLIC
;. � �, : -,,�:. � : My Commission Expires:
t�,00d rru 1ao01�-+�s�
; � �_ ...... ::::::::°•:»ry�'� »`..i
PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 14919 PG 2462
PARCELI:
;�
�'
�'
��
___ ,,
_ ,
A PA2T OF LOTS l, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1.4, MAGNOLIA PARK SUBDNISION, ACCORDING TO THE,Ty1�P O�I;�PLAT "
THEREOF AS RECORDED 1N PLAT BOOK 3, PAGL 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PiNELLAS �b[JI�j3'�', FLORIDA
AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBEll AS FOLLOWS:
rOR A POINT OF BEGINNING COMM�,'NC�, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE AFqI�M�NTI�NE�'LOT 1,
ALSO BEING THE POINT OF IN1'ERSECTION WITH THE EAST�RLY RiGHT-OH-WAY Llly$ OF EAST;AVENLTE AND
THE SOUTHERLY 2iGHT-ON-WAY LiNE OF COURT STREET, THENCE RUN N 89 °,0�'3'j',' �,.�LQTV�Ci SAID
SOUTH6RLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A D[STANCE ON 137.58 FEET; THENCE S 01 629'25" E, A�6t�TANCE OF 12t.18
FEET; TI�NCE S 88°34'03" W, A DISTANCE OF 139.25 FEET TOA POINT ON TI3� EASTERL.�' RIGHT-OF-WAY LIN�
UI� LAST AVENUE; THENC�. N 00 °42'3 I" W, 122.49 FEhT TO THE POINT OF BEGI1�INjNG. ,' ,'
B�IRINGS FOR THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIi''I'ION AItE ASSUMED 11ND BASED ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LIN� OF COURT STiZ�ET HAVING AN ASSUMED II'�}�iTNG OF N 89 °06'37" E.
. „
. . . , �,., ._
` \` ..
� ,� _ , . ,
� ,v,
,
,�
- ��
PARCEL ITI: "_ ; , �
,'
,�
A PART OF LOTS 3 AND 8, BLOCK 14, MAGNOLI.A �PARK SCj�DIVIStON, ACCORDiNG TO THE MAP UR PLAT
TIILREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,��GE 4�, OF '� PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS CO(INTY, FLORIDA
AND H�1NG MORE PAItTICULARLY DESE;RIF3k,U,A���2�I,�FfWS:
COMMh'NCE AT THE NORTHWEST G,Oi�NFIr;OF Lb��l, BLOCK 14 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED MAGNOLIA P/�RK
SUBDNISION, ALSO BE1NG THE��3IN�iO�INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY L1NE UF EAST
AVENUE AND THE SOUTH�RL�''.RiG1�T-(I��WAY LINE OF COURT STREET, RUN T'H�,NC�, S 89 °06'37" E, ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY RiGHT-O�'V1�AY �;i�iE, A pISTANCE OF 137.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINN WG; THh'NCE S
O1°29'25" E, A DISTANCE OF 320..�6,�'EET' TO A POINT ON TH� NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CHNSTNUT
STREET; THENC� ALOI�]G-SAID.NbR�'HERLY R1GHT-OF-WAY LINE, S 90 °00'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 2 L26 FEET;
THh'NCE N 00°42'02" W; �5 L58 ��ET; �NCE N 01 ° 17'S1" W, 169.70 FF,ET TO 1� POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
R1GHT-OF-WAY L1N� O� COUR�' �TREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RiGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S 89 °06'37"
W, A DISTANCE 0�'339( `FE�,T TO THC POINT OF BEGWN[NG.
BEARINGS FbIR'fH�lA�bVE LEGAL D�SCRIPTION ARE ASSUMED AND BA,SEll ON TH� SOUTHE2LY
RIGHT-OE=yVA1"LIN�UF �OURT STREET HAVING AN ASSUMED BEAI2ING OF N 89 °06'37" E.
PAR�EL lII 1� �t,Sb �HE VACATED ItIGHT-OF-WAY UF THE GULF C011S1' I�f11LWAY COMPANY'S SPUR TI2ACK.
,
', �
,�
�X�. .9
�'. . E`f, 9?� ;�,..
..� ., r .. 't
.. � � ' � �" �.. �' �`' �., �: '-�. ��i ��' :`�� � � : ��
?>, ; ���}:.,� i�<>�.. ��'�4h, c,.� a . ._ ^� �.��'�s,� ��.f,�;
li_,.
,_ ..
°r;s . i'... `<�t .a ; , 17`i . r;�i�. � (��) 'S�;��: ��? "i � ��i �,-.. t . �?il ..,. ��'s� , ^x�}
i � y.., � i(,? ,:j.,�,. J . , i _' � } �i�� _ �!r°ii�s"?
Julv 14.20i�i
C;huck Lrnst, I�lanager
Rieker & Ass��iat�s, 1nc.
601 NUrth fvlagnolia Avenue, Suite ?(}0
(�rlando, Ft.� 32301
RE: i?evelopment t)rder - [;;�se FI.S2!)l3-Q`1U35
703 Court Str�et
!.)ear �?3r. k:'rnst:
I°t�iis letter cc,nfititutes a Develop�r�ei�.t C)rder l�urs��ant io Con�ur�w�ity C7evelo�pri��nt t'�'�de (C't�C;} Section
d-202.k:-. Un �-:'Joven��t�e-r 7, 2013, ihe vevelo�p�T�ent Revi���� C'ut7�mittee (URC� re�°ie��ed 1•ou�- request fi�r
Fli:sible �tanc�ard Derelup�ment aEaplict�tion tt� F�ei-��tit a ret�if sales and service i.ise �tivit�h a hei,�ht of 2G2`
f�et �:�s �neasured fi'e��ta gra�l4 t�� th<: top of t1�e ro�at cleck �and » p�rkan�; sprices in the l)ow€�tc��vn (i)1
I�istr�ict unci�r [h� pro�4'isi�.�ns of (_'omi7�trnitti� i.ieveic�pme»t ('oc�e (CUC) S�c#ion 3-iiO"i.(�. �l�hc i)Ki'
re�i:�mro�ntletl �lenial u�t th� a}��,licatic3s� �vitl�� ih� f«llc»�ti°iE1g F� incJin�s of I-�att ani3 (�'c>r�4lusit:�ris of I�irv:
I ii��ii_i�3, ot .1_zict.
' Ti�.tt tllt- { f��1 :i;'rx� ,itc' �i� l�k�;31�:n1 ,tt tl'u, :,��;11ii�rt�1 �'i`Ftx.-� ,�I�!_�c�iit�t Stt�;_'�'t s�rt�l `i��ttth �1� tfi�;' ;�c c•tit��•',
:'. I'I�at thc s�tbie�t sitc is I<>catcd �4 itl�i�3 the C3 �ii�trict: +
5. l ll�tt tlie ��ii�ject pi°operi}� i; lncaiecl witl�in the {�'F3D f�I�UP i;ate�c,ry;
��. 1}�<tt tlte sttbjeet pro}�ertti� ir loc�t�ei ii� tl�e C?c,��viltc>ti��n C"�re cli�racter cjisti-ie�t {�f� k17e t:'leai-��atea�
()c�s����ta��€t Red4r�elo�ittenz Pl�in special pJt1n �re�a;
>. 1`It4 ,ubje�t site ei�nsi�;ts c>t three ��<u�cels ���ith apprc>�in�at�ly �75 feet c�t i-rostia�e r�loct� (:rxirt Sireet,
Ifi:� fe:et c�f`ti�onfi��e abr�� C'}�est��ut Stxec�t, 1'?� �feet {_�,ffrc�nta�e� al+�n�, S���ut�i7 Myrtle ,4ver��ue <i�xi 31b
t�i:t iit tti�nta�e z33on� L•;<i�t Atienue;
t;. iliat the sice �a<�s crri�i7�ally develo4�ec1 l�etweer7 19-16 ar�d l�)�? titiith thret 1>ciitdin�y r��i��in<�� t�exw�en
pI]E. .ill(� �ZV�? til:(3i'leS 1�1 �l�l��lk; ...
!. i}�<�t the }�r�+posal iy t�:� rec;eveloE� thc �ite �tiitl� �s retail 5alt, arid servi�t ase �sitli Iti,51(} s���a,�re t��t ��t
#luc�r arct�; ancl
;S. i'it<�t the t:l�vel�r},�tjcnt p,��rhi,;+) t<; in<c�i>>i�te�it ti•;�tli 11��: 4 i;ii:.>ai. i�{ial,_ t>l.�je�:ti��c�> a���� I?�>`si:;t�:�; �,7 tfi:
(.;I�ai 4vatv�� Do��rftcnvi� IZicl�vel<�prnent E'lr�ri ,�n�1 the 1���.vr�tc�ti.+� t:t,re charactt�r ciiskr;ct;
'i. 1Ia�tt th�� :iezcic,}�rnent pxoE�cisal is iric�>nsi�t�rit Y� ith ki�e E)o�ti-ntc��tin �)c�i��,�i i_;uidciii�e;:
;, - <., . . . .
!�t I"}�,�t t���� �ar�:�Fu�s�:d r�t�(�ztl �:.1�� �n�l .,v�c:c� �.��r. :, c�>i�srstetrt �i�ii�� t1�e }>roai�,i�>r�i� �;�t tl�ie• L�94ar��.�;.�iter
i.?�_>�+�utu��,8�� IZe�le:el����trier�t ('t����;
1 1 ! f�;at t}:.� ;��rn;�iE3il�ti_. a��:a i� ti�,n�i�:�itrci i:�� �t e<iii�t�, ��! i<°�,isJ�t;ti�il <zt�t� n,.�n-r�;,i{:li'?7tia1 ;3i�;el����:.��tc:rtt;
i.:�'. I h:�t tLe }>arcil l�>e;3t<:<1 zit: �'U� t'c�ttrt '�Irt:et r�.�.: ;���t:: �ictiti4• t.'l)C �:.:,c ir�4ltt�ii�:�, �'(.>C�r't.' 1 i �?!)/,:�;5
,. ,. . . . � .
(ti'�f.L'21�l1'C' iI)li({l".� �?LC:tli . i�Ftl�lil�';>iUi�Si�t'��1J]T:9± '�tj ��.tCC'4��i� 5litld�c�'f t4�il�f'? ��iCl?� �:tii'lllf�it%
Errist; De��eloprnei�l� C�rc)c�-
Juiv 1=1.2t71=1
��>.,1`yC �
Cunclusic�ns_uf [-���
I. Tl�at the developrTient pr�posal is inconsistent �+ith the clesired pattern c�f d�velapmeni and
recte��iopment ofthe sarr�ol�ndin� a�eig;hborhoc�ci as outlii�ed by the �o��mtown Core character district
of`the Cielnvat�r potivr�to��� Redevelopment Plan;
?. That the pro�aosal is inaonsiste��t �vith tl�e �Visian �ftlie Cleax-�,>at�r pow��tc+�uR� Redeveloptnent Plarr,
3. That the proposai is inconsistent. ��jith applicaUle t�«als, Objectives and Policies af t17e t�i�.artivater
Uo�Fnto���n Redevelo�n�eni P1i�11 111CIlIC�I(lb GaalS ? and 3, Ot�jeciives 1 �i, 1 F.., 2I and 3D and I'olic ies
1 th1•augh �, 13 and ?5;
4. "i'�hat the pr��pos�31 is nat ap��licable Wis-��-vi� any Polic.i�es of the C)a�v�1�tU�v��� Core character district of
the Cle�ar�vater 1�«wntra�vn Recle��elr���m�nt Plan;
5. That tiae prop�asal is �inconsisterrt �vit}3 �ttie C�1earL��a�t�r I)�w�i�tati�vrY K�:der��lt�pti��nt Plan 17�si�;r7
Guic3elines:
6. That the }}rop�>sal is iiic��nsistent w�ith the nerlera� puip��;e, intent anc! basic pia����in� crbject�ives c>fi�the
CDC incl��di��� S�ctiot�s I-I U3.B.1 — 3 a►�d ll;
?, �Cl�at th� propos�l is �onsistent «�ith intent nf the D Distriet and tfae �=BD Fi�tisre Lar�ci i?se Plan
�lassific��tion �ui•suant tc� CDC: Secti��n 2-901. I arid the (_�c���nt�y�ride t.,a��d �Jse R�il�s;
3. �T'hat th� deve3�pntent prvposal is cu�tsi5tci�t c�itli the; Sfa�iclarcis �GS pei� C'T�C �l'�il�le 2-�10'?;
9. �f�'hat thc dc��e(opm�rit prop�sal is inc<>i��sistent �vith t11e General S�anday-ds ti�r 1.���el (=)ne sa��ci ��C�w�o
App�•ovals as per C"llC' Sectioi� 3-<)I�l.�\.l, 2,�� ar�d �;
1(). -C'haT the cievclo���nent prc}}�c,sal is ir7c��n�;isteijt ��ritl� tt�e i�le:xihilit� criteri$ a� �ci• {-'1-1C' �cctic�r� ?-
�)�)? .{1.3 ;
I 1. �l'I�ra� the a}�{�lic�tic}n i� eui7si�te��t �i-iCh Cl�e requit•cment ft�r� the s�al>mittal �>#' >�.�bsis�i�tial c��m��eter�t
=::vs�lcnce <�s �7er (.�F�t.' Secti�,�� =�-)l1�i. D.<l:
)�, �1'ht�t iia� �+ro�.�:>si3f i� inct?n<istent tivith applic��hle ��c>rtitms ��f i�he t'�,�t���rel�en�>ive }'1��: ir�eluclir7�. 1•'utt�re
1_ancl l..!se 1'la�� Eieme��t CJt��al ��.Ci. C)b�ectit�, %1.�.�, F1.t`i.l. 1.(�.''_ ,�1.(i.-{ ar7ci �l.b.;i an�j Pc;licies
:�.��.;?.1. ,�1.n."'.1, A.6.4.?. ;1.(i.8.1. :1.t>.8 ;, ,�1.(i.;i.? ,incl ,1.(i.l().S:
1�. 1'h��t t1�e pr�>pasal is ini;ansi�tent �+�ith ti�e ret��airemenis tor sight ei>it3ilitV tr�iat3�;les pta�:�uae�t t<> (_'I:)t�
tie��t ioE� ;_ctra �. ^_: ��rct
1'1. l�hat Nt� <7�.3plic,tti�i� is ii�tensi,tent ��it1� tlie ret�t�i�°e�t�ent fi>3� t}�e s�ikrrnitt�tl c�t 5u13�ta��lia1 cr.�rr����;t�r�t
eti idence aa �.,er CUC �ec[ion =3-'Ofi. D.-�.
1�.•;>r��ur tvitit tite ti��tlin��s �>1' ihe 1]evelt,�itlerat IZcvie�� C'tnn�73i1:tee �ii�<1, thi-c�ut�i� ti�is i�[ter_ ll1+:N4' }'�?u€
r��plic�tie>i� For F�i�xible Sta��ic�:ard t)evelt�pn���it .
:1�i <i��peal of a l,e�ei U��e F�14�iF,1e 5[��n�i�rc! Utvelo}�r��erit zi�pli�ati��lr niay i7e initi�tted i�) an apf�lica�7t ��r
��roper�y t���mea�s tivithin the r•�quirtd notice r�+rea anci �vl�c� �7i�esentt;� co�7jpetent subs#.�tttial e�itj4tace in tia�;
i.�-l�el Onc revie���, u.;hic)i i, t}�� �i�bj�ci c�t` tl�ie approva[ �vi#hin <_.ct�crt r3���°a c>t` {h� dat� Ylt�. cl��ela}�rXter�t
c>rc#c:r� i, �s,�i��cl a� con�i�t�r�t ��•itlj {_`llt=' �1rti�l� 1 C)i�,-i5i�,i� �. "t`he tilin� ��1� an <rp��licat'sort.�i�c�tice csf <��,p{al
til�all �tt�. i}7e efl�:ct cif` ttle d�cisi<x� pe��cSin� tlzG tinal tjeter•rr�it��itic,t� �,t tl��� L4�se.
1t' ;ou i�av� �iri} qucstic�r�;, ��lea�e c11; r���t I��.sitate tc� e;c,��t<act ;�1ark I. 1'��rr�, Planner il (. ,�t i27-3t� "--3?4 I<�i•
l�ia e��nail at 3n ��l..r���ri�ti•'izE37v�1 :rL���tir�.:t�>,z�j_ �
<>it�ccr�l�..
�,,,�,�.�~ �,�:..b �:�.
�
� .�
��'
�1t�.�i.i�t;i 13e;�}�. -�l(_�i'
, ;.�:i�.�;i�rtr��(,,a.
.
0
MACFARLANE FERGUSON � MCMULLEN
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER, SUITE 2000 625 COURT STREET
201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET www.mimlegai.com P. o. eox 1669 <ZIP 33757)
P.O. BOX 1531 121P 33601) EMAIL: If1(O�fT1If1lI@99I.COR1 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 �727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470
IB13> 273-4200 FAX lBl3) 273-4396
IN REPLY REFER TO:
July 18, 2014
Post Office Box 1669
Clearwater, FL 33757
Michael Delk, AICP, Planning Director
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
Planning and Development Department
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Re: Appeal of Level One Development Order
Case Number FLS2013-09035
Dear Mr. Delk and Mr. Parry:
As we have discussed, please find enclosed my client's appeal of the Development Order
issued in Case Number FLS2013-09035 to the Community Development Board. It is our desire
to proceed to a liearing on this appeal as soon as possible. Please let me know if you need any
additional information.
As always, feel free to call me at any time. I can be reached directly at (727) 444-1403.
Thank you,
�� -� 7 � �-, .
7
Encl.
CC: Client
��,C�li��G
�'��� � , ��
� ,_ ., t,,���
�'l,`� ,�n _ �,, t , ;� , �,:.,y� ,�
`a ���d ° a y�;. J;liriy?i'.
Brian J. Aungst, Jr.