Loading...
DUFF, ANDREW R. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA IN RE: ANDREW R. DUFF, TRUSTEE, APPLICANT: REZ2007-10001/0RDINANCE NO. 7909-08, 1241,1261, AND 1281 GULF BOULEVARD ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS CAUSE came on to be heard at the March 20, 2008 Clearwater City Council Meeting on Case No. REZ2007-10001/0rdinance No. 7909-08, amending the zoning atlas of the City by rezoning certain property located at 1241, 1261, and 1281 Gulf Boulevard, consisting of Lot 1, Subdivision of Radisson Bayside Hotel, from Business (B) to Tourist (T). The matter was properly noticed and advertised pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-206. The City Attorney reported Councilmember Cretekos does not have a conflict of interest based on his residence on Sand Key. Mayor Hibbard stated that he had spoken in generalities to people regarding the item but he did not participate in any ex parte conversations. The City Council conducted its review using the procedure specified in Community Development Code Section 4-602E. and the standards for review set forth in Section 4-602F. The Staff Report was presented by Planner II Steven 1. Everitt. Planning Director Michael L. Delk also addressed the City Council. The Record of the quasi-judicial hearing held before the City's Community Development Board and recommendation of the Board issued pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-6020. was received by the City Council and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council heard comment and argument from the representative of the applicant and from the public. Twenty-five members of the public spoke in opposition to the application, and none spoke in favor. After hearing and considering the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Findinas of Fact 1. This Zoning Atlas amendment application involves one property of approximately 2.94 acres in an area located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard, approximately 2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge as well as the adjacent right-of-way of 0.75 acre. The subject property, known as the Shoppes on Sand Key, has a FLUP (Future Land Use Plan) classification of Resort Facilities High (RFH) and a zoning designation of Business (B). 2. The City dissolved the B District in 1972. The B designation on the subject property was the result of a settlement stipulation entered into in Cheezem Investment Proqram I. Ltd. V. City of Clearwater, Case No. 83-14905- 7, dated October 17, 1986 and expiring on October 17, 2006. In effect, there is no zoning on the property and the applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Atlas from the B designation to the Tourist (T) designation. The RFH FLUP classification currently lists T, High Density Residential (HDR), and Commercial (C) as consistent; however, as currently written, Article 2 of the Community Development Code only provides for T as being consistent. 3. Community Development Code Section 4-602, Zoning Atlas Amendments, provides as follows: 2 A. Purpose and applicability. It is the purpose of this section to establish a procedure for amending the Zoning Atlas of the city in accordance with Florida Statutes. B. Application/initiation requirements. An application for an amendment of the Zoning Atlas of the city may be initiated by the city commission, the community development coordinator, the community development board and by any person in conjunction with an application for development approval. Proposed Zoning Atlas amendment applications shall include such information as is applicable in Section 4-202(A) and the fee required by Section 4-202(E). C. Staff review and recommendation. After the community development coordinator has reviewed the application with the development r3eview committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-202(C) and (0), he shall send a written report and recommendation to the community development board, with a copy to the applicant, if any, setting forth whether the application should be approved, approved with conditions or denied and the grounds for such recommendation. O. Community development board review/recommendation. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the community development coordinator, the community development board shall conduct a public hearing on the application in accordance with the requirements of Section 4-206 and issue a recommended order to the city commission setting forth the board's findings in regard to whether the proposed amendment will satisfy the standards set forth in Section 4-602(F) and may include any proposed modifications or conditions to the proposed amendment. E. City commission review/decision. Upon receipt of the recommended order of the community development board, the city commission shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206 and shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the amendment. Upon adoption of an ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, the Zoning Atlas shall be deemed amended as of the effective date of the ordinance. The community development coordinator shall revise and may republish from time to time the Zoning Atlas or portions thereof as amended, but a failure to revise or republish shall not affect the validity of any ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas. 3 F. Standards for review. No amendment to the Zoning Atlas shall be approved unless the city commission finds that such amendment complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan and furthers the purposes of this Development Code and other city ordinances and actions designed to implement the plan. 2. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property which is subject to the proposed amendment and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. 3. The amendment does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the city. 4. The amendment will not adversely or unreasonably affect the use of other property in the area. 5. The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic-carrying capacities of streets, in an unreasonably or disproportionate manner. 6. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn with due regard to locations and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. 4. The COB reviewed this application at its meeting on February 19, 2008. Several members of the public and homeowners' associations requested and received party status before the Board and opposed the application. Twenty-one persons spoke in opposition to the application, including two persons who recited qualifications in the planning area. The Board closed the public hearing on the case. A motion was made by the Board to recommend denial of the application based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, but no action occurred due to a three-to-three [tie] vote. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2. of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the case was automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting for a decision. The Board considered another motion 4 at its March 18, 2008, meeting and recommended to deny the request by a vote of four to two. 5. Substantial competent evidence presented to the Community Development Board demonstrated that the proposed rezoning to the requested Tourist (T) Zoning District would conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City. The application therefore does not comply with the standard set forth in Community Development Code Section 4-602F.3. Conclusion Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-602F., no zoning atlas amendment shall be approved unless the City Council finds that the amendment complies with each and every standard 1. through 6. Because based upon the above Findings of Fact the application fails to comply with each and every standard, and in particular does not comply with the standard set forth in Section 4-602F.3., the City Council hereby determines that the application in Case Number REZ2007-1 0001, and the requested Zoning Atlas amendment, is DENIED. ~~J/.~ Frank V. Hibbard Mayor 5