Loading...
02/19/2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER February 19, 2008 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Kathy Milam Thomas Coates Dana K. Tallman Frank L. Dame Doreen DiPolito Norma R. Carlough Chair Vice-Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member - departed 6:03 p.m. Alternate Board Member Absent: Jordan Behar Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Leslie Dougall-Sides Gina Clayton Catherine Porter Brenda Moses Attorney for the Board Assistant City Attorney Assistant Planning Director Long Range Planning Manager Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :03 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: January 15, 2008 Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of January 15, 2008, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2007-00005 - 755 Eldorado Avenue Level One Application (Request for Continuance to March 18, 2008) Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Robert and Sharron Morgal (755 Eldorado Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 813-903-0604). Location: 0.143-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Eldorado Avenue and Bohenia Circle. Atlas Page: 249A. Zoning: Low Medium Destiny Residential (LMDR) District. Request: An appeal from a Level One (flexible standard development) denial decision pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-501.A.3, that a requested reduction to the side (east) setback from five feet to zero feet (to pavers) as a Residential Infill Project is inconsistent with the Flexibility Criteria as set forth in CDC Sections 2-203.C.2 and 2-203.C.5. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President Joe Fritz, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758) and Clearwater Beach Association (President Joe Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767). Presenter: Neil Thompson, Development Review Manager. Community Development 2008-02-19 1 Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said the applicant requests a continuance in order to get assistance from a professional consultant in an effort to resolve issues related to the application. Member Dame moved to continue Case APP2007 -00005 to March 18, 2008. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL (Item 1): 1. Case: APP2008-00002 - 1343 Cleveland Street Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Dr. Gilbert Jannelli (909 S. Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-461-2020). Location: 0.483-acre parcel along the south side of Cleveland Street approximately 165 feet west of Evergreen Avenue. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning: Commercial (C) District / East Gateway Character District. Request: An appeal from an administrative interpretation pursuant to CDC Section 4-502.B, that the establishment of a social and community center at the subject property is inconsistent with the vision of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan for the East Gateway Character District. Proposed Use: Social and Community Center. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President Joe Fritz, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Skycrest Neighbors (President Joanna Siskin, 121 N. Crest Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755). Presenter: Michael Delk, AICP, Planning Director. Member Tallman moved to approve the request to withdraw Case APP2008-00002. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1. Level Three Application Case: REZ2007-10001 -1241,1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard (Continued from the meetings of December 18,2007 and January 15,2008) Owner/Applicant: D. A. Bennett Company. Representative: Harry S. Cline and Michael C. Foley, Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757; Telephone: 727-441-8966). Location: Approximately 2.94 acres located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge. Atlas Page: 303B. Request: Application for a Zoning Atlas amendment from the Business (B) District to the Tourist (T) District. Existing Uses: Retail Sales and Services, Restaurant and Office. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Sand Key Civic Association (Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630). Presenter: Steven Everitt, Planner II. Chair Fritsch recused himself and left the dais. Community Development 2008-02-19 2 Alan Zimmet, reported he is an attorney representing the Meridian of Sand Key, Landmark Towers, Crescent Beach Club, Lighthouse Towers, the Grande, and the Sand Key Civic Association, all of which will be directly affected by the status of this property. Member Coates moved to grant those associations, represented by Alan Zimmet, party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Arlene Musselwhite requested party status. Member Coates moved to grant Arlene Musselwhite party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case Edwards requested party status. Valerie Williamson requested party status. Ms. Grimes stated as some individuals residing at the Grand and the complexes mentioned by Mr. Zimmet are requesting party status, they can do so as individuals, as Mr. Zimmet requested party status on behalf of the associations mentioned above. Member Coates moved to grant Case Edwards party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Coates moved to grant Valerie Williamson party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Donald van Weezel requested party status and said although he did not receive notice of today's hearing, he is within 500 - 502 feet of the subject property. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said although Code only requires the City to notify residents within 200 feet of this property, the City notified residents within 500 feet. Member Coates moved to grant Donald van Weezel party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. William R. Corder requested party status. Member Tallman moved to grant William R. Corder party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Eugene Gillespie requested party status. Member Tallman moved to grant Eugene Gillespie party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. John Martinez requested party status. Member Coates moved to grant John Martinez party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. JoEllen Farnham requested party status. Community Development 2008-02-19 3 Member Coates moved to grant JoEllen Farnham party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mary Reinhardt requested party status. Member Tallman moved to grant Mary Reinhardt party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Acting Chair Milam reviewed rights granted to party status holders. She stated citizens can speak for three minutes without requesting party status. She reviewed the procedure for Level Three cases including timeframes for speakers. Member Tallman moved to accept Steven Everitt as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planner Steven Everitt reviewed the request. At the December 18, 2007 COB (Community Development Board) meeting, the Board continued this application, at the City's request, to the January 15, 2008 meeting to re-notice property owners within 200 feet of the subject properties. At the January 15, 2008 COB meeting, the board continued this application, at the applicant's, Andrew R. Duff, Trustee, request, to the February 19, 2008 meeting. The applicant requested the continuance in order to remove his interest from the application. The original applicant, Andrew R. Duff, Trustee, has removed his name from the application as well as the property he owns, located at 1201 Gulf Boulevard. Mr. Duff assigned D. A. Bennett Company as the new applicant. D. A. Bennett Company is the owner of the property addressed as 1241,1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard. This rezoning application involves one 2.94-acre property owned by the D. A. Bennett Company. The subject property is located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge. The property has a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) and has been governed by a Settlement Stipulation. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the Tourist (T) District from the Business (B) District. The City dissolved the B (Business) District in 1972. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed against the City of Clearwater by United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment Program I and Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation, Plaintiff vs. City of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (Case 78-4765-7)) in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County). The resulting Settlement Stipulation restored the dissolved B District for the subject properties and three other locations on Sand Key for a period of 20 years. The Settlement Stipulation governed the intensities and densities on the subject property. The subject property is a portion of "Parcel III," as listed in the Settlement Stipulation. Section 12 of the Settlement Stipulation states: "Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop up to 85,000 square-feet of non-residential floor area on Parcel III. In addition, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop up to one hundred Community Development 2008-02-19 4 ten (110) residential dwelling units on Parcel III, or up to two hundred twenty (220) hotel units on Parcel III, or any combination thereof, with a conversion ratio of one (1) residential dwelling unit or two (2) hotel units. No structure on Parcel III shall be in excess of one hundred (100) feet above the established flood plain level..." The subject property is currently developed with approximately 36,000 square-feet of non-residential floor area. The development is comprised of three one-story commercial buildings. The two southerly buildings (Shoppes on Sand Key) have restaurant, retail sales and services, and office uses totaling approximately 29,000 square-feet. The third building has a restaurant use (Columbia Restaurant) and is approximately 7,000 square-feet. Section 25 of the Settlement Stipulation states: "The development rights agreed to herein shall remain in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free to regulate the use of the four parcels without limitation as a result of the final judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation." The Final Judgment Settlement Stipulation was dated October 17, 1986; therefore it expired on October 17, 2006. As indicated, the City has the right to rezone the property to be consistent with the Countywide Rules, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the community Development Code (CDC). Under Chapter 163 of Florida State Statutes, the City's land development code shall be consistent with the City's Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. The B District is not listed in the City's FLUP of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore the B District is inconsistent with any FLUP. The T District is listed in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as consistent with the RFH Future Land Use Plan designation. Also, the T District is the only consistent zoning district listed in the CDC. The property is larger than the minimum required lot area and lot width for the existing uses in the T District. All existing uses on the property are permitted uses in the T District. Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed rezoning are as indicated below: 3.2.1 Policy - Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment plans approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning districts, as established by the City's Community Development Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment plans. The T District is consistent with the City's FLUP for RFH and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The previous designation of "Business District" does not exist, and therefore, cannot be consistent. Community Development 2008-02-19 5 The proposed zoning atlas amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies. As stated earlier, the property has a FLUP designation of RFH. The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and CDC specifies that the proposed T zoning district is consistent with the RFH Plan category; therefore the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Gulf Boulevard is a three-lane roadway. The center lane is a turn lane with periodic landscape islands surrounding pedestrian crossings. The surrounding area, located south of Clearwater Pass Bridge, is characterized by high-rise attached dwellings, overnight accommodations, and land devoted to recreation. The area has a mixture of residential plan categories that allow for 15 Residential Medium (RM) to 30 dwelling units per acre (RH, [Residential High], and RFH). Immediately to the north of the subject property is the Clearwater Beach Marriott Suites on Sand Key, an overnight accommodations use. This property was originally a party to this application. The subject property has a zoning designation of B, with an underlying FLUP designation of RFH, which permits 30 dwelling units per acre or 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. North of the Marriott property is City-owned property developed as the Sailing Center and Sand Key Bayside Park. To the west, the Landmark Towers are attached dwelling uses with a zoning designation of High Density Residential (HDR) and a FLUP designation of RH. The RH FLUP category allows 30 dwelling units per acre. Also to the west, are the Meridian on Sand Key and the Grande. Both are attached dwelling uses with zoning designations of B and a FLUP designation of RFH. (Please note that the City will be pursuing the rezoning of all B parcels on Sand Key consistent with the Settlement Stipulation.) North of the Grande is the Sheraton Sand Key Resort. The Sheraton is an overnight accommodations use with a zoning designation of T and a FLUP designation of RFH. North of the Sheraton are the Pinellas County-owned Sand Key Park and the City of Clearwater Fire Station 44. These publicly owned parcels have zoning designations of Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) with underlying FLUP designations of Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Preservation. South of Landmark Towers are Harbour Light Towers on Sand Key and Lighthouse Towers on Sand Key. Both are attached dwelling uses with a zoning designation of HDR and a FLUP designation of RH. To the south, the property is adjacent to Bayside Gardens, which is an attached dwelling use with a zoning designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and a FLUP category of RM. The RM FLUP allows 15 dwelling units per acre. To the east is the Intracoastal Waterway. Section 2-801 of the CDC, titled "Intent and purpose" states: "The intent and purpose of the Tourist District ("T") is to provide a safe and attractive tourist destination in the City of Clearwater with a full complement of tourist accommodations and convenient access to goods and services." The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding residential, recreation and tourist uses. The proposed T zoning district will be in character with existing and abutting uses and zoning designations. The T zoning district will allow attached dwellings, overnight accommodations, restaurants, retail sales and services and offices which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Community Development 2008-02-19 6 As stated earlier, the subject property is 2.94 acres in area and presently occupied by restaurants, retail sales and services and offices. Based on a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units per acre in the existing RFH category and T zoning district, 88 dwelling units could be constructed on the property. At present, no dwelling units occupy the property. The RFH category allows 50 overnight accommodations per acre for a total of 147 units. Also, the RFH category allows a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 for a maximum gross floor area of 128,066 square-feet of nonresidential floor area. Please note that by Countywide Rules, a mixed use development "Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the gross land area of the property." This Countywide Rule will not allow a site to be developed to the maximum of each density and intensity allowance. Only a proportionate share, based on land area devoted to each use, of each density and intensity can be developed. Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition. The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the Gulf Boulevard segment from the Belleair Causeway to South Gulfview Boulevard an LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the uses permitted by the Settlement Stipulation, the existing uses of the subject property, and the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed T District and RFH FLUP. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, a shopping center developed at the absolute maximum intensity in the T District (128,066 square-foot shopping center) would result in an increase in the PM Peak trips to Gulf Boulevard. It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that a shopping center of this magnitude would be built, due to locational characteristics, and lack of population density required to support a retail development of such scale. The Engineering Department has concluded that the traffic generation associated with the most intense use (128,066 square- foot shopping center) may increase the existing PM peak hour trips by 29.3% from 1,160 vehicle trips (existing trips on roadway segment) to 1,640 vehicle trips (existing trips plus new trips). The City's Comprehensive Plan does not permit roadways within the City to operate below an LOS of 0 at PM peak hour; therefore, during the site approval process the applicant would be required to mitigate the traffic impacts and/or reduce the intensity proposed for the subject property. The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as overnight accommodations only, the PM Peak trips could decrease 4.1 % from the existing 1,160 vehicle trips per hour to 1,112 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen, the LOS for Gulf Boulevard will remain an A. The City's Engineering Department has also concluded that should redevelopment of the property be attached dwellings only, the existing PM Peak trips could decrease 7.7% from the existing 1,160 vehicle trips per hour to 1,071 vehicle trips. With this scenario, the LOS of Gulf Boulevard will remain an A. Further study has shown that any combination of overnight accommodations and attached dwellings will not degrade Gulf Boulevard's LOS below an A. Recent projects within the T District have primarily involved overnight accommodations and attached dwellings with accessory or limited nonresidential square-footage. It is possible that the subject properties may develop as a combination of overnight accommodations, Community Development 2008-02-19 7 attached dwellings and nonresidential square-footage. Any combination of these uses would significantly reduce the maximum number of trips expected. In summary, redevelopment of the property to the maximum amount of overnight accommodations, attached dwellings or a combination of the two, would result in fewer total daily trips and PM peak hour trips than the current uses. The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be negatively affected by the proposed zoning atlas amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change; the subject site is located along an existing transit route and headways are less than or equal to one hour. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority's Suncoast Beach Trolley service is available along Gulf Boulevard. As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning will not degrade the City's current LOS for water. Although redevelopment may result in a greater demand for water, the City has adequate capacity to serve the maximum potential development of the property. As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning will not degrade the City's current LOS for wastewater. Greater development may create more wastewater but the City has adequate capacity to handle the maximum potential increase in wastewater from the property. As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning will not degrade the City's current LOS for solid waste disposal since there is excess capacity. As currently developed, the Settlement Stipulation governed all R/OS impact fees. If any overnight accommodation units and/or dwelling units are added and/or nonresidential floor area is increased, additional impact fees may be required. This fee is addressed through the site plan process and any required payment will be due prior to the issuance of building permits. Based upon the Findings of Fact, it has been determined that the maximum possible traffic increase generated by development on the property is within the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Further, there is minimal impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service. The proposed T district will not affect open space and recreation facilities or mass transit. The location of the proposed T District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into the appropriate zoning district. The T zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent B, HDR, and MDR zoning districts located to the immediate north, south and west. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements, and the natural environment. Approval of this zoning atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested. An amendment of the zoning atlas from the B District to the T District for the subject property is requested. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for restaurant, retail sales and services and offices. Surrounding uses include overnight Community Development 2008-02-19 8 accommodations to the north, attached dwellings to the west, attached dwellings to the south, and the Intracoastal Waterway to the east. The proposed rezoning will be compatible with the existing neighborhood and is compatible with the existing future land use category and reflects the current mix of uses on the property. The proposed T District is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect the provision of public services and the boundaries are appropriately drawn. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning atlas designation of 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard and adjacent right-of-way from the B District to the T District. In response to questions, Mr. Everitt said HDR is listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial District is also consistent with the RFH land use in the Comprehensive Plan under the FLUP category. However, the CDC only lists the T District, which staff feels is the appropriate zoning for this property. He said a C District would be less restrictive than a T District. The T District requires approval of applications by the DRC or the COB, depending upon the application. Mr. Everitt reviewed uses, including those under the flexible development approval section of the CDC that could be permitted if a C designation was applicable. He said uses such as light assembly and problematic uses that would be permitted in the C District but not in the T District, are not appropriate for this area. He said attached dwellings could be permitted only as a mixed use development in a C District. Michael Foley, representative, stated this property was governed by a settlement agreement that expired in October 2006. He said there appears to be some confusion regarding whether or not this is a rezoning application. The B District is no longer available and since the property currently is not zoned, it is not consistent with anything at this time, and needs to be zoned as soon as possible. He said Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requires the CDC to be consistent with the City's FLUP and Comprehensive Plan. He referred to Code regarding the intent and purpose of the T District. He stated his client is not proposing any development plans for the site. Current uses are retail uses, surrounded by hotels and high-rise condominiums. The property is designated RFH and the current uses are permitted in the T District. He referred to photographs of the surrounding uses and a future land use map of the area. His client requests the property be zoned T, which is listed as consistent and available under the RFH designation of the CDC and is the only zoning district consistent with the CDC at this time. He said the Planning Department feels the property is consistent with the T District, the RFH category, the CDC, and the Comprehensive Plan. He said opposition from the public today centers around traffic congestion, the loss of the convenience of the shops, and the burden on LOS. He said the T district addresses some of those concerns. He said traffic congestion is higher now than it would be if the property were developed as a hotel, a residential use, or a mixed use. He said the only impact that would result in increased traffic on the site would be if it were strictly a commercial expansion. However, any development of the site would require adherence to Code. He said his client has the right to the reasonable use of his property. He said T is the proper zoning for this property given its compatibility with the existing and abutting uses, zoning designations, the CDC, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said the request does not conflict with the needs and character of the surrounding neighborhood, the community, or the City, nor does it impact the LOS. Community Development 2008-02-19 9 In response to questions, Mr. Foley said the Sheraton is zoned T; the Marriot is not. He said the tenants on the site have leases, which are subject to negotiation. He did not know whether the tenants have spoken to the owner regarding extension of their leases. Alan Zimmet, representative, requested 10 minutes to speak on behalf of homeowner associations at the Meridian, Landmark Towers, and the Grande. Member Tallman moved to grant Alan Zimmet 10 minutes to speak on behalf of homeowner associations at the Meridian, Landmark Towers, and The Grand. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Zimmet stated he represents homeowners associations at the Meridian on Sand Key, Landmark Towers, Crescent Beach Club, Lighthouse Towers, the Grande, and the Sand Key Civic Association, which represents all the residents on Sand Key. He said many residents on Sand Key oppose this application, many of whom are present. He submitted sign-in sheets of people in attendance. Mr. Zimmet said as described by the City, Sand Key is comprised of 358 acres of a coastal residential neighborhood. He said the population exceeds 3,000 people with 3,500 housing units. The median age exceeds 58 years of age. He said Sand Key residents oppose the T District zoning for this property. He said although the T District would permit the existing uses on this property, its intent is to allow for overnight accommodations, not retail services or offices. He said Sand Key is a residential community, not a tourist destination. There are only two hotels in the community. He said to the west and south are residential properties. He said the T District would allow overnight accommodations of 50 rooms per acre or 145 units with a height of up to 100 feet. He said a property with a C designation would permit overnight accommodations at a maximum height of 50 feet. He said a Level One application in the T District could be approved by staff and would not come before the COB at a public hearing. He said his clients' properties are zoned HDR and MDR. The intent of these districts is to preserve the integrity of existing, stable, residential neighborhoods. If this property were to be zoned T, the City would not be protecting and preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. A 100-foot high hotel could encourage the area to be redeveloped if this property is zoned T. Mr. Zimmet stated his understanding was that none of the tenants' leases on this property are going to be renewed by the property owner, and that the property is for sale. He said the Marriott previously had submitted an application for purchase of this property. He said his clients do not want to impinge upon the property owner's rights. However, they urge the City to adopt a zoning district that would encourage the retail sales and service uses on the property. He said when the settlement agreement on this property expired, no land use planning studies were performed to determine appropriate zoning for the property. He said while the CDC indicates the T District is the only zoning district that is applicable in the RFH land use category, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which states that C and HDR are also applicable and appropriate. He said Code Section 4-602(b) states that an application for an amendment of a zoning atlas change may be initiated by any person in conjunction with an application for development approval. He said Section 4-202(a) lists the requirements for submittal by a property owner for a rezoning or change to a zoning atlas. He stated the application does not meet the requirements of those sections of the Code. He said the applicant should have no problem complying with his clients' request that staff perform a study to determine the appropriate zoning for this property if their intent is to maintain and encourage the existing uses. He said there has been some discussion with City officials regarding an overlay district for Sand Key. He recommended the COB deny the application, that a study of Sand Key be performed to ensure proper zoning, and that the City consider an neighborhood overlay district or another appropriate zoning district for the property to encourage retail uses on the site. Community Development 2008-02-19 10 Party status holder Arlene Musselwhite expressed concern that the City could permit the property owner to triple the number of units per acre on this property if the property is zoned T. She said the T zoning could be applied to the property to the north where the hotel and parking lot exists. However, the property adjoining Bayside Gardens Condominiums, which currently supports retail uses, should be zoned C or MDR, which would keep down the tax rate. If zoned MDR, the shops could remain nonconforming uses and could be grandfathered in and taxed accordingly. She said the retail shops provide convenient services to residents. Residents can walk to the shops, diminishing traffic, etc. She said 12% sales tax is generated from seasonal renters on Sand Key. She said Sand Key is built to capacity and overdevelopment should not be encouraged. She said condominiums have minimum rental periods to prevent transient visitors. She said Sand Key is not a tourist destination. She said traffic backs up to Sand Key due to beach activities. She felt if the City continues to change the zoning in this and other residential areas without considering the surrounding communities, Florida will lose potential homebuyers. She said if the ambience of Sand Key is lost, housing unit prices will decrease, and residents will leave Florida, which will impact all taxing authorities. She said water shortages also should be considered, as the retail shops use less water than would a hotel. She felt the property owner is seeking to maximize his profit by zoning the property T. Party status holder Case Edwards said 3,000 households on Sand Key pay 17% of all taxes collected in the City. He said only six children from Sand Key attend Pinellas County schools, and Gulf Boulevard is the only road that has to be maintained. He reviewed other costs paid by residents. He said Sand Key is one of the City's best customers. He said contrary to what is believed, Sand Key residents are not wealthy. He said Sand Key residents ask very little of the City. He requested the COB and the City do what is right and what is fair by ensuring the shops on Sand Key be retained on this property. Party status holder Valerie Williamson said there are numerous reasons why residents purchased property on Sand Key. She said Sand Key is unique and was never designed to be a tourist destination. She said the shops on Sand Key are the heart of the community and are owned and operated by local merchants. They provide a social setting and a convenience that helps the population maintain their independent lifestyles. She said the City Manager has stated that he wants the Downtown to be a playground for pedestrians, a place where folks can socialize, dine and shop. She said that already exists on Sand Key. She said this application is not progress, but a backdoor approach for developers anxiously awaiting to tear down the shops and build a hotel complex that will increase traffic, water consumption, and strain energy resources. She said this application does not meet the best interests of the residents of Sand Key or the patrons of the shops. She said the COB and the City Council are fiduciaries of residents. She felt this application does not meet the standards set forth by the City or the COB. Party status holder Donald van Weezel stated he opposes the request for a T zoning. He said this property owner is legally entitled to benefit from ownership in a manner consistent with community zoning. He said the B District no longer exists. C and T designations do not preserve the originally intended use of this property. He said the Marriott and Sheraton hotels were built prior to most of the residential development that has occurred. He said except for those two hotels, the Cabana Club, and the shops on Sand Key, there are other no other tourist or commercial facilities amongst the more than 3,000 residential units on Sand Key. He requested the COB not recommend, and the Council not apply, a specific zoning district for this property at this time. He suggested the City allow the community and staff to find an appropriate zoning designation that meets the residents', property owner's, and business owners' needs. Community Development 2008-02-19 11 Party status holder William Corder opposed the application. He said Sand Key is not part of Beach by Design. He said Sand Key is a residential, not a tourist, community. He cited concerns regarding traffic, parking, emergency services and evacuation routes, strains on public utilities, reduced property values and quality of life, and said the loss of the shops would result in inconveniences for residents. He said Clearwater has permanent construction zones in some areas of the City, which also cause traffic delays and detours, and adversely affect traffic flow at the beach and at Sand Key. Party status holder Eugene Gillespie said Sand Key is at capacity development. He expressed concern that if a hotel were built on this property, the density could be the same as allowed in Beach by Design. He felt Neighborhood Commercial zoning would be appropriate for this property and that a neighborhood overlay district is needed for Sand Key. He said in 2004, the City's web site stated that Sand Key was at capacity development when two 62-unit condominiums were completed. He said the applicant could potentially build 368 hotel rooms and more retail space. He said as parking is at a minimum on the site, a parking garage also would need to be built. He said it is untrue that the T District is the only designation available to the applicant. He said Sand Key is a residential community, not a tourist destination. Party status holder John Martinez opposed the T zoning for this property. He said the property's current use is commercial. He disagreed with a comment that was made that T District is the only appropriate zoning for this property. He said the Comprehensive Plan's future land use elements indicate that both T and C zoning are applicable. He reviewed the criteria in the Code, stating the T District zoning is inconsistent with criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and future land use elements. Party status holder JoEllen Farnham said she has spoken with many of the homeowners' associations on Sand Key. She said Sand Key is interested in working with the City to find a solution that will include a long range vision for the community. She said the retail shops on this property are a neighborhood hub, not a tourist destination. She said if the shops are eliminated, they would put a burden on the community. She said residents are not anti- development. However, they want improvements aligned with the current use. She said many residents purchased their homes because of the convenience of walking to the shops and feel the shops are part of the community. She said traffic in the community would increase without the shops. She requested that a study be done to ensure that the residential character of Sand Key is preserved. She suggested the City consider a neighborhood overlay district for Sand Key. Party status holder Mary Reinhardt submitted signatures from residents and visitors on Sand Key opposing zoning that would allow high-rise development on this property. She said regardless of whether or not Beach by Design applies to Sand Key, the statement that the City has a fiscal interest in ensuring that the quality of life on the barrier island is preserved and enhanced. She said the City's Vision states that the City needs safe, comfortable, and walkable neighborhoods to truly have a quality of life. She said in the 2007 Clearwater Annual Report, it was stated that the Planning Department adopted the fourth major amendment to the CDC in two years. She said ample precedence already exists to support a zoning designation that would perpetuate the retail zoning of a low-rise shopping center. She requested the COB carefully weigh the impacts of overdevelopment with a high-rise development that would strain the water supply, stormwater, environment, and increase traffic on this sensitive barrier island. Community Development 2008-02-19 12 In response to questions, Mr. Everitt said he assisted in the preparation of the Staff Report for this case. He said he made the decision regarding the statement that the T District was the only consistent zoning district listed in the CDC for this property. Mr. Everitt deferred to the City's Traffic Engineering Department regarding roadways and traffic analyses. Himanshu Patni, Engineering Specialist, said the information in the Staff Report regarding traffic trip generation was derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The manual considers studies throughout the country that analyze various uses to determine the number of trips generated for those uses. The data is compiled and an average rate is determined. Member Coates moved to accept Himanshu Patni as an expert witness in the fields of traffic operations, speed studies, signs and markings, A TMS/ITS deployment, traffic studies and fees, parking lot permits, ordinance review, developmental impact on transportation, and network support. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, Mr. Patni stated he participated in the compilation of information for the Staff Report regarding traffic generation. Mr. Zimmet objected to cross examination of Mr. Patni, stating Mr. Patni never testified at today's hearing. Mr. Foley disagreed to the objection, stating that Mr. Patni's written testimony is part of the Staff Report and he is confirming that information. Ms. Grimes stated that only witnesses who testified at today's hearing can be cross examined. No further action was taken to accept Mr. Patni as an expert witness. In response to questions, Mr. Everitt stated Mr. Patni's expertise and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual were used to determine the traffic generation information provided in the Staff Report. He reviewed the formulas used for expected trips at peak PM times for a hotel and for residential units. He said a detailed traffic impact analysis study could be required should a specific density be proposed for development of this property. He said the City's Comprehensive Plan does not permit the LOS on Gulf Boulevard to be less than a D. Discussion ensued with comments that hotels generate lower peak hour trips than shopping centers, that approval of the zoning atlas amendment is not a right or guarantee to develop this property, and that this is an assignment of a zoning request. The meeting recessed from 3:14 to 3:26 p.m. Robert Tarcin requested party status. It was noted that Mr. Tarcin was on another floor of City Hall and did not hear the request for party status holders to come forward. Member Coates moved to grant Robert Tarcin party status. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Party status holder Robert Tarcin expressed opposition to the T District zoning request. He said Sand Key is not a tourist destination. Homeowners purchased their homes to avoid the tourist atmosphere of Clearwater beach. He said the retail shops at this site are part of the Community Development 2008-02-19 13 community. He said this request is in conflict with the residential intent of the area and with residential lifestyles on Sand Key. He said as the City only permits a natural fence between the residential and commercial properties, the Meridian and the Grande already have had issues with the Marriott's patrons trying to use their pool and spa. He said if a hotel is built on this site, more problems including litter, sand piles, increased traffic, etc. could affect residents adjacent to this property. He said another hotel would not enhance the quality of life on Sand Key. He said additional residential units would result in a disproportionate population, would affect the appeal of the community, and result in lower property values. He said none of the existing residential uses on Sand Key exceed 30 units per acre, which has been a standard since the early 1990's. He said the surrounding condominium complexes' density is much less than what could be permitted under a T District zoning. In response to a question, Mr. Everitt said if a C designation could be applied to this property, the Code would permit a maximum development height of 50 feet for overnight accommodations. The T District permits maximum heights at 100 feet. However, in both districts, higher heights can be requested under the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria. Mr. Everitt said Level One applications are reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), a committee of City staff members, and no public hearing is required. However, property owners within 500 feet would be notified of Level One applications. He said the Comprehensive Plan lists C, HDR, and T District as consistent and compatible with RFH density. In response to a question, Mr. Everitt said he is an expert in site plan approval, not in traffic engineering. However, the City's Traffic Engineering Department staff has the expertise to analyze traffic impacts. Ms. Grimes asked the board if they wished to grant Mr. Zimmet additional time for cross- examination due to the number of clients he represents. Member Dame moved to grant Mr. Zimmet five additional minutes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to questions, Mr. Everitt said the Traffic Engineering Department staff provided transportation trip generation data. He said the chart in the Staff Report is based on established models and trips generated at this property. Staff does not have information regarding where those trips end. The traffic analysis did not include trip generation data regarding residents' trips to obtain goods and services if the shops on Sand Key are no longer on this property. He said the Council has not approved the proposed increase in hotel density in the RFH category. He said applicants requesting heights greater than the height maximums in the Code would be reviewed based on the harmony with adjacent properties, consistency with the community character, and would require a quasi-judicial hearing before the COB. In response to an objection from Mr. Zimmet, Ms. Grimes requested that Mr. Everitt remain at the podium when being cross-examined. In response to questions, Mr. Everitt said the future land use of RFH is already assigned on the site. He said the Commercial neighborhood designation referred to today is a category of the future land use plan of the City. It is not a zoning district. The City is obligated per Florida Statutes to assign a consistent zoning designation with the existing future land use designation on the site, which is T District. He said the Comprehensive Plan lists the C designation as consistent with the RFH future land use. He confirmed the Sheraton on Sand Key is zoned T. He said using the models indicated in the Staff Report, a hotel would lower the impact of traffic on Gulf Boulevard. He said the analysis of traffic impacts in the Staff Report is Community Development 2008-02-19 14 generalized and a more in-depth review of traffic impacts would be performed should the property be redeveloped. He said staff performs a traffic analysis of conditions that currently exist, not on how the site potentially could be developed. Twenty-one people spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Everitt reviewed the intent and purpose of the T District as defined in the Code. This request for a zoning atlas amendment meets the City's FLUP for RFH and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mixed uses, including the current uses on the site, are permitted in the T District. The T district zoning is consistent with underlying land use category of RFH, the Comprehensive Plan, and the CDC, and State statutes require the City to ensure consistent land uses and to assign a zoning district to this property. In response to a question, Mr. Everitt said if this property continues without a zoning designation, it would be considered a legal nonconforming use and would create permitting issues for future development requests by the property owner. He said if zoned T, any future development requests would be heard by the DRC and possibly the COB and Council, depending upon the application. He said a rezoning does not require an accompanying development application. In response to a request, Mr. Everitt reviewed maximum building heights permitted under a C designation and in the T District. He said a C designation under a Level One minimum standard development permits maximum building heights of 25 feet. A Level One Flexible Development standard also permits maximum building heights of 25 feet. However, heights can increase for some uses under the Flexible Development standards. Flexible Development Level Two cases are presented to the COB for review. Maximum heights for Flexible Development Level Two cases range from 25 to 50 feet for most uses. There is no Level One minimum standard approval in the T District. All cases are reviewed under the Level One Flexible Development standards. Maximum heights permitted for Level One Flexible Development applications are 35 feet. However a range of up to 50 feet can be requested for most uses. Under a Flexible Development Level Two approval, the maximum height ranges from 35 to 100 feet for most uses. He said the maximum number of units that could be built on this property whether zoned C or Tis 147 units. In response to a question, Mr. Everitt said the existing roadway is adequate for this property regardless of how it is developed. In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said staff is reviewing appropriate zoning designations for four other parcels on Sand Key that had been zoned B. She said the neighborhood conservation overlay district process is resident initiated and requires that 60% of property owners vote to implement it. Council reviews overlay district requests, authorizes a study committee, a neighborhood plan is developed, and specific zoning regulations to implement the plan go into effect. Once the overlay district is developed, the neighborhood votes on the requirements of the plan. If approved by Council, the overlay district is applied to the neighborhood in addition to the City's zoning requirements. Ms. Clayton said many requirements in an overlay district already exist in the Code. Mr. Zimmet said the purpose of the T District is to result in tourist-related uses. He said tourist-related uses are not compatible and consistent with this residential neighborhood. He said a CDC Level One approval does not require review by the COB. He said if this property is zoned T District, a development application would only come before the COB at a public hearing if the applicant's request exceeds the standards permitted in a T District. He said the T District is only one of three zoning districts in the Comprehensive Plan that are consistent with RFH. He expressed concern that under a T District zoning, the Code would permit a 100-foot high hotel in this residential community. He said residents of Sand Key are opposed to the T District Community Development 2008-02-19 15 zoning, not to development or additional retail. He said residents already have problems with the hotels in the community. He said there is a major difference between a resident and a tourist. He expressed concern regarding takings if a T District zoning is applied to this property. Party status holder Case Edwards requested the COB do what is fair. Party status holder Eugene Gillespie said a massive hotel could be developed on the site. He said the reason why the City did not address zoning on this property when the settlement agreement expired in 2006 was because the Marriott Hotel bought an option to construct a hotel on the site. He said tenants of the shops on Sand Key collected petitions in their shops opposing the T zoning designation. He said shop owners have no place to relocate their businesses. He said once the T District is assigned to this property, it will be taxed at its highest and best use, which will encourage development of a hotel on the site. He urged the City to consider allowing residents to implement an overlay district on Sand Key. Party status holder John Martinez said 20 years ago, a settlement agreement was reached regarding this property to cover the "what ifs", and now the "what ifs" are known. He recommended a C zoning to maintain the shops on the site. Party status holders JoEllen Farnham and Mary Reinhardt thanked the board for listening to residents. Party status holder Robert Tarcin said there is no local support for the removal of the shops on Sand Key. He questioned why there is little concern for the habitat of humans when there is so much support for wildlife. He said the residents of Sand Key pay a large percentage of Clearwater's property taxes and ask for very little in return. Mr. Foley thanked the board for their time. He said people today expressed their personal feelings and a lot of speculation was voiced. He reviewed the Code regarding the future land use plan and State requirements that the property be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said his client is entitled to reasonable use of his property. He said the COB's decision today is not binding. He felt T District zoning is the most appropriate zoning for this property. He said this is not a rezoning request, as the property currently has no zoning designation. Ms. Grimes reviewed the list of standards that governs the COB's decisions. Discussion ensued. It was remarked that consideration should be given to the criteria in CDC Section 4-602 F Standards for Review. It was felt that the application would unreasonably affect the use of the properties in the area; would burden public facilities as demonstrated by the fact that the traffic study is generic, that the majority of Sand Key is residential, that the T District is fine for the beach but not for this residential area, that it is the COB's responsibility to listen to residents, that it is difficult to control what is done on a site once a particular zoning is applied to a property, that residents have stated their desire for a neighborhood overlay district, that the property could be zoned T, C, and HDR and fit within the future land use plan, and that the time to act is before the need to. It was remarked that Island Estates' neighborhood overlay district did not address multifamily uses. Concern was expressed that redevelopment of the retail shops would change the character of the neighborhood, as they provide a convenience to the community, that residents have a problem with evacuation routes which would be further exacerbated with increased density, and that a C designation would allow a hotel on the Community Development 2008-02-19 16 property but would restrict its height. It was suggested the application be denied, that a C designation be applied, and that a neighborhood overlay district be considered for Sand Key. It was remarked that the property abuts a property zoned T, there is a hotel across the street from this property, that this is not a development application, and that the property needs to be zoned. It was remarked that the applicant should not be denied reasonable use of the property, that the request does not appear to be inconsistent with the future land use plan, that the major problem expressed by Sand Key residents is the loss of the retail shops, that T is the only zoning that could apply to this property, and that any future development proposals would be reviewed, at a minimum, by the DRC, and depending upon the project could require review and approval by the COB and the Council. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said a property must be zoned before a neighborhood overlay district can be applied. Member Dame moved to recommend denial of Case REZ2007 -10001, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today's hearing, and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: that the rezoning will change the character of the neighborhood, will increase density, and may further aggravate the already nonconforming state evacuation requirements, and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application does not comply with City Code Section 2-801 in that approving the Tourist District zoning will not provide perhaps a safe and attractive tourist destination for the existing community and does not conform to Section 4-602F.3, in that the amendment does conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, Member Dame stated if he were to propose a zoning designation for this property, it would be C. Ms. Grimes stated Code permits that the COB may include in their modifications or conditions to the proposed amendment. Member Dame stated after hearing Mr. Foley's testimony that his client would not accept a rezoning to C, he did not wish to change his motion to deny the application. Upon the vote being taken, Members Milam, Coates, and Dame voted "Aye"; Members Tallman, DiPolito, and Alternate Board Member Carlough voted "Nay". Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion failed. Ms. Grimes stated that any action taken by the board requires a concurring vote of four board members. As only three board members voted in favor of the motion, the result of the vote was a 3:3 tie. She said this matter will be held over until next month's meeting for a formal recommendation to the Council. Ms. Grimes stated that although Member Behar is absent today, he can review the tape of the meeting and related documentation prior to next month's meeting on March 18, 2008. In response to a question, Mr. Foley stated the applicant still requests a T zoning designation for the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported that there is no C zoning district listed in the Code as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan category, therefore any designation of the property as C would require a Code amendment. Community Development 2008-02-19 17 Upon Chair Fritsch's return to the dais, he thanked everyone for their attendance, and paused to allow the public the opportunity to leave the meeting. G. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1 - 3): 1. Level Three Application Case: LUZ2007-07005 -1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen-Booth Road Owner/Applicant: Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD. Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 North, #300, Clearwater, FL; phone: 727-726-8683). Location: 19.05 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 590 and McMullen-Booth Road. Atlas Page: 274A. Request: (a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Category to the Commercial General (CG) Category; and (b) Zoning Atlas amendment from the Industrial, Research, and Technology (IRT) District to the Commercial (C) District. Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services, Restaurants, Offices, Alcoholic Beverage Sales, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment and Vehicle Service. Type of Amendment: Large Scale. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Steven Everitt, Planner II. This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves property comprising approximately 19.05 acres in area located at the southwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590 (Northeast Coachman Road). This property has a FLUP classification of Industrial Limited (IL) and a zoning designation of Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP classification of the site to the Commercial General (CG) classification and to rezone the property to the Commercial (C) District. The amendments will make the FLUP and Zoning Atlas consistent with the historical use of the property. The property consists of a 164,995 square-foot shopping center, a 3,390 square-foot office (Bank of America), a 710 square-foot restaurant (Checkers), and a 6,105 square-foot vehicle service use (Tires Plus). The initial development of the shopping center occurred in 1989 at which time the property was zoned Industrial Planned Development (IPD) and had a future land use classification of Industrial. Pursuant to the zoning code in effect at the time of the development [ref.: Section 131.1 04(d)(3)], "commercial, office, and industrial planned districts would permit such uses in a manner so as to allow for improved arrangement of retail, professional and business office or industrial use, or combination thereof"; therefore, the mix of uses that currently exist on the subject property were permissible. Subsequent to the development of the shopping center, the zoning on the property was changed to Limited Industrial (IL), which allowed "indoor retail sales" as a permitted use [ref.: Section 40.503]. The office, restaurant and vehicle service uses also in existence were also permitted uses at this time. Community Development 2008-02-19 18 Upon the adoption of the CDC in 1999, all property that had been zoned IL was reclassified as IRT. This reclassification occurred regardless of what the actual existing use of the property was, or what the prior zoning district allowed as permitted uses. As a result of this rezoning, the existing retail sales and services use became a nonconforming use, and the provisions of CDC Section 6-103 governing nonconforming uses became applicable. At the January 15, 2008 COB meeting, the Board reviewed a request for Flexible Development approval for termination of status as a nonconformity for a retail sales and service use (shopping center) within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District pursuant to CDC Section 6-109 along with a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G. The Board approved this application on consent with two conditions, relating to landscaping and general engineering approval. The IL future land use designation permits a floor area ratio of 0.65 but no residential or overnight accommodation density. The proposed CG classification permits a floor area ratio of 0.55. It also permits 24 dwelling units and 40 overnight accommodations per acre. The current IRT zoning designation primarily permits industrial, office and manufacturing uses. The proposed C zoning designation primarily permits retail sales and services, offices, restaurants and overnight accommodations. The property is larger than the minimum required lot area and lot width for the existing uses in the C District. All existing uses are permitted in the C District except for Vehicle Service. The property currently has an Impervious Surface Ratio of 0.53, which is lower that the CG maximum of 0.90. The CG permits a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.55. The property has an existing FAR of 0.21. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required. Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below: 2.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. 2.2.1 Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible. 3.2.3 Policy - Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections. 7.4 Objective - The City shall specifically consider the existing and planned Level-of-Service on the road network affected by a proposed development, when considering an amendment to the land use map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval. Community Development 2008-02-19 19 The existing uses developed on the site are compatible with the surrounding area. Land uses within the surrounding area include attached dwellings, offices, restaurants, retail sales and services, animal boarding, and self storage. This property is located at the intersection of an arterial street and is 770 feet deep. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the proposed Commercial General classification category, as specified in Section 2.3.3.5.4 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a manner designed to provide community and countywide commercial goods and services; and to recognize such areas as primarily consistent with the need, relationship to adjoining uses and with the objective of encouraging a consolidated, concentrated commercial center providing for the full spectrum of commercial uses. The property is located at the southwest corner of the McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590 intersection. The Countywide Plan Map lists McMullen-Booth as a Primary Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor and this intersection is listed as on the Countywide Plan Map as a Mixed Use Classification. Section 4.2.7.1.2 of the Countywide Rules states: The intent and purpose of the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor designation is to guide the preservation and enhancement of scenic qualities, to ensure the integrity of the Countywide Plan Map and to maintain and enhance the traffic operation of these especially significant roadway corridors in Pinellas County. The principal objectives of Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor designations are: A. To preserve and enhance scenic qualities found along these corridors and to foster community awareness of the scenic nature of these corridors. B. To encourage superior community design and enhanced landscape treatment, both outside of and within the public right-of-way. C. To encourage land uses along these corridors which contribute to an integrated, well planned and visually pleasing development pattern, while discouraging the proliferation of commercial, office, industrial or intense residential development beyond areas specifically designated for such uses on the Countywide Plan Map. D. To assist in maintaining the traffic operation of roadways within these corridors through land use type and density/intensity controls, and by conformance to access management regulations, by selective transit route location, and by the development of integrated and safe pedestrian and bicycle access systems. E. To encourage design standards identified within the "Pinellas County Countywide Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Master Plan" through the adoption of local ordinances and regulations consistent with those standards set forth within the Master Plan. Section 4.2.7.1.4.B.2 of the Countywide Rules states: Community Development 2008-02-19 20 Mixed Use, Commercial, or Industrial Countywide Plan Map Classifications - With regard to Mixed Use, Commercial or Industrial Countywide Plan Map classifications: a. The extent to which the local government request discourages non-residential uses on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor. In particular, amendment to the Countywide Plan Map to allow a new or expanded Mixed Use, Commercial or Industrial category shall be discouraged, except where such amendment is: i. the logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an existing non-residential classification; and II. the logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an adjoining existing non-residential use; and III. considered in relationship to the existing delineation of surrounding categories on the Countywide Plan Map and Corridor Subclassification(s); and IV. consistent with the purpose and intent of the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Plan Element as applied through these Countywide Rules and the otherwise applicable amendment process. This criterion is not applicable since the FLUP amendment will not expand the area of the Mixed Use category. b. The extent to which the local government request minimizes any increase in density/intensity on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor. Specifically, in reviewing any application for non-residential use on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor, the proposed density/intensity of use as measured by dwelling units per acre, floor area ratio and impervious surface ratio, as is applicable, shall be considered with the objective of not exceeding the density/intensity of either the adjoining non-residential uses or the mid-point of the range for the density/intensity standards of the applicable category, whichever is less. This request will decrease the permitted FAR from 0.65 to 0.55. This request is consistent with the Countywide Rules in that it will decrease allowable intensities on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor. The FLUP classification to the west is Residential High (RH), which permits 30 dwelling units per acre. This classification's residential density exceeds the CG residential density or 24 units per acre. The site is located at the intersection of McMullen-Booth Road (County Road 611) and State Road 590 (Northeast Coachman Road). McMullen-Booth Road is a six lane major arterial with turn lanes. The City shares jurisdiction of the road with Safety Harbor. State Road 590 is a two-lane road that extends west from Safety Harbor to the Intracoastal Waterway. Due to the site's proximity to a major arterial and an east/west route, this area is well suited for the existing development, which serves a countywide market. The subject property is also located along a PST A route, which encourages the use of mass transit. It should be noted that the Updated Countywide Plan for Pinel/as County states in Position Statement 13.1: "Limit the conversion of parcels designated for manufacturing and high-tech businesses, e.g., Industrial General or Industrial Limited, to other designations." In 1989, the property had a future land use classification of Industrial. The property was developed consistent with the permitted uses within the IPD zoning district and Industrial future Community Development 2008-02-19 21 land use classification. The IPD district permitted retail and commercial uses. The City is of the opinion that this parcel was never intended for industrial or manufacturing use. Except for two small properties (limited vehicle services) located on the east side of McMullen-Booth approximately 200 feet north of the subject property and the property located to the south of the subject property, no other properties in Pinellas County along McMullen-Booth Road have an industrial future land use classification. The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan. Also, the plan amendment is consistent with the mixed use designation of the scenic non-commercial corridor and is not a prime area for industrial development. It is consistent with development patterns in this vicinity and along the McMullen-Booth Corridor. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of McMullen- Booth Road and State Road 590. This area is characterized by a variety of land uses. To the north across State Road 590, is a medical clinic complex with a FLUP classification of Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) and an Office (0) zoning designation. This classification permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre and an FAR of 0.40. The 0 designation primarily permits office and medical clinic uses. Also to the north is an animal boarding use. This property has a FLUP classification of Institutional (I) and a zoning designation of Institutional (I). The I FLUP classification permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 0.65. The I zoning designation primarily permits places of worship, schools, and residential equivalents (assisted living facilities, congregate care, etc.). Residential equivalents permit 3.0 beds per dwelling unit. A dry cleaner exists to the north of the property. Its property has a FLUP classification of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and a zoning designation of C. To the west is an attached dwelling use, Bayridge Apartments. In 2002, a FLUP amendment was approved from the IL to Residential High (RH). The property has a zoning designation of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). The RH classification permits 30 dwelling units per acre. The MHDR designation primarily permits attached dwelling uses. To the south are railroad tracks. South of the railroad tracks is a self storage use. The property has a FLUP classification of IL and a zoning designation of IRT. To the east, across McMullen-Booth Road, is Safety Harbor. The property has a Safety Harbor FLUP classification of CG and a zoning designation of C-1A. The C-1A zoning designation primarily permits retail sales and services, offices and restaurants. The lots adjacent to McMullen-Booth Road are developed as restaurants, retail sales and services and an automotive service station. The CG and C boundaries are appropriately located along McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590. This request will eliminate the nonconforming uses on the site except the vehicle service use. This request is compatible with the surrounding area and does not conflict with the needs and character of the area. Also, this request will not adversely or unreasonable affect the use of the property in the area. The proposed FLUP classification and zoning designation are in character with the overall FLUP categories in the area. The amendments are compatible with the CN, CG, R/OL and I FLUPs to the north and consistent with the CG classification to the east across McMullen- Booth Road. The corridor does have three other properties with IL classification but the uses, Community Development 2008-02-19 22 limited vehicle service and self storage, are commercial uses. These properties are not significant in size either. The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood. As stated earlier, the overall subject site is approximately 19.05 acres in area and is developed as a shopping center. Under the current FLUP category of IL, 539, 381 square-feet of industrial uses are permitted. Based on a maximum permitted development potential in the proposed CG category, 456,399 square-feet of shopping center could be potentially constructed on this site. The PPC Rules would also allow up to 457 dwelling units. However the proposed C zoning would only allow residential development as part of a mixed use development. Please note that by Countywide Rules, a mixed use development "Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the gross land area of the property." This Countywide Rule will not allow a site to be developed to the maximum of each density and intensity. Only a proportionate share, based on land area devoted to each use, of each density and intensity can be developed. The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of the proposed plan amendment is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC) traffic generation guidelines. The PPC's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories. Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition. The 2007 Transportation LOS manual from the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the McMullen-Booth Road facility from Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Main Street an LOS of 0 and the State Road 590 (NE Coachman Road) facility from US 19 North to McMullen-Booth Road an LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the expected traffic generated by the existing uses of the subject property, maximum manufacturing use and the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed C District and CG FLUP. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a shopping center developed at the absolute maximum intensity, 456,399 square-feet, in the C District would result in an increase in the PM Peak trips to McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590 by 1,054 vehicle trips. The Engineering Department has concluded that the traffic generation associated with the most intense use (456,399 square-foot shopping center) may increase the existing PM peak hour trips on McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590. In such a case, the Engineering Department would require the applicant to submit to the City a Traffic Impact Analysis because the expected trip volumes from the shopping center exceeds the City's threshold of 100 vehicles per hour and/or 1,000 vehicles per day. At this time, staff cannot determine the specific impacts to the LOS of both facility segments if the site were to be redeveloped to the maximum. A Traffic Impact Analysis would be required to determine the impacts to each facility segment. Should the Traffic Impact Analysis indicate that mitigation measures are necessary, appropriate action would be taken by the City to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not permit roadways to operate below an LOS of 0 at the PM peak hour. In the event that the site is ever redeveloped, transportation concurrency must be met and the LOS of 0 must be maintained. Community Development 2008-02-19 23 The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as overnight accommodations only, the PM Peak trips could decrease 6.14% from the existing 6,303 vehicle trips per hour to 5,916 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen, the LOS for both McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590 are unlikely to change. The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as office park only, the PM Peak trips could increase 0.44% from the existing 6,303 vehicle trips per hour to 6,331 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen, the LOS for both McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590 are unlikely to change. The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is located directly on the mass transit route along McMullen-Booth Road. The City has sufficient permitted volume to provide potable water to the property. This verification, completed by the City's Engineering Department, is based upon review of permitted capacities and current usage of water. Any required infrastructure modifications in the vicinity of the subject property to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements shall be completed at the property owner's expense. Review will be completed during the site plan approval process. These amendments will not negatively impact the City's current LOS for water since there is excess capacity. The City has sufficient permitted volume to provide wastewater service to the property. This verification, completed by the City's Engineering Department, is based upon review of permitted capacities and current treatment of water. Any required infrastructure modifications in the vicinity of the subject property to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements shall be completed at the property owner's expense. Review will be completed during the site plan approval process. These amendments will not negatively impact the City's current LOS for wastewater since there is excess capacity. The proposed FLUP amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for solid waste disposal. Due to the fact that the site is developed, the payment of Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees will not be required at this time. Should the site be redeveloped, the fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the adjacent roads beyond the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Further, there will be no impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service since the maximum FAR permitted under CG is less than the maximum FAR under the IL designation. Open space and recreation facilities and mass transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan category. No wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. This property is developed as a shopping center and has trees located in landscape islands and perimeter buffers. Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. The intent of the new buyer is to legalize a non-conforming use primarily for financing purposes. Community Development 2008-02-19 24 The site is currently developed. Any redevelopment would require compliance with the City's tree preservation and storm water management requirements. The location of the proposed Commercial District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of the subject property, which is generally rectangular. The proposed Commercial District is compatible with the surrounding mixture of uses. The location of the proposed C District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into the appropriate zoning district. The C zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent 0, C, I, MHDR, IRT and C-1A (Safety Harbor) zoning districts located to the immediate north, south, east and west. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. An amendment of the FLUP from the IL classification to the CG classification for the subject site and rezoning from the IRT to the C District is requested. The proposed site is developed as a 175,200 square-foot shopping center. The request permits the existing uses, except vehicle service, to be conforming. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and width requirements for retail sales and services, restaurants, offices, alcoholic beverage sales and indoor recreation/entertainment. A mix of nonresidential and residential uses characterizes the surrounding area. The proposed future land use plan amendment is compatible with the existing area. While recognizing that the Updated Countywide Plan for Pinel/as County calls for limiting the conversion of parcels designated for manufacturing and high-tech businesses, the proposed CG FLUP more closely represents the actual and historical use of the parcel, and therefore, meets the intent of the policy. Additionally, there is no pattern of IL along the Scenic Commercial Corridor. In all other ways, the proposed CG FLUP classification is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, Countywide Rules pertaining to Scenic/NonCommercial Corridors, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not degrade public services below acceptable levels, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited Classification to Commercial General Classification and rezoning request from the Industrial, Research and Technology designation to the Commercial designation. See motion to recommend approval on page 33. 2. Item pul/ed from Consent Agenda Level Three Application Case: CPA2007-06004 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of C/ealWater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater as adopted on May 18, 2000 and amended on July 12, 2001, October 7, 2004, October 20, 2005, Community Development 2008-02-19 25 December 15, 2005, and August 14, 2007 by amending the Coastal Management Element: amending the definition of coastal high hazard area; providing a definition of coastal storm area; providing a method for handling parcels where a portion of the parcel is located within the coastal storm area; prohibiting the location of new, or expansion of existing hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities within the coastal storm area and the area inundated by a category 3 hurricane as depicted by the SLOSH model; providing for cooperation with Pinellas County Emergency Management toward reducing the out-of- county hurricane evacuation clearance time; adopting a LOS standard for out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time for a category 5 storm event; renumbering some objectives and policies. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Catherine W. Porter, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager. Member Coates moved to accept Catherine Porter as an expert witness in the fields of redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, economic development, zoning, historic preservation, and general planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. HB1359 (Chapter 2006 -68, Laws of Florida) made a number of changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and to 9J-5.012 F.A.C. regarding the required Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The law requires a change in the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area as well as adoption of a LOS for evacuation clearance times for a Category 5 storm event. These changes must be adopted by July 1, 2008. In addition to these requirements, the Planning Department is also recommending the adoption of a "Coastal Storm Area" (CSA). This recommendation is based upon objectives and policies developed in consultation with the Citizen's Advisory Committee, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Commission, Pinellas County and Pinellas Planning Council. The Planning Department is also recommending language recommended by Emergency Management regarding siting of hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The proposed amendments were presented to the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) on February 6, 2008. CAC meeting notes are attached. A total of five amendments are proposed to the text of the C/ealWater Comprehensive Plan in Ordinance 7917-08. This text amendment is considered a large scale plan amendment and requires review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. A summary of each amendment is listed below. 1. Amendment 1 - Amend Objective 22.2 of Goal 22 This amendment ensures compliance with HB 1359 by amending the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area to "The Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model to be inundated from a category one hurricane, as reflected in the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas." In addition, the Planning Department is also recommending the adoption of a "Coastal Storm Area" (CSA). This recommendation is based upon consultation with Tampa Bay Regional Planning Commission (TBRPC), Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Pinellas County Planning Department. Due to the unique circumstances existing in the coastal areas of Pinellas County, the term "Coastal Storm Area" is important because it makes evacuation from the Coastal High Hazard Area possible. The Coastal Storm Area includes, in addition to the CHHA, those areas that are not in the CHHA, but can only be reached or evacuated by going through a CHHA, as well Community Development 2008-02-19 26 as areas where high concentrations of development and population are not appropriate due to safety concerns. The Coastal Storm Area is a larger area than the CHHA, but to be concurrent with the County Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Countywide Rules and for safety concerns the "Coastal Storm Area" terminology is recommended. 2. Amendment 2 - Add new Policy 22.2.1 of Goal 22 This addition provides guidance as to how land development would be handled on parcels of land that are split by the coastal storm area boundary. This policy is comparable to the approach taken by Pinellas County Emergency Management in identifying hurricane evacuation levels and is concurrent with language found in the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. It also takes into consideration the unique bluff area. Along the bluffs there are a number of parcels, that although more than 20% of a parcel may be in the coastal storm area, the property quickly rises so that the remainder of the parcel is not impacted by storm surge from any hurricane regardless of its magnitude. While only a few parcels are affected, it makes sense to not include the portion of a parcel on the top of the bluff in the coastal storm area if it would not be inundated by storm surge under any storm scenario. 3. Amendment 3 - Amend Policy 22.2.1 and remove Policy 22.2.2 This amendment renumbers former 22.2.1 to 22.2.2 due to the addition of a new policy 22.2.1 above. It also changes FEMA to the correct acronym. Former 22.2.2 is deleted because it is no longer necessary because of the new definition included in Objective 22.2 above. 4. Amendment 4 - Add Policy 22.2.6 This amendment prohibits the location of new, or expansion of existing hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities within the coastal storm area and the area inundated by a category 3 hurricane as depicted by the SLOSH model, as reflected in the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas. The policy direction of this amendment is consistent with the evacuation and emergency management planning direction of Pinellas County, is concurrent with language in the County Comprehensive Plan, and is recommended by Clearwater Emergency Management Director, Robert Dube. 5. Amendment 5 - Add Policies 24.3.8 and 24.3.9 Policy 24.3.8 states that the City shall cooperate with Pinellas County Emergency Management toward reducing the out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time of 55 hours, recognizes the best available data regarding evacuation clearance times, and notes that evacuation times as provided in the Regional Study findings are not an acceptable level of service. Policy 24.3.9 adopts a LOS for evacuation in order to implement HB 1359. It is felt by emergency management staff that 36 hours represents a point at which a confident warning could be issued by the National Hurricane Center and a reasonable public response could be expected. It is not anticipated that any evacuation orders would be issued earlier than 36 hours due to the uncertainty of predicting accurate tracks of hurricanes at timeframes exceeding 36 hours. This policy recognizes the City and County commitment to improving the standard of service. This LOS standard has been recommended by emergency management officials at the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Pinellas County, and Community Development 2008-02-19 27 the City of Clearwater. It is critical that an LOS be established because HB 1359 has a "default" clause that stipulates clearance time of 12 hours unless another LOS is adopted. A 12-hour LOS is impossible in Pinellas County, so emergency management officials have recommended 36 hours. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Qoals, policies and obiectives contained in the plan. The proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan further refine the City's existing policies and objectives. The proposed amendments are consistent with the existing goals, policies and objectives contained in the plan and actually expand the city's long range planning policies related to the maintenance and preservation of coastal areas in the City in general. 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and expand the City's ability to maintain and protect coastal areas. 3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in questions and compatible with existinQ and planned uses in the area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed amendments seek to preserve, maintain and enhance the natural environment by providing good coastal management policies. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. The proposed amendments to the C/ealWater Comprehensive Plan make the plan compliant with state statutes. These amendments also consider safety issues and make Clearwater Emergency Management policies more consistent with the direction taken by Pinellas County Emergency Management. The Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7917-08 that amends the C/ealWater Comprehensive Plan. Community Development 2008-02-19 28 In response to a concern that the City cannot meet the 36-hour LOS for hurricane evacuation clearance times, Ms. Porter said Pinellas County emergency management officials' recommendation is a goal. If the City does not adopt the 36-hour LOS, it will be regulated by the default clearance time of 12 hours. She said the City prefers not to specify a length of time to have programs in place to achieve the goal, as the County, as the emergency management authority, is working with the State to develop programs to achieve the evacuation clearance goal. Discussion ensued and it was felt that a target date to implement programs that will achieve the LOS goal is needed. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2007-06004, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff report, and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with the condition that a specific time to implement the 36-hour LOS is identified prior to implementation of this amendment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Level Three Application Case: CPA2007-06002 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of C/ealWater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City as adopted on May 18, 2000 and amended on July 12, 2001, October 7, 2004, October 20, 2005, December 15,2005, and August 14,2007 by amending the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements, making substantial changes to these elements and creating a new Public School Facilities Element of the C/ealWater Comprehensive Plan, as agreed upon by the Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County, the cities of Clearwater, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Madeira Beach, Oldsmar, Pinellas Park, Safety Harbor, Seminole, St. Petersburg, St. Pete Beach and Tarpon Springs and the School Board of Pinellas County, in accordance with Florida Statutes. Type of Amendment: Separate submittal to State DCA (State Deadline for Adoption: March 1, 2008) - exempt from large-scale submittal process. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Joe Evich, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Sandra E. Herman, Planner III This case was heard by the COB on September 18, 2007 and was subsequently approved at first reading by the City Council on October 17, 2007. It is back before the COB now to review a few changes to the ordinance as required by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prior to the scheduled adoption by the City Council on February 21, 2008. Following adoption by the City Council, Planning Staff will submit the adopted document to DCA by the March 1, 2008 state deadline. The ordinance involves the state-mandated new Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) for the Comprehensive Plan and related other changes to the Future Land Use Element, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element and the Capital Improvements Element. Also, in accordance with state law, the new PSFE and related changes to the other elements (listed above) are consistent with the Pinellas County Model Element as per the interlocal agreement between Pinellas County School District, Pinellas County government and twelve local municipalities including the City of Clearwater. The total of six amendments are proposed to the text of the C/ealWater Comprehensive Plan in Ordinance 7870-07. These text amendments are exempt from the two times a year Community Development 2008-02-19 29 large scale plan amendment process, although they are still required to be reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Below is a summary of each amendment as provided before along with revisions as per DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report sent on December 28, 2007 (please refer to attached Summary Sheet of DCA's ORC Report). 6. Amendment 1 - FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLlCIES- Amend Objective 3.1 and Policy 3.1.3 of Goal 3 of the Plan on Page A-8 (see page 1 of Exhibit A): Eliminated is the word "schools" from Objective 3.1 and all of Policy 3.1.3 regarding public school sites, both are being placed within the new Public School Facilities Element as new Objective 33.1, Policies 33.1.1 through 33.1.4. No changes were recommended by DCA to Amendment 1 as proposed. 7. Amendment 2 - FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (see pages 1-5 of Exhibit A): Eliminated are Goal 6, associated objectives and policies related to school sites and facilities for compatibility with the city's comprehensive plan. They will be placed within the new Public School Facilities Element as new Goal 34, Objective 34.1 and Policies 34.1.1 through 34.1.11. No changes were recommended by DCA to Amendment 2 as proposed. 8. Amendment 3 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (see pages 5-7 of Exhibit A): Eliminate the reference to "the school board" in Objective 28.1 and eliminate Policies 28.1.1 and 28.1.2 renumbering Policies 28.1.3 through 28.1.8; add new Objective 28.2 and related policies 28.2.1 through 28.2.8; for the City to continue to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan with plans of the School Board and other local governments through joint planning processes and procedures, and recognizing State legislation and funding for continued preservation of South Ward School, a National Register Historic Building. The City's Comprehensive Plan Policy 28.2.7 has been revised to include language that adopts by reference the current Public Schools Interlocal Agreement of April 24, 2007 (and the last page of this Interlocal Agreement that includes the date is now included in the data and analysis). 9. Amendment 4 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (see pages 7-8 of Exhibit A): Amend Objective 31.2 by the elimination of the words "school siting" and eliminate Policies 31.2.3 through 31.2.7 pertaining to school siting in this objective. See #3 above for new Objective 28.2 with related Policies 28.2.1 through 28.2.8. No changes were recommended by DCA to Amendment 4 as proposed. Community Development 2008-02-19 30 10. Amendment 5 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (see pages 9-10 of Exhibit A): Add new Objective 32.7 and related Policies 32.7.1 through 32.7.6 for ensuring that the City in coordination with the School District will ensure that the capacity of public schools is sufficient to support the anticipated students from residential site plans and final residential subdivision approvals consistent with the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools. Revisions as per DCA's ORC Report: The City's proposed ordinance Exhibit A (Policy 32.7.6) has been updated to include the September 11, 2007 date of the adopted School District's Five-Year Work Program (2007- 2012). (Data and analysis has been updated to incorporate the entire October 2007 version of the Five-Year School District Facilities Work Plan including the Five-Year Work Program Summary). The City is amending current comprehensive plan Policy 32.3.1 to add "public school facilities" to the essential public facilities list and adding sub-policy 4 to policy 32.3.3 for concurrency requirements being met for public school facilities in accordance with the interlocal agreement pursuant to state statutes. 11. Amendment 6 - PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (see pages 9-21 of Exhibit A): Add an introduction, a Public School Facilities Needs Summary, Goals 33-36, and associated objectives and policies for the new Public School Facilities Element addressed in the Public Schools Interlocal Agreement that was entered into between the Pinellas County School Board, the City of Clearwater and eleven other municipalities, and Pinellas County Government in 2007: . Forming the basis for implementing school concurrency, . Establishing jointly the specific ways in which the plans and processes of the district school board are to be coordinated, . Acknowledging the School Board's constitutional and statutory obligations to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a countywide basis, and the land use authority of local governments, including their authority to approve or deny comprehensive plan amendments and development orders, . Providing mutually agreed upon definitions and procedures, and . Establishing a uniform public school facilities element and land development regulations in each local government to assist the Parties in assuring that sufficient capacity is available for new and existing students in school facilities. Revisions as per DCA's ORC Report: The City's proposed ordinance to be adopted has been updated with new policy 33.3.2 to include Map Figures 1, 2, 3 and 12 from the Pinellas County's (Model) Element. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy 34.1.1 has been revised to include language that adopts by reference the current Public Schools Interlocal Agreement of April Community Development 2008-02-19 31 24,2007. (The last page of the Interlocal Agreement with the April 24, 2007 date has been included in the data and analysis for the Pinellas County (model) Element). Originally proposed new Policy 33.2.4 that had stated that the adoption of the concurrency management system would be achieved within 6 months has been deleted and Policies 33.2.5 through 33.2.19 have been renumbered accordingly. This is consistent with the change made to Pinellas County's (model) element as recommended by Pinellas County Planning from their conversations with DCA. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 7. The amendment will further implementation of the comprehensive plan consistent with the Qoals, policies and obiectives contained in the plan. The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements and the addition of a new Public School Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan further refine the City's existing policies and objectives related to public school facilities. The proposed amendments are consistent with the existing goals, policies and objectives contained in the Plan and actually expand the city's long range planning policies related to the provisions for school facilities. 8. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. They broaden the City's approach to providing continued coordination with the School Board, Pinellas County Government and eleven other local governments on setting the processes and procedures for school concurrency, siting and other comprehensive plan issues related to schools in Pinellas County. 9. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existinQ and planned uses in the area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 10. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 11. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. 12. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a specific property. Community Development 2008-02-19 32 The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan recognize the importance of the amendments to the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements and the new Public School Facilities Element in the effort of consistency for the continued cooperation and coordination with the Pinellas School Board, Pinellas County Government and other local governments included in the interlocal agreement pertaining to school concurrency, siting, processes and procedures. The Planning Department Staff recommend approval of Ordinance 7870-07 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Cases LUZ2007 -07005 and CPA2007-06002 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Reports. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Items not on the Agenda The Chair reported that this is Member Milam's last meeting. Board members thanked for her service. The Chair reported that a Vice-Chair will be elected at the next meeting. The Chair reported that staff is working on criteria regarding the procedure for continuing cases. The Chair thanked everyone for how they conducted themselves during today's proceedings. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. ard ~: '/)1 d S1~ Board RepoRer Community Development 2008-02-19 33 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NA E-;-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE N ~E AME OF BOARD, COUNlfL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE.v. . r Sck IchoLRS } (H ({) " lO(I"lfI'1tl(I1t), Dfl/.,?! {l ~IV,!f U{1,lt'l. MAILING ADDRESS 11 THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AU ORITY OR COMMITTEE ON '3 10 t:f (,tIt Ivd.. tJ..6 - D ICHI SERVE ISAUNITOF: CITY COUNTY CITY [J COUNTY [J OTHER LOCAL AGENCY fW~( 331&1 'i)'l1€JU(; NAMEOf ;~~u.~~IVIS ~ DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: F e b , {C1 d"O 0 8 [J ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person seNing at the county, city, or other local level of government on a'n appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . . . . APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, N ; cJ.1 [) ~ ~ f!., · F r ; t:6ck.- ,hereby disclose that on Feb, J4 ,20 06: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , by , which ra'41/ \~le\ -J- 1~8\ G-ul.t Blvd. J ~s ~ ~ -f.o (" re.."U>~. --r-lL r~ :c.. '* V\"-' ~ .J- r.fl~ ~~ J.-v~ cct ~"",lb 'BW#- ~ (3 - D J ~otv l:~ ~~I '4l Yz- b..loc.k.- ~ r~ ~k>(f-Ct-' r'~-' V- ~L ~~ 0.- L~f2.G:~Q&... of 0- -hrVLtt.ua--l ~ ~r loeSS a.-~ Cl. ..e~ 1r ~ \J ~ . /J/ ~1tM ~ [2 .~ 'Re:z. 2.vo-=1 - \ 000 \ ()W~ \~\O D (e,'o. 1'1 I , d-OoB Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 \ , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1. Case: REZ2007-10001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application (Continu~d from the meetings of December 18, 2007 and January 15, 2008) ~es no B. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Items1): 1. Case: LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 M~Booth Road Yes no C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS (Items 1-2): 1. Case: APP2007-00005 -755 Eldorado Avenue r~o Yes 2. Case: APP2008-000~ - 1343 Cleveland Street Yes ~ no _.~ Signatu<e'.~.~ Date: J-,J; c./.> i- r:lZA:ri/L 1-- c .]JA-fl-r 'f~ , PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1. Case: REZ2007-10001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application (Continued/rom the meetings 0/ December 18,2007 and January 15,2008) ~ no B. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Items1): 1. Case: LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth Road ~ no C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS (Items 1-2): 1~P2007-00005 - 755 Eldorado Avenue Yes no 2. ~2008-00002 - 1343 Cleveland Street Yes no Signature: ."..--;- Date: z,,/ /7( 08 ( Cr.'(!M~ PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 19,2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1. Case: REZ2007-10001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application (Continue from the meetings of December 18, 2007 and January 15, 2008) no B. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Itemsl): 1. Case: LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth Road Yes ~no C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS (Items 1-2): 1. Case: APP2007-00005 -755 Eldorado Avenue ~o Yes 2. Case: APP2008-00002 - 1343 Cleveland Street -Lno Yes Signature: /2?g~ cd1(~ Date: d./ri(or' tJ/e:L"o (~ ~;1.+5cC PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc