06/19/2001 (2)
, ,
"
; ~ ..... I ..:: . :- . '" ~ ~ ........,..", ~ I .: ~ .; .' :"', " - ~ I. . ' t'.. I .:~".".' .' .' ': : . . ',I '. ~ . '. ,:.... J ..... '. ' .' .' ~. :'.. I.':', . '.' ." . ~ t,~ I.', ':" ...:': .'
~ "
; :
. ..
'. ,
".J
., ,
. .f.
. \~.: >
, .'
. '.. ~
;i' ..... "
~~d~l~fi~ ;';'~:'I;'{i~,"'''''::~''
I..... '.
\ ~
I:' ~:.
\
;",~
.... ,'., ...:,;h .
! .
.~ .:'
; ~. !"
',.f,
o ~.
,"" .
,"
,..
'J',
I,
~,. .'
"
>. "
:"""
: :~. '>~',
~Y/:;
it:,,:~,',
!\1;;;:,: ,. ,': .", .... ',;
;';J;' :'
t{\\~,
..,.~L)
~~/ ~ '
....
rz..~
\~:..
: I.
i
ii)",:>.
,
"
" ,
',.
"I. ':
,'i. .
:<l:<..i
'.{,
It'
i...' .
~ ~ ~ ' .
'\ ,.,
< ~... ,
'. ,
;l "
~ ",
....:.
~r.' .
, ,
.,
"
.\~ .j ':
,.
.~~~' :..
'~'.,::. ;"
'"
.!!;
~I: ~ .
"'I'
. "
. '.t
'.,
"
:,
['
\.. ~ .
':::, ','
..'
~ '>-1-'~ .
{ ,:: : : ~'. :
" ",' . . ,',
.,: :::J'I
~;~::: r . ,,' :, .
, .
'"
~ ~:'
:'
"-.~+ \ L .
I
~I: :" ~t :
: ''v':
:'.,.
F ~ . . .
.' . . L' . ,~
/~~',:~~'~: .:~. ,~~:.\ ~.
. ~ I l. .
~ '. .
"
",
"
.'
,~ .
, .,
'I
"
, ,
. j ~
'.' . 'i,'.! ,1 ::It.. C
. ~8 .
. ~." . . "".
. 0.. ,_
.'.\:
I..
,(1.
I;
\1.:
, '
.'
CD'S
,:
, ,
,,'
'. . .
. .
Gomrrtunity Development B'oard Meeting.
:~ .' , . . 'NIINUTES .' . ,
! .
.',
, '
, .
,
Ob!,/q Lo't
Date
~ :
:,
'I I"
"
.'
"
;'
"
'j
'\.
" ,
, .
"
'.'.
"
I,
, ' ~ .J-
. ~ .
:'
.' '
"," .i
.\:
. r I'
, .
.. "
{.,..
, .
"
:i
I'
:'
','
.,
"
"
;}
\'.
~. , .
t..
.' J'. i.. ~. ~ ' .. ..0. .
I
,
,
I
I
j
I
..j
'j
j
I
"
.,"
0J/
'. .
. ,
, '.
~r~; ~:,~~' ::.:
;1
:'
, ' .
.
,;, "
1""")
! '
\'tr...
. .,
:;J.,
"', ...
rt f
','
:' ",'
','
. .',~ 1, :. +.;:. ' .
.' \ '.
",
I "
< ;1
t . ~".
'I. . ,"
ACTION AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF' CLEARWATER
June 19, 2001.
.. ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERA TION - None.
, ,
ITEM B - RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None.
ITEM C - lEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda items require no formal public hearing and are subject to
approval by a single motion. Any Community Development Board Member or the
City Planner may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual discussion
and vote.
Item #C1 . 1634 Gentrv Street: Kathleen Farinella - Owner/ADolicant. Request
annexation of 0.17 acres to the City , and Land Use Plan Amendment to RL,
Residential Low Classification (Clearwater), and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium
Density Residential District (Clearwater), consisting of Lot 3, Block 21, Highland
Pines Subdivision, Fourth Addition. ANX 01-04-09
AND
Item #C2 - 3035 VirQinia Avenue: Tavlor G. Binaham III - Owner/Apolicant.
Request annexation of 0.15 acres to the City together with 0.19 acres of the
abutting right-of-way of Bay Street arid abu'tting the alley to the south, and Land
Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential Urban Classification (Clearwater); and
rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater), consisting
of Lot 5, Block 2, Bay View City Subdivision. ANX 01-04-10
AND
Item #C3 - 2454 Ravmont Drive: Kenneth Barker - Owner/Applicant. Request'
annexation of 0.22 acres to the City and Land Use Plan amendment to RL,
Residential Low Classification (Clearwater); and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium
Density Residential District (Clearwater), consisting of Lot 95, Skyline Groves. ANX
01-04-11
AND
Item #01 - 1802 N. Belcher Road: Fountains Bavwav. Inc, - Owner/ADDUcant.
Request Flexible Development approval to reduce the minimum lot width from 200
feet 10 103 feet, reduce the north side setback from'1 5 feet to three feet, reduce the
south side setback from 15 to five feet, and to permit general office use in the IRT
District, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redev'elopment Project. Applicable
Bcdoeo 1
1
0'6/19/01
'"
, ,.
. . I .<<J."' .~.\ . . "i 0 I ~. '". r . ~.
. <, '. ~ .:~ .," ,., , T
. ,
. " ..' I ~ . '. ". , , . ~ ~:
, ,
. . ,
II c;-' ":'1' ., .
1: ." :::c....... . .
;~. : >~<, '..' !.:. <
(~.:~.::I,:::,: .'
:i'.~ "
~~C \ .
; , ....
!.,~.
, .
\: ",
. , .
I q.
f~~
....~,.fI
"
"
, '
, ' ;;;J"'/
l (' '. ,f, .
.. ~ .
.' .
..' <,.'
':., <",
~ ,': : " I
<~i .:c' '. I
;ftJ::'~~.\1~" 1 ~::~ ~,' fL, Ll
,... .
c ~ ' : .' ~:: .:., l
'.. E
,.. ,/ \ .
" ,Il
. ,
conditions: 1 ) Stormwater management requirements be met to the satisfaction of
" .
. . Engineering Staff, prior to the Issuance of a building permit and revised plans .be
submitted to Planning Staff: 2) a five-foot sidewalk be provided in the right-of-way
along Belcher' Road 'or the sidewalk be installed on the subject property and the
property owner grant an easement to the City: 3) all slgnage meot Code: and 4). the
building be designed consistent with the elevation plans submitted to staff ldated
, ,
April 20, 2001) or as modified by the Community Development Board. FL 01-04-17
ACTION:' APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED - 7:0,
ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERA TION - None,
ITF.M B - RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None.
ITEM C - LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS
Item #C1.- 1634 Gentrv Street -.See page 1.
Item #C2 - 3035 Virqinia Avenue - See page 1.
Item #C3 - 2454 Ravmont Drive - See page 1.
ITEM 0 - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
Item #01 - 1802 N. Belcher Road - See pages 1 and 2.
Item #02 - 1430 and 1432 Rooers Street and 1433 Court Street: McDowell .
Holdinas, Inc. - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit
. a non-residential, off-street, parking facility in the LMDR, Low Mediuf)l Density.
Residential District. FL 01-02-09
ACTION:'
DENIED - 7:0
. ,
. ITEM E - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: . May 15, 2001
ACTION:
APPROVED - 7:0
ITF.M F - DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
Discussion of Code amendment reaarding boats docks and newsracks
ACTION:
UPDATE GIVEN.
Ucdate on Frenchv's Acoeal
ACTION:
, The' Hearing Officer approved the appeal of the COB's denial.
. Bed0601 "
06/19/01.
2
:,
.: c
c':" I .
: Of.' ~'
~'~'.~~ ,I, ,',
.:.'
, ,
"
, P~:" . I,'
. ~',
,~ .'
"
.".
'.. .:....
. " ~ . ~
,:l
'.,
,"':.'
, .
"
...
.E[I.'
, ,
,~' ,
\
., ,
I, ,t:'
"'.'\'
..'
, i :' ". ,~,
'I'
" '~
. (:, "
,~.>:., .'\~~:~ ~ :'~( .,. ~,,~.~ ..,L'
';~;;:',,:,: \';f~i:() ::',,~}~:;""':':I\:~;!\:~i:i:::",j::;~',".r,;'~:',;~>:':, ~;' , :: :,; ".,.'" .' -r "','
~'l.;V:'>"1;'1"'-'/~\~-~\\'~~.(L:',;'~1::I~'~~~':!""rr~~.i(l.1 ~;tli'1/!Nt1~ ~.;'~,:'>',t..~,t:!, ',' ....: ~ ' ,
l~..\'i~l ~tt t"lftm~tf}~ tJ.,~~~"'c':'';': J:'H:r ./"'.V+-1 \f\~i;:(i,l!l;./'"J. \J;.; .~.' '> '. '..:
;...ti"""VJ"~~ l.~.~, "tt~~~:~J.~ '"1'"1 ('nl . II (It b~:..."}' ~-f;', ~ ...... ,. "' \ .,',\ ," ". I . ,
't)I(.AJJ(.-'In-;.;;v:..r.a;J~~..'$ii~/."I!!~'J~1fl) ~)I,~;~J~'~~\~\;~1~,.,i:(,~,(~".t,~! i' ~\" r ":':.,'c'"~,,+,, >,.
{r.f";.);f';l',~~f~q::~,~~\h:~J'.~'I:..i,~,~:.\f~ ~:'~:~~\::'~l''''~'.,.'I}~i;~'::!Y{''~, ":',~,: '~.,< '\~,\ 'I,. 'I
H~:'i-o-'-~i"t~'\"".:'\.""~~\''''IJ~~ .,f~l" ~~ n "" I"~~,' ....I.:~{... ,," .:.. " . . ~ l
~~~t t~'fr'l'i~ ''0 ,'-:':;"Jf' LI'"~;':~;''-'L'j'l):.~~~ .":/~) '.1, ,,~..,'.,:,,~"
~.-..,o-""'-\i ;f(.;.{,1 J~~~",\~}..l +.;:..l~~ ~ I,:, ;,?,"~9.".J .... '~I\' '," ,,:.,.
k~~j;,~r~;;;~~~}:/~;:\.:<:::~'~'~:.',::~ ,;;:,':.~,:{,;:'.~~~;::,: ,"~" ;',:';:~t: ::,",> :; '< ,~' ,
~~J;\.........:~~t.....>.. ~ "", ' :d'," , .,,t, . 0\'
f\~ir::':;i .. .!, .. . ...
f"',,, ' ..
';f{';J.Y~::~:~:):. .
..if~ '.'1 . ~, ' . ! ~.
I~!,i<'/';\;i: ...: ~~';U"IO~ of cQrresoondence ~rom Board Member Mazur
~;1;'~' .<:: ... ...1~::::A~~:::~:::
. ~;. ,: I.....:, "
'.'
" ~,
1\',
;;:l.
. -. ~ + . ..
~~.T;I~>'I~I'IJ
" ,
.1 ',j
, !
" '.
.'.j
4:27 p.m.
. , ~, . .
.''i''
:f.::,::.:/:'i '
.:' ,
i:/l:~'; ':
~ .' ~ " '.
b ~~h ;.~' ':" '::
<'p. "
.,'
'. '
'..
I;".
,!<<
, .
"
"
'Y
, ,.
.,'"" ,
j'.:
".
. , ~.l' . " '
,I:
"
, .
, "
F..''. "I'
'., ,
\,1'
.',l,
" ,
, ' "
-I' :
.' .
,.
;, J';:.'T .'
, '.';'<
" " ~ ~ " ,
. " .1'1
',.
", ,
d' ',~
'..',~: ' ~
~ .1.
. ,
'\,' :. .
'>\
, .~ .
',..' I
,~.. , ~. .
I,:.' '" 1...,
".
~ ;'
,.,:
"I
l.;
: - ..~ ~ '.'" :.l ... .: ::~ :~,~ ':
, ~ ,'. .
.',\'
,J " ~
.' ~ ~,",'
"t'
,~! ~'~
,:
, 'y ~ . ~ '. """ I . ': .'
.',
I ~ '
. ,~
"
, j~.;l
, '.: '.
.:1 ,
. "I <
. ,
~. , .
, .
"i'
;, "
.,' ;'"
, .'
.oj';,l!.
>..' _I
I' ; , I " : -,' ~ . ,
. l:,' ~ . 'I < ~, .' ~I, t, ' .:. I ~
t,. ,;,:,'" \.'
, \ ~ 'o'~ ,,' ,.
....'
., '~
'.
~. ~'
'~".~; . J''''.
~L (~,:.:'.: ','
i~~: ~,r.,~ ' (:.'
...-(," . ~. . I .
\:'~6::..-'.i":,,<: .":\:'~,
..I'",V,':",.: .'1.," ~.,';
;~,~. .::: . ,', ' : .: dl,I., '. I 1
'J
: : j: ~ ,:
.' '
. .. ~ .
"
. ~ .
j'
, :. ,.
.'\ ,.:-.
',".'
'.'1
'1
."
. ,
, ,
}, :
I' .
.r
. l.l.
~ ~ ~
~ .. . .;.
",',i. .j.'
, " ~ ) <
/I
, :1""
, .
;~;,(
:,:.r,. "
, .
, "
, .\,
. ,.
"
,',
, 'l<
il'.
" "
"
.,:'
, .
iii.,
;~,.'~' I'
, I'..
.,.
"
. " ~.
: ~ i <
:~; :~t /
'J""': ."
'lll,:, .',
;;:~. >' " <"
>,:'1':
, '
.,
,:"
\""
. ., ~ ",L
~, j
T I.;
"
, '
": '
'.
.. ,
"
" .l
; ~'
! .f
.. 3 ~ .
. i-~ 'I .
. ,
'II'
. ~ T, <
oJ
".
'1
".
'~. I ,..
.. .>
,'..:(~',~ ::~.:'."~"';,"I';;
f'
\ ,,'
,:1\ ~, +' . . l
. :;,~, ~. ',.),
~~~~:,~L, ~~.:,,~'~
i ;:" I ~
~;\~ ..~,:~'
" "~, . J.
~';;i .:":{.
; ',:.'i!,\,~';,"'~,'
L ....
.,.
'.
, 'L' ~
..
i,' .
,I l"
~, ' .' ~. T ';< ,
l~. > , ~ ~'i' ; ~
.~.: I j+:"
i
, ,
':
'I
..'
,"
.".
. :'.. , '." ...' > I .. ~ i ';~ : ~ . . j
. .I .' '{ : ~ ., ,> ,I:' .~",
.:,'
. ' ,1.. .. \. \".:~'
1\ :';,. -),:.:,', '. ' ' "
-? :':"~ >. .. <'
. t . ;, I <, . 'I '. 1 j , I. ~ . ' ~. . l :, . t .
.H\;.:';;,:::" ".::":' "";"" ,.-..,.;' ':}".
',1. .' \,
&;::\,~:,"::':: ,>::,,'::\.'\~" . I' ,::' .:' ',', '."
~~',.' ,': ,', " .' \..,. .... ',.,
; \ ' ... ,"
p.) \ ;; ~ . :'. ('J /
Ili:,,::,,>< ',.'>, '~,': I' )::
\>~"'O .....".
'rl~-l.. : .,.. >..' ~, I ~ , .'
t[. ..~ . , ' , ,
~;;;Y}:i':);::'\,'(::,: ·
if'; '<:r~:;.:( \y\;. :;,',/... BedDeO 1 "
,~\j)i;?f!:~~\':i:",;"{,;'.' if";: .,' '...
:1& :ll,~/t,,,,\ \ '~:-'~lAfr .~:,~\: ~ ~ ''j~.) \ ~ ~ :.... .~t.:,.'; ',,":,;i ..1_...,.. ~ .... '! ',,:,', .~~~, :,.,. ,\:,.'.'
.*,~m ~~'J~~)7J\t~~'I,J;t~-'J{;~ n:I~: :;.;,,~ ' ... < ~,
. ",'
I, ",
"
.'.1
: .;~ . : . <; '.
\,
I,.
'. ..'
.> ,. ,
'.
I,
;,
!'
..
.'{,
, , ~.
"
"
,~ "
,. /'
"I ;.
. I'
':1,
.1" ,
I '~"
;,
~' . .
;>(,
. ~ ' I
. '~ '.
"
,"', '.'
"
'f '.
.'
. '
" '
'I
".
-3
.i.
",
.,"
~I<.
. \, . j' ~ ". J , . '. .
. ~\'t 'p'" ~ '<' <,;~ " ~:.', ;~, r~"" .,l; ',1 - l. :~ " _ :,~:\:.'l. :','~ . ::.\,.
~h ;
_.'. I:/',~,
'"
..,.
) "
"
"
,,'
"
>' .
, ~ ,
, ,
'"
-:: ,,' I.~ -,:'::,' ,(
"j' '
, .'
,-'
. i
.,
,
.,
':
, ~I
,J
, '.
)'
~, . ' t
, .
,\
,
,
~; ,
"
,
.J,'" "':':-:'
....
" ,
''';'\
,.
:::""
i}:' ,
.' +'
. , ,"~.'
"1'
. , ,r ~
,"
,:'
,.
'." I
, i '~ .
'=, ~ j
, '
,
,
'j
~ ';,' +>'~: :' .:' :
,.
. ,.
"1>,
'-j." ;'
:!'
..t
'\ 'l."
'. I.
'. ,
"
. ".
'i
'.' "
.\
"
\"
~ ." ~ >, '
. ,
"'I,
'r. .
"
'.'
<l'l 'i,
. . i~
. ,
"
. ; ~ '
',.1
',+','
I':.
. ;..
:'
:',
.,/.,
"
,.'
.1.
, '.
~:' "
"
..;' J<
,;
"'.
. t
.,
,
~',
"
06/19/0,'
./
,,,\,' :. ;.. ,'.;:'
>1.
,
. "
,,'
'"
.',
" .
L,.,
. il
" .
.,'
, "
, ~ '
I:,
. "
~ /:
" ~.
,.~.,.' ,'~ ,.,',"\'.':"1, "'."~"'.'l"'''''':'_.''~:t..~ t:':I.',t~:,"~:,..;~.....::,,; "~"-""."/"""i'~";..
~, f ~ , ,.
> I . I, '.', ':' ~':. :~.
, .,~;
;. . ~,:~' ~;t..}.,'. :.-:.:l. ::It'*'~
. , "'.
. " .<'
, " f,:" <',
, 1
. '/
I I"'.
:. .
.~.
,.
:'0
.\
" '
..
"
(;)
. : . I ~ 1< ~. .
, .
,
"
. <' '.
. .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING.
CITY OF CLEARWATER .
June 19, 2001
. Present:
Gerald. Figurski
Carlen A. Petersen
David Gildersleeve
Edward.Mazur, Jr.
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
Ed Hooper
. Frank Hibbard
Chair
Vice Chafr
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member/voting
" ,
, Also Pres~nt: Leslie Dougall~Sides
F:lalph Stone
Cynthi~ Tarapani
Lisa L. Fierce
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director - arrived 4:05 p.m.
Assistant Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by
,the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION - None, .
ITEM B - RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None,
. . ITEM C - LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS ,
CONSENT AGENDA - Accepted as submitted.
Consent Agenda items require no formal public hearing and are subject to
approval by '0 single motion. Any Community Development Board Member ar the
City, Planner may remove an item from the Cansent Agenda f9r individual discussion .
and vote. '.
Item HC1 - 1634 Gentrv Street: Kathleen Farinella - Owner/AoDlicent. Request
annexation of O. 17 acres ta the City, and Land Use Plan Amendment to RL,
Residential Low Classification, and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density
. Residential District, consisting' of Lot 3, Block 21, Highland Pines Subdivision, Fourth
Addition. ANX 01a04-09
The property owner has requested to annex this 0.17-acre single family
residential home In order to receive sanitary sewer service from the City. The
property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Low and it is proposed
to be zoned Low Medium Den'slty Residential (LMDR);. The applicant paid the sewer
impact fee on Aprfl 3,2001. .The appilcant is aware of the. additional cost. to
mcdD601
06/19/01
1
-t J. ; H . II ~~ . '" .
'J~.., .', .j,,'~. ';cf;:"'~''':';~.:' ''';:;l'''i~,:,,'c'/i~~'~''',. ," ,i."
" ". Ie':
~ I < \ ,
.~ ,~
1'1. "
.. '.... ,p~.....
. .
. .
, .':..' ~~\ l~;~;'~//\~~:
'. '
",: :1
~ I 'l:
\
~. ~ ~
:'
: ~
'ii.
:':.,'
. ,
,,',
, '., .~
. ~ :
,,;,"
"
,"
~~ .: ~
',.u
~. .::.
, '
"
"
",
",'..
.. ~'.
'\
,I.:.,
:';.''':
"~
~ ~ .
".. ,..'
, ,
"I!-:
'it:.
,,'
" ,
;.,'
~.,
!" 'I;
.~ " '.
, '.
'.1-
I, ,~
~, :.
",
~ .;
:" >
..: ~ J
~ i':.
:'
" .
;-'f
<~. ..
. ,.'
~ . '!-
',,1:
,; ,
. ~ ~ ..
. -;.
): ~
',' ~'
. .
:- .,
:.....
.' ~.1
, '
L .\
". .\'
. <"
'. . ~
o
.. ,
i}. .
','
.' .
. ~\ r~'.
I '. ~~;
'.
~~. .
. ..'. ! ~
':: ,~':
. .f' ~
,:,"
I,: ~ 'i
.,i,I1'
I'.' "
'"
.....
, ,
:,;:
;: :;>.
1 .'~ .
'.,>:'~
, "
", ;,
.i:l
./,',','
.. .'
,',::')
.1,~'J.~
,":/ ':'
'...',..
~.'.~.r:j .
I'",;.
:'
:,", .:,'"
,!
1- ~~ .
t.. f ~
:;)
~. .' . 1; I
~.:' ~ ~
\~ -,
',..',J
..:..1<.(
. . ~ : ",'
"
,. ,
~.~ '..':
;:. ~:;"
"
. ~ "
.:' r ~ ..... . .r
i' I:, _~.". :','
':'. I
~ ' . . ~.: . .
r ", r ,.
. \ ~ ..
'. .. . t
" '
: .~.
, .
extend sewer service to the property and the required payment for the utility
deposit. Staff recommends approval.
AND
. Item #C2- 3035 Virainia Avenue: Tavlor G. Binqham III - Owner/Aoolicant.
Request annexation of 0.1 5 acres to the City together with 0.1 9 acres of the
abutting right-of-way of Bay Street and abutting the alley to the south, and Land
Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential Urban Classification; and rezoning to LMDR,
Low Medium Density Residential District, consisting of Lot 5, Block 2, Bay View City
Subdivision. ANX 01-04~10
The property owner has requested to annex this 0.1 5-acre single family
residential home in order to receive sanitary sewer and water services from the
City. . The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Urban and it
is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density ResidentiaIILMDR). The applicant
. paid the sewer impact fee on May 31,2001. The applicant is aware of the
additional cost to extend sewer service to the property and the required payment
for the utility deposit. Staff recommends approval. .
AND
. .
Item #C3 - 2454 Ravmont Drive: Kenneth Barker - Owner/ADDlicant. Request
annexation of 0,22 acres to the City and Land Use Plan amendment to RL,
Residential Low Classification; and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential District, consisting of Lot 95, Skyline Groves. ANX 01 ~04-11
The property owner has requested to annex this 0.22-acre single family
residential home in ord'er to receive sanitary sewer and garbage collection services'
from the City, The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential
Low and it is proposed to be zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The
. applicant paid the sewer impact fee on April 17, 2001. The applicant is aware of
the ad~itl,onal cost to extend sewer service to the property and the required
payment for the utility deposit. Staff recommends approval.
AND
Item #01 - 1802 N. Belcher Road: Fountains Bavwav,'lnc. - Owner/Apolicant,
Request Flexible Dev310pment approval to reduce the minimum lot width from 200
feet to 103 feet, reduce the north side, setback from 15 to three feet, reduce the
south side setback from 15 to five feet, and to permit general office use in the IRT
District, as part of a 'Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project. Fl 01 ~04-17
The 0.65-acre site is located on the west side of Belcher Road,
approximately 150 feet south of SunnydaleBoulevard; Belcher Road serves as a
major north;'south a'rterial and is lined with office and industrial development.
Drainage ditches line the roadway for stormw,ater management. The immediate area
indudes a bank to the north and an office development to the east, across Belcher'
Road. The bank property illcludes a large detention area located to the rear of the
mcdOeD 1 .
06/19/01
2
"F '
~ij.~-;-t" \)':',~ " ~:, '~. ..~ffl.",,, ~;:1-./.,'> '/.':.,.t':..,. \
: I .I " .
"l _'
c/.;~ '...' 1:
. '
~.'. .t T ~ <
/". l t ~ I I ,
",,~ ' . .'
,.''''
..' 'J ,; ~.
" ,
'," :
.~... r.;:
:\ /\,
"
."
"
. ~. I
,;.
, ,
,
,'."
r
, '
. .
. "
. ""
'"t
\:t
'~d:
. ,
"
, ,
I' 4.
.\."
f.'
, .
/~~:'
i
.... :~
;"
. ~..
" ,
.'
. ~",
."
','
~. . i
-.
',.
, .
, -
",
" ~{,
.' -
~. ~.:
,\....
O;J.I
. '.
,'/: ~
.....
,>
, "
,-
-,",:::
~: ,
,. ,
,:,.
,:
~ I,
~.
, .
~~':~.~
.:':;.
; I.
~ . "..
-. ~. .
~ ~
..'
, .
, ~1
..
... . . L ~~::',
,~
/~l~)
\ '
't1~-:(,
i .:,:~
~
"
site, screened from view from Belcher Road. To the west, warehouses and other
industrial buildings are clustered in the well-maintained Clearwater Industrial Park.
. There is a narrow, vacant parcel to the south that is heavily wooded with a
drainage ditch. An office and warehouse building is located farther to the south.
The subject site is undeveloped with a few small trees. The proposal
includes the development of a 5,000 square-foot office building with the lease
potential of five separate business units. The'one~story building will include a brick
and stucco exterior to match the materials of the adjoining bank to the north. The
elevations are similar in design to the office development to the east including false
dormers and pitched roof. .The site design includes ingress/egress along Belcher
Road and incorporates cross access with the bank property near the rear (west end)
. of the parcel. A formal reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement has been
secured with the bank prope~ty to ensure pe~petual cross access legally continues.
A detention basin is planned to the rear of the site. The stormwater design
needs to be revised to address drainage requirements, prior to building permit
submittal. This includes revising the drainage calculations, A three-foot sidewalk
will be located along the south side of the building to provide convenient access for
employees. The landscaping plan is in excess of Code and includes a large planting
area along Belcher Road and hedging with accent plants along the site's perimeter.
, A five~foot sidewalk is required along Belcher Road although an existing
drainage ditch may prevent its installation in the right-cf-way. There are preliminary
plans for the City to install sidewalks along the roadway and may include
improvements of the drainage ditch. In recognition of these conditions and potential
future improvement plans, the applicant has requested that a payment in lieu for the
sidewalks be allowed if construction of the sidewalks in the right-of-way is not
possible with the existing ditch. This will be determined as part of an application for
a building permit.
. . The request is to permit general office in the IRT District, to reduce the north
side setback from 1 5 to three feet and to reduce the south side setback from 1 5 to
five feet for the location of the parking lot. The request also includes a reduction of
the minimum lot width from 200 to 103 feet, The narrow lot limits options for
design. The request is appropriate given the property is an existing vacant lot and
the office use is less intensive than most other permitted uses in the IRT District. '
The building is in excess of 40 feet from the north property line and approximately
eight feet from the south property line. The landscaped area along the north
property Ifne will be integrated with the bank property.
The ORC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application ,and
supporting materials on May 10, 2001. Staff recommends approval with four
conditions: 1) Stormwater management requirements be niet to the satisfaction of
Engineering Staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit and revised plans be
submitted to Planning Staff: 2) a five~foot sidewalk be provided In the right-of-way
'along Belcher or the sidewalk be installed on the subject 'property and the property
owner grant an easement to the City; 3) all signage meet Code; and 41 the building
mcdOSO 1 .
3
06/19/01
; ...... ,.,',..,.. ~_~. ..,' '~.._,'.' .:....:.l ;,'j ;1... : L :. , . ':"Itit'"r:'.~.~"':_":""~~":'..:' ~~lt":~'~':~";~"~'';:'1 ':'.:'It" .~.'~
. '"," j'
. .\ it . ~ ,. '.'
'+ 0' .
. . :'., .
~ ~.
. ~: .
!'
<\
',i
\. "
.. .....
~
...~
( ....~.u;
'>l;~
o
". I, ~ .
be designed consistent with the' elevation plans submitted to staff (dated April 20,
2001) or as modified by the Community Development Board.
Mel1)ber Petersen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERA TION - None.
ITEM B - RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None.
, ITEM C - lEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS
Item DCl -1'634 Gentrv Street- See page 1.
Item DC2- 3035 VirQinia Avenue - See page 2.
Item DC3 - 2454 Ravmont Drive - See page 2.
ITEM D - lEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS.
Item #01 - 1802 N, Belcher Road - See pages 2, 3, and 4.
Item #D2 - 1430 arid 1432 ROClers Street and 1433 Court Street: McDowell
HoldinQs. Inc. - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit
a non-residential, off-street, parking facility in the LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential District. Fl 01-02.-09
Planner Mark Parry presented the request. The nearby uses include
residen,tlal and commercial properties. The site consists of four lots within two
zoning districts, Low Medium Density Residential (Lots 18 and 19) along Rogers
Street and Office (Lots 2 and 3) Districts along Court Street.
The 1,787 square foot, single-family dwelling at 1430 Rogers Street and the
,1,166 square' foot, single-family dwelling at 1432 Rogers Street are occupied by
residents.' The applicant" is proposing to combine the parcels under unity of title
should the application be approved.
The site along Court Street is used as a dental office by the applicant in
association with a separate pediatric dentist office. The site contains a 2,61 5
square foot, one-story, masonry-block building. The commercial site has access via
on'e right-in/right-out point of access along Court Street. There' a're 11 'parking
spaces along the west property line. Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday and on som.e Fridays. A maximum of 10 employees and
between 32 - 90 patients total are on'site during the day.
The south side of Court Street consists mostly of small to mid-sized, well-
maintained office buildings. Some of the structures appear to be converted single-
family dwellings. There are 15 businesses within nine buildings located along Court
S~reet adjacent to the neighborhood.
mcdOeD 1
4
06/19/01
. ,
..,
.'. .....;~ .o~ ~ " .......,.,;....,..~~.(~....)...-.. .......~I.I '" ....:.. :~. ..' ::~I..~.'.:..-....':..I. :.....-J.-:~. 0' L':';":'.':"~:''''':':'', ~'.I~':...<./....:.~..~. '~.I"'::
.~
"')
fH~"l c.
"~'m.
" ,
y
. .
As the dental businesses have grown, the parking lot has not been large
enough to handle the parking demand. The applicant attempted to resolve parking
demand by parking vehicles 'on the residential lots on Rogers Street and by
removing required landscaping along the southern portion of the business and
parking vehicles within the LMDR District (at the northern end of 1430 and 1432
Rogers Street). Those actions resulted in two Code citations within the last year
(COD2000-00159 issued on January 4, 2000). This case'was resolved on March
2, 2001, when all required landscaping was restored and illegally parked cars were
removed; A secon~ Code violation (COD2000-04380) was issued on August 11,
2000, for declining landscaping and illegal parking on property within the LMDR
District. The applicant was using the' front (south yard of 1432 Rogers Street) as a
temporary parking lot. That case was resolved on February 1 7, 2001.
. The applicant wishes to establish an 11-space non-residential, off-street'
parking facility within the LMDR District at 1430 and 1432 Rogers Street to serve
the dental office. The design includes the use of the northern one-third of the
residential'lots. The single-family dwellings located on both lots will remain.
Acces's to the parking facility will be exclusively from Court Street.
, The proposal includes re-striping the parking lot along Court Street while
relocating the drive aisle to the west property line and moving th~ parking spaces to
the.east side of the reconfigured lot. This will involve the modification of the
driveway along Court Street and wl1l require State and City approval.
A five-foot landscape buffer will be located along the north and west
property lines of Lot 1 8 and the east property line of Lot 1 9 to screen the sides of
the proposed parking' lot. The lan'dscape buffer also will wrap around the south side
of the parking lot, three feet from the house at. 1430 Rogers Street. A new
retention basin is proposed along the south side of the proposed parking lot directly
north of the dwelling at 1432 Rogers Street. A retaining wall five feet from the
dwelling will enclose the retention basin,
A six-foot wooden fence will be relocated and will separate the proposed
parking. spaces from the rest of the residentially zoned lots. Additional fencing will
be instalied along the side property lines to buffer the proposed parking spaces.
The proposal shows landscaping along the internal side of the fencing along the
.south side of the proposed parking lot.
The proposal will eliminate the back yards of the residential lots at
1430/1432 Rogers Street, It will reduce the residentially zoned properties from
5,000 to approximately 4,300 square feet each, effectively rendering the lots .
non.conforming with respect to lot area. .
, Storm water requirements have not been met. These include providing at
least one soil boring from the center of the proposed detention basin, elevations for
the bottom of the detention pond and the top of bank, seasonal and design high
water levels, and the attenuation for 1 OO~year storm. Additionally, the desig n for
the basin may'have a maximum of two vertical sides. Public Works Administration
mcd0601
5
06/19/01
, .
'.
. .
':. ';". I.llt.,~.~:' ~.~'.,~ ,t~I,I.I;""':";"'" ~.'''':~'.' ..t.....:'..,'.;'..,;,.:... .r",' .,'.,..~."',.:L,.:,~".I.''''~",: : I' .~'~:Il-.'~~I".';
'~
t'I~\
....'tRl.sJ'
~.
~ ... ~.~ ....
'.
, <
"
. I,.
also requires details be provided demonstrating that the proposed parking lot grades
will directly run off into the pond, that runoff will pass under the proposed fence,
and that all retention wall details be provided. Required drainage calculations have
not been submitted as required,
Should this proposal be approved, it may encourage other businesses along
Court Street to purchase and attempt to convert residentially used lots into non-
residential, off-street parking facilities and undermine the character of an
established, stable neighborhood. As the businesses along Court Street become
more successful, alternative parking solutions will become necessary or these
businesses will need to relocate.
The ORC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and
. supporting materials on March 15, 2001. The proposal is not in compliance with
the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, with the maximum
development potential, and with all applicable standards of the Community
Development Code.
Staff recommends denial: 1) The proposal in inconsistent with the character
of adjacent properties. The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively residential in
nature with the exception of the properties along Court Street. These properties are
exclusively non-residential in nature and primarily offices and medical clinics; 21 the
parking facility will be located in the middle of a residential block and may lead to
the eradication of the northern edge and the destabilization of the neighborhood; 31
the proposed development may hinder or discourage the appropriate development
and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The,
proposed development will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood
and may discourage appropriate development and use of adjacent land and
buildings; and .4) the proposal effectively creates nonconforming residential lots,
which are unusable for existing and future residents and will become unattractive
for future owners.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the two' residential homes on the
property will remain as residential uses.
, . Todd Pressman, representative, said abutting property owners are not
opposed to this request; one indicated he is neutral. He felt his client has met the
standards in the Code. He said he does not feel this proposal would adversely
impact the site. The two homes on the property will remain residential uses.
Parking would be added to the rear of the home that the applicant's mother lives in.
Mr. Pressman reviewed the site' plan and stated the original plan has been changed.
Two neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the site plan, including the
new one. Mr. Pressman said the landscaping on the site plan is not' accurate but,
would meet the Code requirements. A six-foot fence will be placed along the entire
parking area'to bu'ffer it from residents. He said parking already exists in this
neighborhood and his cHent only seeks to move the parking 20 feet. He referred to
an aerial photograph of the area. He felt his dient has responded to neighbors'
c~ncerns and does not feel the parking would pose a major intrusion Into the
. neighborhood. Office hours would be during the day.
mcd0601
6
06/19/01
-r I.' " ~'. 'b-" ""\'P, .
,. '. .q
.~
Ernest McDowell, upplicant, said he is open to any suggestions that could
make this prop\?sal better. He said he has' changed his original proposal to
accommodate residents and added more landscaping~ He does not wish to
depreciate property values in the neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr.
McDowell said the prope,rty owner whom he stated was neutral just moved into the
neighborhood a'month ago. He said the property owner of the nearby office
complex to the west would allow him to use one or two parking spaces
occasionally, but would not guarantee it on an ongoing basis,
Mr. Pressman said the applicant has a contract for purchase for 2 empty lots
on the corner of Highland Avenue and Court Street to provide satellite parking for
.his office. Those properties have a Court Street address. He has been renting
parking nearby primarily for his employees and also is looking at other parking
. options.
',< .
Kevin Mineer, prof~ssional planner representing the applicant, said the
neighborhood has both residential and office uses. He felt as all the surrounding
. homes already have office parking behind them, residential property values would
n9t ,be adversely affected by this proposal, , He said two homes on the property will
remain residential although their back yards would be used for parking for the
. applicant's business. ' He felt the nonconformity issue ..should not be a concern, as
the view of homes and front yards along ~oger Streets remain the same.
.()
. .
Five persons spoke in opposition of the application.
. .
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said his analysis and recommendation
for denial was based on the applicant's current proposal.
Mr. Pressman said he understands the neighbors' concerns, however, his
client meets the condition of Unity of Title and the criteria in the Code,
Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff considered two major
elements of the site plan: 1) if it meets the technical standards of the Code, and 2)
if it is the right use in the right place, She said absent the storm water issue, staff .
does not ~eel this is the right use in the right place.
. Member Petersen moved to deny the Flexible Development request to permit
a 'non-residential, off-street, par~ing facility in the LMDR, Low Medium Density
Residential. District. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM E - APPROVAL OF' MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: May 15, 2001
Member Hooper moved to approve the minutes of the regular mseting of
. May 15, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board'
member. .The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
~
ITEM F - DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
mcd060 1
7
06/19/01
. .I'
. .
" ,
,:
'. .
,.
Discussion of Code amendmont regardlnQ boats docks and newsraclcs
~
Ms. Tarapani said as it was not addressed in the Code, staff drafted an
ordinance regarding commercial docks. The Marine Advisory Board and the
Environmental Advisory Board reviewed the ordinance. She said if the Commission
approves the ordinance this Thursday, it would be implemented in mid.July. She
said currently, th~re are no commercial dock applications under review.
UDdate on Frenchv's ADDeal
Assistant City Attorney. Leslie Dougall-Sides said an Administrative Law
Judge ordered a reversal of the Community Development Board's decision to deny
Frenchy's' application. The applicant is in the process of obtaining permits to.'
proceed with the project. She said the Commission has not directed staff to appeal
the ru'ling. ..
Ms. Dougall-Sides said there had been some testimony alleging that an ex-
board member had ex-party communications regarding the application. The Code
provides that no member of the board shall engage in ex-party communications on
quasi-judicial matters that aro'to be considered by the board. The board member in
question did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said in her proposed final
order she had suggested that the testimony was hearsay and therefore could not or
should not form the ~asis of any finding by the Administrative Law Judge. On that
basis, the Administrative Law Judge did not proceed further.
() Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested the COB (Community Development Board) hold
a separate meeting to review their responsibilities, policies and procedures.
Consensus ~as for staff to schedule a September meeting.
.. The meeting recessed from 3:13 to 3:20 p,m.
Discussion of correspondence from Board Member Mazur
Member Ma'zur had requested discussion regarding a comment about the
COB made by Commissioner Hart at the June 7, 2001, Commission meeting.. The
Mayor had asked if the Commissioner was inferring that developers control. the
. COB, or that the Commission is allowing it to be controlled by developers. It was
requested Commissioner Hart address Mr. Mazur's concerns and answer the
Mayor's question posed at that meeting.
~
COB members agreed this issue is important to each of them, their families,
and the entire community. Concern was expressed: 1) the media does not always'
adequately reflect the remarks made by elected officials; 2) a letter written by a
. citizen to a COB member alleged one of their members has no respect for citizens'
rights, and that the member was ,aligned with a firrn that promotes development; 3)
the press is a major contributor to the miscommunication and public perception that
the 'City is divided; 4) if people state things often enough, whether they are true or
not, eventually the general public believes it; 5) commentary without foundation
hurts individuals and the public good; 6) the Code has already been changed once
mcdOe01
8
06/19/01
. '''. I ~ .
r ..
,
, .
'. . ~. '.
,;
".", ..'..-:' ~.~~.~.
,"
',1/'
--.
I '
',' ~,..<~.
~ 'h~~l
.( :~~::~'
. I'
:~
,',
'+,~,~' .
while Commissioner Hart has been In office and ho had every opportunity to discuss
his concerns regarding the COB and the Code; 7) when applicants' requests are
denied, their subsequent action is to tell the Commission the CDS is anti-
neighborhood; and,8) the lack of Commission support could create a public
perception that changes need to be made.
It was remarked: 1) partnerships between government and developers is
essential in a successful community; 2) citizens who volunteer to join an advisory
board or run for office do so to serve their community and give something back to
it; 3) COB members always have recused themselves to eliminate any question of
their integrity; 4) the CDS follows the guidelines set by the Commission and the
Code and always considers substantial competent evidence; 5) individual
Commissioners should reaffirm to complainants the COB's position according to
Code; 6) if COB members diDagree with staff, they always voice their opinions; 7)
, citizen emotion should not be a part of the equation; and 8) the COB does not
defend staff's position, but values their position because they are more
knowledgeable' about the Code.
Commissioner Hart said he felt it important to clarify some
misunderstandings regarding his remarks about the COB. He thanked the COB for
their service and said he did not seek to impugn anyone's integrity at the
Commission meeting. He said to try to defend himself against something he had
'not said make no sense, therefore he remained silent. But by remaining silent, he
said he contributed to an .unintended inference. He said he and the Mayor do not
, always see things the same way about the openness and accountability of
, government.. In response to a question, Commissioner Hart said his answer to
Mayor Aungst's question regarding the COB at the June 7, 2001, Commission
meeting is ,"no".
Commissioner Hart said he had requested a meeting with the COB to address
public perceptions. He said until this unfortunate incident, he was told that a
meeting with the CDS was not possible. He believed that statements regarding the
CDS were taken out of context during an interview over a cellular phone with a
reporter, as they were disconnected 4 times. He stated he does not believe anyone
on the CDS has done anything wrong or unethical. He suggested public perception
could be addressed by making some minor changes to the rules. He said citizen
concerns include: 1) the Code is too liberal and allows too many concessions,
especially with regard to Infill options; 2) confusion regarding TORs ITransfer
Development Rights) and their ability to be retained after a site is fully developed; 3)
height var'iances allowing over three times regularly permitted hoight in some
instances; 41 public perception that the changes in the Code and the powers of the
CDS have radically changed the way that Clearwater engages development issues;
5) public perception is that COB members are likely to look after one another in
, approving projects; and 6) a perception that the Commission has abdicated its
responsibility by permitting decisions that were once required to be decided by an
appointed board. He felt five specific' areas of concern presented to him by citizens
need to be addressed: 1) COB 'attendance; 21 CDS recusals; 3) term and make-up
of the COSi 4) roles of the COB with regard to staff and its presentations; and 5)
role of the Com,mlssion in affirming actions of the COB. He felt. the Commission
mcd0601
9
06/19/01
.' ~.-:,...::. ',~~~ ~I,' ~\ .;. ....~ . "'!"~"". .."."~__."'" /,1 t:.:....'I.,../.~. ',',;, .~..' I'":'::: ~~:",'.t_" ,.'
.r^~~ '
Tfl:tuJ.
, .."
.,;'
..':.t. ::'. ,'.1"
l' ,"'" ;',: . .
> I , ."". ....
: I . I ~ -, . '0' I . ,I ,
I ,>, I :>
;1. \
',,~
,I
s~ould ,riot ,abdicate their total responsibility' to an appointed board. He said many
other cities place actions of their planning or' zoning boards on a consent agenda to
allow the Commission to affirm those actions or request further review. He
. .
suggested .that type of Commission review would eliminate many of the criticisms
of the COB and the Code. He said the elected officials are Ultimately held .
accountable for the decisions of the CDB and should be required to voice their
. positions on. each Issue.
.} .
Commissioner Hart said he feels it necessary for the COB and Commission, to
schedule a meeting regarding roles and responsibilities. He yvould like the
Commission to provide an affirmation of the COB's actions. He said the COB's role
is to interpret Code, not to 'set policy.
Planning Director: f:lalph 'Stone said 'the majority of single family applications
are gra'nted, He said the development community feels staff is too stringent. He'
regularly receives criticism .6f the Code from the development community, not from
. residents. Staff and the COB are guided by the quasi-judicial proc~ss, which
requires that decisions be made based on competent substantial evidence. In many'
cases, applications are reviewed by several staff members prior to making
recommendations to the COB. The Code was taken to neighborhoods, community"
'groups, and discussed throughout the community and at public hearings. He said
. neither st~ff nor the COB are developer-friendly.
ITEMG - ADJOURNMENT
The:meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m. ,
air
Community Development
.+".,
Attest:
. 'be1ldtJ-YYf)XtY
. Board Reporter,
;,
,"<" 'O"'le,
. > ~ t
, ,
"
..
mcd0601 '
10
06/19/01
:.:,':"~~I ;',:~t:;':..':':'i:;'}I~.itl:.h.),~~~':,:.~~~;'~:'~/::It'.li'~'A :." ~ :
.;
::.:~~'~,'~ . ';.',~:~. '" I.,...:,...~...~;;
> : ~ ; "~' . ~ ~", .
,': '. :,'\;';~ '~;::.t};:;