07/17/2001 (2)
, -'
"', ,'. . ". . ...,.....,' .~ .:~...,. ,.......... '. \...~.." ,~."..;.:-..; . "',:,. ":.::' :.~'.'~' ':.": .';: ~':'~"':"'.":' ,. : ".
'!
,:.t>
. . : ,~
I ~ I . . I t i
,J;" . . ~ ., . 'I
~~'tf~..(. ~.\~.~.> !
;f :'
'., I
"
" ,
'J:
"'.
. '.,
, '
. ' ,
'}:
"
;; "
,'/'
'~(
~,
" ,
, ' ,
" -1', \...~ .
....:-.
r.~ '
~!~
/.
~, <'".
,t,..,. :'
. ~ . 1 . ~ .
t' .::
" ", " ~
:!'
,<I
,"
~':.'l1:' \"'~" ,!
:\ , '
'" ~ I ~
-i-", C
II' :.' ".:
..'.~ ~ ~ 1;':
> :..'~! I' ;' c' ...
~ .. ',' c
,',
~.~,:~I '
\ ,t '
, '
"
','
\', .
E,.
; ;',
!'.<
, ,
,,' I.
; T"'
V(-Ot~'. ":,',
. .... l ~ L' .( c .
.\~.;:. l' . . '.
"
f' .1
.~~' " :
,',
~: . 'l .
"..Ii
+."<.
,I,.; .
\>~,' c
, ,
'J .':
;...
, '
.,.,
".< : c' ,I
:,,'
" ,
'~ ~. c
~.\ .
..:>~.'/ .
'f":" ,"t,
, .
,',
,',
'1-;'
,\
" '
\ '
\,': ,
">.;
,\,
:;;,~'O'
:1, ". ...7'
:,. .' .I
') .:.~
~: '
:"c.
oZ.T I.
..I
:)j" :::. ,,'.
: ~. I . ~ . _ I'
.,
, "
.,
.i .<
,.'
.Ii,
I
:'
" \.1.....
, ..,
"
"
, "
, ,
"
~. ~; :J.:', '''l~ ": t <...~o:.; ..0. .. : <
c. ,. :- ~ . ~
:>'"
0,0.
"
"
CDB
',Community DeveloP"1etit Board Meeting
MINUTES
\',
"
\ jO
"
, "
07/17/01
,:
'Date
;,
<<.'
, '.
, 'I
"
{ 0 l ~ .
" ,
, "
\'
, ,
. ~
.,
, "
" '
"
(,
'"
',,,
.' ,
" '
i,
, ,
yi/r
"
"
.'1
<,1.>
.'.\
'-I'
," 0'
, '
"..
I"~
, . ~ ' ~.".. l~. .
. ,~. < I" ~!.. I I
.',e
~. .
',.'
e~
f:;~l,
~"
, ,
" ,
ACTION AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 17, 2001
ITEM A - APPROVAL OF MINUTES, OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 19, 2001
ACTION:
APPROVED - 7:0.
ITEM B ~ REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION - None.
ITEM C- RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None.
ITEM D - LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda items require no formal public hearing and are subject to
'approval by a single m9tion. Any Community Development Board Member or City staff
may re,move an ,item from the Consent Agenda fo~ individual discussion and vote.
Item #01 - 2855 Gulf-to-Bav Boulevard: Morton Plant Mease Life Services, Inc. -
Owner/ADolicant. Request rezoning of 2.71 acres approximately 650 feet south of
. Gul,f-to~Bay' Boulevard, and 500 feet ,east of Sky Harbor Drive, from MDR, Medium
Density Residential District, to MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District,
consisting of a portion of Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East IBayside
Nursing Pavilion). Z 01-05-01
, AND
Item #02- 2780 Drew Street: City of Clearwater, c/o Art Kader, Assistant Director of
Parks and Recreation - Owner/Aoplicant. Request: 11 Land use plan amendment from
RM, Residential Medium Classification to R/OS, Recreation/Open Space Classification,
and 2) rezoning from MDR, Medium Density Residential District to O/SR, Open
Space/Recreation District, consisting of a portion of Section 8, Township 29 South,
Range' 6 East, M&B 34.04. LUZ 01-04-05
AND
Item #E3 - 1698 Gulf-ta-Bav Boulevard: Gulf Florida Douqhnuts, Inc. c/o Robert McCov '
- Owner/Aoplicant. Request Flexible Development ?Ipproval to reduce the required
number of parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
(GFA), (68 spaces) to 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), (50
spaces) and reduce the front setback from 25 feet to one foot, as part of a
Comprehensive Infill, Redevelopment Project with Comprehensive Landscape Program
and CompreherisiveSign Program, Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 13.05. Applicable conditions:
1 t If a different restaurant is proposed, the parking needs shall be reevaluated' and may
. require approval by the Community Development E;Joardi 2) the concrete slab with the
, acd0701
07/17/01
1
":'I~i'~v"~'::".\:~;' ' ,,; ;"1,;:,;,:.," ..
"'. .
".': ,I :" :, ;; ;:, .
.'. \ ~ .' ,e '.
"I
.. J, ;.~:.,' _. : ' ,',
.-
;,
. " .
e," ',.
.~ .~ .' ": ., ~ :> : .: >e. >1: ,: ~ t' J ~
'::\I;~~',~~.~~ ),,<.:\.... <~ '.',
, '.,1'~ .!~..I;',i-< t
, "
. "
" ,
, ' ,
.L. ~.. ',. "" L, ,:17;': .
....
;t ;'
--
, '
:'
,/
:~~ '.
':j'
.' '
"
. '
'., '
'j.:"..
. . :;.. ~.
'1 ..
":\
. '.
<."
. . ~
'. ~.
':" '.
:.;,.
" '~'.
.
: '.. ~'.;
f~"'~ ~.,'
,~T;:':;
.......-
.~.;"~.....
. >~ .
'._ I
::".y
" '
';.',~'.."
."
'..<.
:. ~;." ~
,,'
, "
;.:~::: ~.
I:':
~: .\:':
; .
~;.\: I
~ (: ~ 4
, "
" .
....l
. .::; ~ ~
,,',,"
, '
.! .'
'~l:1 .:
,', "
... .'
..' ...
-:'''j-:
! ~ . I,~'
"1'"
'~i. .
,"
'\'
.' ,\
: '
, .'
/ '.
'., i~"
::.'.
,',
: :\'
.../.'
i~:r:;~
,
,L
.,.,+
,."
. io.;.'".
.~~):j..
........ .."
(:;)
1;......>
l':,'~
W
. '
bicycle rack be relocated adjacent building and screened with landscape material; and 3)
slgnage be limited to one 32 square-foot freestanding sign, two attached signs of 26.52
square-foot on Duncan, and 32 square foot on Gulf-to-Bay, and two eight square-foot
window signs as submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sign Program application. FL
01-05-21'
ACTION:
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 01, 02, AND E3 AS
SUBMITTED - 7:0.
Item #03 - Coachman RidQe Neiahborhood Plnn: Coachman Ridae Neiqhborhood and
Citv of Clearwater - Owner/Aoplicant. Request approval of Coachman Ridge
Neighborhood Plan pursuant to Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District provisions,
for property in the northellst quadrant of State Road 590 and Old Coachman Road, west
of the Florida Power right-ot-way and south of Campbell Road.
AND
Item #04 - Coachman RidCle Neighborhood Plan: Coachman RidQe Neiahborhood and
City of Clearwater - Owner/Aoplicant. Request rezoning and applying the Coachman
Ridge Neighborhood Conservation District as an overlay District in addition to the
Existing Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density Residential Zoning'districts,
for property at the northeast quadrant of State Road 590 and Old Coachman Road,
west of the Florida Power right-of-way and south of Campbell Road. Z 01-06-02
AND
Item #05 - Text Amendments: Amendments to the Communitv Development Code
reaardina the provisions of the Coachman RidQe NeiQhborhood Conservation Overlav
District. TA 01-06-02 .
ACTION:
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ITEMS 03, 04, AND 05, WITH
CONDITION THE PLAN BE SUBJECT TO A FINAL VOTe OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD - 7:0.
ITEM E - LEVEL 2 APPL.ICATIONS
Item #E1 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue: The Clearwater Groue. Ltd. -
Owner/Applicant. Request an amendment to a previously approved Certified Site Plan
(Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a change ot use for undeveloped parcels Ifrom
commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of existing
commercial use, and an additional access point on Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1
(restaurant), for 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and south Missouri
Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of south Missouri Avenue, approximately
1,150 feet south of Druid Road, Sec. 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 & 34.011 and Sec. 22-29-
16, M&B's 21 '.11,21.12 & 21.13; Zoning: C, Commercial District. Applicable
conditions: 1) Any further additions or changes to the site plan Inot included with this
request) be reviewed by the COB; 21 the final design of the buildings be consistent with
the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB; 3) the density of the
acd0701 '
2
07/17/01
,.., '.'
"
~. '~I ::. ~'.
.:/',":,'., \ . /. .
\i. > \>':I::I:~::';'li"'c ('~';jl-:'>::l\":<',;,~.~ I"~"'.;", ~~ t
'~ .' ,.; .. l 'j i' '.".' " < . I .
':\ ~ . "i. '.
, : ':, ,". ;
". "o!:,T.~~,~,"'.. <:::,) ';.'
-'
, ()
\",:,,~
\...,
\,
site be Iimitod to 156 dwellings units and 15,602 square feet of non.residentlal uses;
and 4) all signage comply with Code. FL 01-01-05
ACTION:
APPROVED - 6:1.
Item #E2 - 13 Cambria Street: Linda and Anqel Deloado - Owner/Aoolicants. Request
a flexible development approval to reduce the minimum lot width from 1 50 to 50 feet,
reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to 5 feet and to permit a parking lot design other
than what is required by Code, as 'part of a Residentiallnfill Project, for 0.09 acres on
the south side of Cambria Street, approximately 100 feet west of Mandalay Boulevard;
Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District, Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 3,
Lot 4. Applicable conditions: 1) Any future redevelopment initiatives include a parking
, ,
, design that complies with Code or is approved by the Community Development Board;
2) the final building design is generally consistent with the elevations submitted to staff
April 24, 2001, or, as modified by the Community Development Board; and 3l some type
of railing system that gives the illusion of a balcony be added to the second floor of the
north side of the building. FL 01-05-18 '
ACTION:
APPROVED - 7 :0.
Item #E3 - 1698 Gulf-to-Bav Boulevard - See Page 1.
Item #E4 - 1521 E.' Druid Road: Salvation Armv - Owner/Applicant. Request_Flexible
,Development approval to permit social/public service use for 6.92 acres on the
, southeast corner of Druid Road and Highland Avenue, adjacent to residentially-zoned
property, a residential shelter and a rnedical,clinic in the Institutional District, as, part of
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 34.01 and Druid
Groves Sub, Blk A, Lots 1-'12. Zoning: I, Institutional District and LMDR, Low Medium
Density Residential District. Applicable conditions: 1) All dead or dying landscape
material be replaced by October 1 / 200', or prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first; 21 all Brazilian pepper trees and hazardous trees be
removed, through City permits; 3) all signage comply with Code; 4) all handicapped
parking spaces be upgraded to meet City standards and that a sidewalk be provided'
along Highland Avenue, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; and 5) no
expansion of the parking lot within the LMDR District portion of the site be permitted
without additional review and approval by the Community Development Board. FL 01-
05-19
ACTION:
APPROVED - 7:0.
ITEMF -' DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
ACTION:
MEETING SCHEDULED - September 14, 2001, at 12:30 p.m., at the
Municipal Services Building, Planning Department Conference Room re:
COB procedures and standards and criteria used in making
rec om mend ati on sIde cis io n s.
ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT - 6:35 p.m,
" acd0701
3
07/1 7/01
.! 'c
..'~ .",.';" '/" '.r':~.,..'.:.', ,P .I~. .", ' . f'_~:.,(.~'1 r,,':.:. '''!..>.'~..',; ,':,.'," :."r . ~'l::' ~""i:.~~.',,\i' :~:~/.: :~'\.':".~LI ~:..:J..'.
!)
...",...~
,> ~-)
, .
:' ~-""'2"
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY
,
MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME. FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF DOARO. COUNCIL, COMMISSION AUT. ORITY OR
COMMtrreE
..::r r
c+
ru,
. -;.:0-
. ~~"
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE fORM 8B
This form is (or usa by an parson serving at tho county, city, or other \oc;It 10'101 of government on gn appointed or elcctod board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applios oqually to mombors of ms<<y god non-acMS<<y bodies who are presentod with a voting
Conflict of Interest undef Section 112.3143, Florida StaMos.
Your rosponsibl\itios undor tho law when faced with a moasure In which you have'lI conflict of inlerest wiU vary greatly d(!pcn<f109 on whether
you hold an electiv9 or appointive position. For this reason, please pay clo$a attention to U1e instructions on this form before (:'OIllpleling the
reverse sldo and filing I:ho form. ' '
INSTRUCTIONS FORCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143. FLORIDA STATUTES
A porson hoIdlng eJoctive or appointive county, municipal, or other local public olflCO MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inlJros
to his spoc:ial privata gaIn. Each aloctad 0( apPOinted local offICeI' also [s.lXooibited from knowingly voting on a measuro which inures to the
special gain of a princIpal (o~ than a govemmont agency) by whom he is retained (including \he parent organization or subsidiary of a
corpor;1te principal by which ho Is rotalnedl: to tho special private gain of a rillative: or to the special private gain of a businGSs associate.
Commissioners of community rodoveloprMnt agonc\o$ und0r Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., 3nd officers oJ independent special talC districts
electod on a on&-acre, ooe--vote basis aro not PfohilXtod from voling in thatcapaclty.
For plJrj)OS(lS of lhls law, a .relative. lncludos only tho offICer's falllar, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-raW, mothor-in-law,
son-In-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associato" moans any' person or ontIty engaged In or c:mying on a business enterprise with the
offICer a~ apar1ner, joint venturer, co-owner of property, or corporate shareholder (where tho Gharos of the~calioo..aro-not.liGted-on-anr
national or regional stock exchange),
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In Qddition to abstaining from voting In the sltu3tions d~ribed abovo, you must disclosa tho connict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTe BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the as.sembly !he nature of your interest In the measure QrI which you are
abstaining from voting; and ,
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by comploting ~nd filing this form with the person responsible for reo:xding the mlnut0'5
of the mooting, who should Incorporate the form In tho minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
AIthougtl you must abstain froro voting in the sttualions doscribod llOOvo, yoo othorwiso may p:lrticip3le in the~ matters. However, you
must discloso tho naturo of \he conflict bofOfO making any attempt to innuence \he docislon. whether ornlly or in writing and whelher made by
you or your dirl'Ctlon,
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AnEMPT TO INFLUENCE TUE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WlUCH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must comploto and fila this (orm (boforo ma~[n9 any nltllmpt to inl\uenco tho decl!:iion) wilh the porson rosponsiblQ lor recording tho
minutes or the mooting, who willlncorporato tho fOl'm In tho minutos.
. A copy of the form must be provided Immediately 10 the other members of tho agoncy,
t 1.,
~f.<~ · Tl10 'arm must bo road publicly at tho next meeling after the form is r,ted,
CE Form 88. 10.91
PAGE l
, ,.,,,,",",
, '1
<:>
~
\ '
IF YOU MAKE NO AlTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must cflSCb3tn cr.aly the nattJre ot you- conlllct klltle rnoamro before partlcfpatlng. .
. You muct ~te,the fomt and 1M It within 15 dar- .ft<< tho vote oca.n wtth the pon;.on responsj~ tor rocording tho mlnut" ~ th
meeting, YkIo rJ'lU$t ~te tho form n the mInutos. A CQp)' of tho foon ITIlJOt be provIdod Immod'l3tlt1y to tho oth6r mombcl.... 0( !he
ogency, and tho form must be re:Kl pubrcly at the next mooting aflor the form It fiIod.
,<~;.Di$CLosuRe OF LOCAL OFFlCER'S INTEREST
"2A?t:71
. =zip
-
'//7
.
I.
" ,
,:::..::,~.., , horoby disclose tNt on
beforo my agency which (chock one)
Inured to my special privata gain;
, Inured to tho special gain or my business assocl3ts.
Inured to the special gain or my relative '
~lnurodloih..pedarg'lno/ 7L- ~ t:i Ltd
lnurod to tho special gain of
. which Is ,ttHl parant
. whom I am retaiOOd: 0(
organiza~ or subsidi;ry of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure bofOl"e my agency and the nature of my oonnlcting Intor05t In the measure is as follows:
~~- (.,,42
~ l- C--r)
~~ fA-J~ (FL~A- ~ ~ j
~~h/~ ~k
..~. 4.....W
Date Filed
"'1/;7 Iii I
,
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 5112.317 (1991). A FAILURE TO MAKE AUY REQUIRED DiSCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED DY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING; IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL
OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OEMOITlON, REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY
NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. ;.,:\':\
~I.' J
'r4>.:'+'
, CE Form 8B . , 0.91
PAGE 2
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
'pOUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAM E- ~IIlSl' I'iAME -MIUOl,E NAMe NAME OF BOARD, C'OUNCIL, COMMISSION. ,WTlIORITV. OR COMMlllel
PLI7/~O ALG X c.:OM,V1Uw/TrfA;.U6L 'Mb,vT(3oAfL
'1\iLiNo ADDRESS
800 D/Z. t57.A./ Sf
CI1Y
6 L-SA-I'\LUA-~
TilE nOARD, COUNCil. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMlnEE 0"1
WIllCU I SERVE IS ^ UNIT OF:
~ITY' 0 COUNTY 0 OTIlER LOCAl. AGENCY
D,...TE ON WHIC'H VOTE OCCURRED
COUNlY
NAME OF POLlTIC"l SUBDIVISION;
;lIIf?LlN> &/Ti OF C;t...t5/()/<. W/t7&?~
MY POSITION IS:
(] ELECTIVE
li.....AI.P01NTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM SB
I'
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an 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 conniet of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
CE FORM 18.10.91
PAGE I
,''bur responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a connict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention 10 the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
':'"')\ person holding elective or appointive county. municipal, or other loeal public office MUST ABSTAIN (rom vOling on a measure
...~ P which inures to his special private gain. Each elected or appointed local ofliccr also is prohibited (rom knowingly voting on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained (including the parent
. organizntion or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to Ihe special private gain of a relative; or to the special
private gain 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, oneWVOte 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. 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 properlY. or corporale shareholder (where the shares of the
,corporation are not listed on any national or regional Slock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the connict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stilting to the assembly the nature of your interest in the me:lsure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTe OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporale Ihe form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise ma)' participate in Ihese mallers. However,
you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any altempt to innuence the decision, whether orally or in writing and
whether made by )'ou or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AlTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN:,
". You must complele and file this fonn (before making an)' allempt 10 innuence the decision) with the person responsible for
\,J recording the minutes of the meeling, who will incorporate the (orm in the minules.
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at th~ next meeting after the form is filed.
.J'::' .~'~:,,:-I.,',".". ~.~:'~'~~...'i': IJ..~~/'.:~ I.::.~. '-'th,~.:"-... I:,~'\..:~'.':nl'.".. ~~f~. .... " ~.I'. .P. '.:~.':I'. .~I ,':;....~. ~:.: ~j
I .~,:,.~t., :"''':':.'': ,:~+:..',.': ~.; ,.:,,:,,~. ':" '.~I'~..":.~1 ...~. ,..1',.1,." . .~. '''I~ ~,'~~'. .;1".' . I .~..,_...~~_..R ...t....:.~....'.l..:~.".. ~:.'~.,I
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEd~10N EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· ' You must disclose orally the nature of your connict in the measure before ranlcipaling.
, · You' must complete the form and file it within f 5 days after the VOle occurs with l/1e person responsible for r,ecording the minules of
the meeling, who'mllst incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of Ihe form must be provided Immediately to th~cr
members of the a&e~cy. and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting afler the form is filed.
I.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
ALG>' PL-/SriO ,hereby disclose that on ~ ut. "(17
'"2 oc.J I
, ....,---:
. '(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my special private gain;
_ ,inu,:,!:d to the special gain of my business associate,
, _ inured to the special gain of my relative,
!/" inu~ed to ~he special gain of ~ A L V /1J 'r7 tJ,v A-rZrVl y
whom I am retained: or
_ inured 'to the special gain 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 f~l1ows:
, by
" which
,.,
t "I'
(JA <?'b
,AJ L( /-1/1 6 f5YZ.-.
A tqeNl? JIO
/ Tt51A--1
PL Ol-o?; -II
,,# '[/4-
(~i)
" THG,:' rJi\ 611 / ~ J?,(//( ~ t.-
r?fl-M
TJ( #J I
"
pf2.E fllJ 1'<.6}:) ? L/r!/ /1..1 / r 77J 1.-'
Ib Y AC6>< PL I~~O,
/Lf;,
1<L.li/t./
JULY'
Date' Filed
"Zu' ZOO I
I
&9~
S. . ~7
Ignature '
"NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~I 12.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANYREQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWU
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTJOt~'t1~
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO.
CE FORM 88 ~ 10.91
PI'.GE 2
........ '''~~:'!'I:,:"",''~1{...-.I:' ~ r..-,"";..o!;...~.
~ .. ..,
','<<' .t.
.:' ~ r " ".I:~' ',' ~.. r I ;' ,. . '.... ; f . ~ ~ ~' , ." '. ' : i .' ' , ~ ',~ ,~. .'.: :,'.; .:. " r .'. . ~L ,..,,~,;: . .r':...: " f ::0,' -. .: I '. ~ l ,:'.' , . , ., .': " ~. I . .: '. ..:" t.. \ '. .~:' "7, I ~: .:. r".' ,f . ~_ . . ~. :., I ,'; ~. ". '.,.,:
" ,
IF YOU MAKE NO AITEMPTTO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE' MEETING:
· You must diSclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before pa rticipating.
· You must complete the form and file it within I S days after the vOle occurs with tpe person responsible for recording Ihe minutes of
thcmecting, who must incorporate the form in the min'ules. A copy of the form must be provided immedIately to thl er
members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
I;
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
AL.G>< i7L-/sI10 ,hercbydisc1osethnton ...j ut.'! /7
"2 c>cJ I
, ;'9':::::.-:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~ inur~d to my special private gain;
_ inured to the spedal gain of my business associate,
, - inured to the special gain of my relativc.
L inu~ed to the special gai~ of ' 4 A l V II[} '77 D,v ~I"ZA-"'1 y
whom I am retained; or
- inured 10 the special gain 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
OA 7b fL.J f..t' W; 6 tSYl-
A'~mve?i'O / ~
PL
~
OI-oG' -11
Dcf
l -,
. ......
THG
~ r< 6ft / 7BZ., TL.t p( I~ t.-
rl(2-lV'/
7 LIt?; /L1 / T 77J l.- / ~
Th' #J ;-
/<.. t-I pt/
, (//2SF fllJl"<.670
E:> Y , AL.-6>(, pL /~,k;o,
, .JULY
Date Filed
?.u ZOO I
i
~Q~;;;
, Signature ' ~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (1991). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
',DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUcrJOt'~ ~l~
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5.OOO. '
',CE FORM SD ./().91
PAGEl
, '
,\
::.':: ';,./ /. : :.';1: '.::" 'c', '.
. !:.:,. . f (':. ,'I .,: ~ .
:'<;..: ..'
'~ '
~ . I
0.' . <
J.r(~;.~..::1 :.: +
.~~~>," ': I
~ ~';.:
,
"
..:'/'c
,.' j.
.
....<..
i, "
',:.'
...'
, '
;:......
, '
;,.'1
"
'it
't", ~.
" ~'.
~ \ .
",'.:.:
'."'
~.. '.
'J;Y,
l;'~'
:.~::
i '
hi..
, !.
"
," ~
:' ": ~"
:",1:
.', ..
~ .:.. .'
, :",
, "
>i;:~:
I} ~ '.
l~ '.
..'
~ .1 ..
. I' ~ ,
~t '.
:,"'f.
.....,.
"
"
. ' '
. " "
..,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 17, 2001
Present:
, Gerald Figurski
Carlen A. Petersen
David Gildersleeve
Edward Mazur, Jr. '
,Shirley Moran
Alex Pliska '
. Ed Hooper
Frank Hibbard
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member/voting
, Also .Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
, Cynthia Tarapani
Lisa L. Fierce
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney,
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.
t:l 'ITEM A - 'APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 19, 2001
Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
June 19, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board
, member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
. ~: ~ ,.
.~: .:
\' '.
"
1"1:
:.....<~:
.~ I ~ ." ~
":~:',';,:
I'..;
.:::~~~:~
" >,~ \
,.:~:,: I'
'-1: ;
~':: :~.: ~
, ,
;' , ~
:,::i/i.
I:'....>
/~.;
I',:"
I"'"
. ; . .~
.~":I: .'
,'.
, ,
.. "..
'i'/' ~.
,",.,.
'"
:OJ,' .~.:
. ~,~
, ,\
,~
.' .\,..~
!.',
',.',LI
~ . "
, ...~: I.
.: .;.
oj. '!
" ,
,i ( .
.': ~ '; .
, ,
ITEM B - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION - None.
ITEM C - RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None."
ITEM 0 - LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA - Accepted as submitted, less Items #E 1, #E2, and #E4.
, .
Consent Agenda items require no formal public hearing and are subject to
approval by a single motion. Any Community Development Board Mem1?er or the
City Planner may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual discussion
and vote.
Item #01 ...; 2855 Gulf-to-Bav Bouievard: Morton Plant Mease Ufe Services. Inc. -
Owner/Aoolicant. Request rezoning of 2.71 acres approximately 650 feet south of
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and 500 feet east of Sky Harbor Drive, from MDR, Medium
Density ResidentIal District, to MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District,
consisting of a portion of Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East (Bayside
Nursing'Pavllion). Z 01-05-01
C'
07/17/01
med070 1 '
1
~. . I
c".." '; ~ C', .~.t "t\~
,I
",
consisting of a portion of Soction 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East (Bayslde
" Nursing Pavilion). Z 01-05-01 '
The property owner is requesting a zoning of 2.71 acres from Medium
Density Residential (MDR) zoning district to Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) zoning 'district in order to allow the nursing home to be a conforming use.
While the non-conformity does not affect the current use of the property, it could
create a problem if there were damages to the property to the extent that it had to
. be rebuilt. The site has sufficient density through its Residential Medium plan
category and the proposed MHDR zoning is consistent with the current plan
category.
c)
ijft
,. .
On April 5, 1994, the former Planning and Zoning Board held a public
he'aring for a Zoning Atlas Amendment (Gase Number Z94-02) to Multiple-Family
Residential "Sixteen" (RM-16), after which they unanimously endorsed the proposed
Zoning Atlas Amendment to the Commission. On April 21, 1994, the Commis'sion
approved the rezoning request of this property to increase allowable density to
permit the construction of a 120-bed nursing facility at this site. On January 5,
1996, the final site plan for Bayside Nursing Pavili~n was approved which reflected
the amended zoning district. Since then this facility has been functioning and
operating with the approved density. However"following the adoption of the new
Community Development Code in January 21, 1999, the RM-16 zoning district was
reclassified as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR zoning district under
the current Code does not permit the nursing home in this district. As a result, the
~acility (Bayview Nursing Pavilion) is a legally non-conforming use in this district.
The owner intends to sell the property separately from the adjacent,
apartments. An access easement through other properties to a public road and a
drainage agreement (to accept water and maintenance requirements) are required
prior to the Commission first reading on August 16, 2001. No replat of the
property is required.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, is
compatible with the sLirroun'ding area, does not conflict with the needs and
character of the neighborhood and City, does not require 'nor affect the provision of
the public services, and the boundaries are appropriately drawn. Staff recommends
approval.
AND
Item #02- 2780 Drew Street: City of Clearwater. c/o Art Kader. Assistant Director
of Parks and Recreation - Owner/Aoolicant. Request: 1) land use plan amendment
, from RM, Residential Medium Classification to R/OS, Recreation/Open Space'
Classification, and 2) rezoning from MDR, Medium Density Residential District ,to
O/SR, Open Space/Recreation District, consisting of a portion of Section 8,
Township 29 South, Range 16 East, M&B 34.04. lUZ 01-04-05
" The property owner has requested thIs plan amendment and rezoning
application for a City park with two softball fields. The property recently was
,mcd070 1
2
07/17/01
, ,
~~gr(.. ,;;'>;,,;-'::;,' ;';-;/, ;';,:;<,< <:;;~;,:,\ ':;:
~J.::'-~,f. '1 ,~"'::. ... ~"~,..,'" ..-~j P . .c, t -. \) .,'Ui'-' .'- "i:-. \""1.1' i. lj . .
~t~~l.'J."J .. , . '......- ..~. ":'.'
" '
.: t~.< . ..:.:'. c, ; ~
,,: . :\<,l,',:\;:~' ';,i':,>',:,,;> ,/:: ':';:,.t'>':/\ ";':',::;;f..~i!.',~~u:'..(;: ~ '.', " ;", ';,;, , ,:,,' '~:1: ';':'.: i, I'", ;,,";'
'.
,:,>,;,:.': I';;\j,.'
~ '" .
"
" ,
l..' I . " ,
">>,
0'
~
. <I'
. ,
transferred to City ownership from Calvary Baptist Church as part of a land swap
,for Chesapeake Park. It is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a
corresponding Residential Medium future land use plan classification. The site is
vacant and involves 217,800 square feet or 5.0 acres of land. The two proposed
. softball fields will be a part of the Eddie C. Moore Softball Complex, which is
located east of the subject property. The proposed amendment will result in a less
intensive use of the subject site.
, The current Residential Medium Plan classification will allow the proposed
development of a park at this site under flexible development criteria. However, the
Park's Department is requesting these amendments to insure that this facility will be
protected by ordinarme for future generations and to comply with the p(otections
afforded parklands zoned Open Space/Recreation in accordance with Article II,
Section 2.01 (5HVi City Code of Ordinances. This Section of the Ordinance states
,that "No municipally owned real property identified as recreation/open space on the
City's Comprehensive land Use Plan map on November 16, 1989 (or as may be
amended thereafter), may be sold, donated, leased for a new use, or otherwise
transferred without prior approval at referendum, except when the Commission
determines it appropriate to dedicate right-of-way from such property. Such
recreation/open space property may be leased for an existing use, without
referendum, unless such lease is otherwise prohibited by charter or ordinance." The
. P!nellas Planning Council will review this request as a level 1-Type E sub-threshold
amendment since the plan category requested is for the Recreation/Open Space.
As a sub-threshold, the review process is substantially streamlined to recognize the
low potential impact of this type of plan amendment.
I
'I
Several improvements are. planned for the site. The applicant plans to
develop joint access and cross-parking agreements with the Pinellas County School
Board to enhance the service level of the proposed facility. Through these
agreemen~s, park users will be allowed to use the school parking lot during non-
,school hours. A shade structure will be built containing rest rooms, vending
machines and a storage room. The fields will include dugouts and other amenities
such as scoreboards. The City intends to provide an access drive to the signalized
intersection at Drew Street and Hampton Road. This improvement will help vehicles
enter and exit the school property and also will allow the new park to have less
impermeable areas dedicated to parking. The lighting system will be designed with
the necessary shields a'nd alignment to minimize any glare or spillover into the
neighboring properties.
The proposal is consistent with both the City and the Countywide
Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor
affect the provision of the public services, is compatible with the natL~ral
environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. , Staff
recommends approvaL '
AND
Item' #E3 1698 Gulf-to-Bav Boulevard: Gulf Florida DouQhnuts. Inc. c/o Robert
McCov - Owner/Aoolicant. Request Flexible Developme~t approval to reduce the
mcd070 1
3
07/17/01
: .
. ,
,q
:~)
.il.J,';a ".
v
'..
." .,
>'{,,',
, '.
c', I,
"
required ,",umber of parking spaces from 1 5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross
floor area (GFA), (68 spaces) to 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
(GFA), (50 spaccs~, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project with
Comprehensive Landscape Program and Comprehensive Sign Program, Sec. 14-29-
15, M&B 13.05. FL 01-05-21
The applicant is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the
required number of parking spaces from 1 5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross
floor area (GFA), (68 spaces) to 1 1 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
(GFA), (50, spaces) for this 1.1 25-acre site on the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay ,
Boulevard and Duncan Avenue. The general vicinity includes other commercial uses
along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Code requires 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area for restaurant use and does not provide for a parking
reduction for fast food-style restaurants. The proposed use meets the definition of
fast food restaurant by having a drive-through Window, however, the doughnut
shop will not have the same impact as traditional, full-menu fast food ,
establishments. The applicant is permitted to request a parking reduction by way of
,this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application.
The site cannot physically accommodate additional parking while maintaining
an efficient site layout and an aesthetically appealing design. As part of the original
submittal, the application has provided a parking study based'on the parking
generation of a similar store on Kennedy Boulevard in Tampa. The study was
conducted on a random weekday from 5:00 a.m. till 8:00. p.m. The count was
taken at 1 5-minute intervals for the quantity of vehicles parked in the lot and
stacked in the drive-through. The study revealed that a maximum of 20 cars were
on site at 7:30 a.m.; 13 of these automobiles were stacked in the drive-through
lane. The maximum number of parked customer cars was 14 cars at 8:30 a.m.
'The'study excludes employee parking which is estimated at seven spaces for the
Tampa store. The study also compared the square footage and number of parking
spaces for three other stores. This comparison revealed an average of six parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is an appropriate ratio for the
doughnut shops. By applying this parking ratio, the 4,500 square-foot store should
provide a minimum of 27 spaces. The applicant has estimated that a maximum of
15 employees would be on-site at peak times. 'Based on a site and use-specific
parking study, the proposed site is expected to exceed the parking needs for this'
use.
, c
The applicant wishes to change the site's use from vehicle sales and display
to a restaurant. The site includes a 4,500-square foot, brick building oriented
towards Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Parking is situated behind the building and along
Duncan Avenue. The parcel is acces'sible from a curb cut along Duncan Avenue'
and two driveways along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The site is well landscaped with a
variety of plant materials. The proposed tenant is a Krispy Kreme doughnut shop to
be housed in the existing building. The, restaurant wlll include a drive-through
window along the west elevation and a minor parking lot reconfiguration to
,eliminate angled parking. The reconfiguration will alsq provide a center parking bay.
The building exterior will be greatly improved with a light beige, stucco fa9~de. A
, green awning wiU be placed atop the continuous windows and entrance. White
mcd0701
4
07/17/01
"
, ,
,;$ti
(,,~l
, ~
,~
d. l.,
;'
, '
,moldings are to be, constructed a,top the fa<;:ade walls accented by, a red building,
, stripe. The proposed fayade enhancements will greatly improve the corner at Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard and Duncan Avenue. A concrete slab with bicycle racks is
", proposedone foot from the front property line along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Staff
recommends the concrete slab and bicycle racks be located directly in. front of the
building and buffered behind landscaping.
The original proposal included a Comprehensive Sign Program for one, 32
square-foot, six-foot tall, freestanding 'sign and two 16.25 square-foot attached
signs lone on each street frontage). Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce said
, a change has been made t9 the third condition the size of the signage. The revised
condition Is reflected below and is permitted under current Code. Two window
,signs (one,on each street frontage) are also proposed. The proposal complies with
Code and the provisions of a Comprehensive Sign Program application. Staff
recommends approval with conditions: 1) If a different restaurant is proposed, the
parking needs shall be reevaluated and may require approval by the Community
Development Board; 2) the' concrete slab with the bicycle rack be relocated adjacent
building and screened with landscape material; and 3) signage be limited to one 32
, square-foot freestanding sign,: one 26.52 square-foot attached sign along Duncan
Avenue, one 32 square foot attached sign along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and two,
,eight square-foot window signs as submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sign
'Program application.
It was noted that Items #E1, #E2, and #E4 were pulled from the Consent
Agenda for discussion.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the'Consent Agenda Items #0'1,
#02, and #E3 as submitted, including corresponding conditions. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Itom 1103 - Coachman Ridae Neiahborhood Plan: Coachman RidQe Neiahborhood
and Cltv of Clearwater - Owner/Apolicant. Request approval of Coachman Ridge
Neighborhood Plan pursuant to Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
provisions, for property in the northeast quadrant of State Road 590 and Old
Coachman Road, west of the Florida Power right-of-way and south of Campbell
Road.
VVhon the City of Clearwater adopted its ne~ Community Development Code
, in 1999, a new planning tool known as the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District (NCOD) was established. The purpose of the NCOD is to ensure that
redevelopment activities and infill in, existing stable neighborhoods are consistent
with the existing character of the neighborhood. The NeOD has a list of nine
criteria that neighborhoods must meet in order to be eligible for the designation.
Once it has been determined that a neighborhood complies with the criteria,
including that owners of sixty percent (60%) of the real property within the
neighborhood agree to pursue the NCOD, the process begins. The neighborhood, in
conjunction with City' staff, must prepare a special area plan that includes goals and
objectives, as well as development standards that are appropriate to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Once the City Commission
mcd0701
5
07/17/01
~'
i.~~~~
I ~', .
(;)
The neighborhood has a, variety of lot sizes and architectural styles, mature
landscaping and well-maintained properties. Coachman Ridge Is a stable
neighborhood that has a very small number of properties with city code violations.
Co'achman Ridge is the first neighborhood to use the NCOD. The
Homeowners Association became interested in the NCOD because its members
want to maintain th,e existing character and established standards of the Coachman
Ridge neighborhood. There is concern that lack of compliance with subdivision
deed restrictions would change the' character of the neighborhood and could
ultimately lead to a decline inproperty values and neighborhood stability. This
voluntary homeown'ers association believes that the im'plementation of the NCOD
wi,ll achieve its objective to keep Coachman Ridge a strong and viable
neighborhood.
, ' In August 2000, the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association distributed a
, letter to all properties within the neighborhood explaining the NCOD, the process
and criteria for NeOD designation, as well as a petition ,asking residents if they
supported initiating the process to establish Coachman Ridge as a NCDD. A total of
190 homeowners voted "yes" to pursue the designation. This represents seventy-
four percent '(74%) of the neighborhood whereas the Code only requires approval
by sixty percent (60%). Only ten (10) homeowners voted "no". Fifty-five (55) did
not vote.
In October 2000. the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association submitted
an application and the required petition for NCOD designation to the City. At the
January 16. 2001. meeting, the Commission approved the Initiation of the NCOD
planning process. Between February 2001. and May 2001, five public meetings
with the neighborhood were held. Notice was given to all Coachman Ridge
properties through a letter describing the NCOD process and inviting all property
owners to attend the four meetings. The dates and times of each meeting were
included in the notice. Public notice for the fifth me~ting was provided through a
letter distributed to all properties within the neighborhood. The draft plan also was
att'ached to the notice. Signs were erected at neighborhood entrances to remind
residents of four of the meetings. At those meetings, neighborhood residents
i~entified strengths and weaknesses. developed neighborhood goals and objectives,
and identified development standards to be included in the Coachman Ridge NCDD.
At the last meeting held on May 21, 2001, a presentation of the plan was made.
Neighborhood participallts voted to accept the plan with minor changes 'and to
mcd070 1
6
07/17/01
. , ,~~, ." r . . ~,.. "
. l . :~," ," < ~ ....~., .',>'
'.,
, I ",)
'. '
~
.'
;,
~J
g,
, '.
, . ,
proceed with the process to gain a recommendation from the Community
Development Boord (COB) and approval by the Commission.
The Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan is evidence of the neighborhood's
, desire to maintain, existing neIghborhood standards and quality of life. It provides' a
fr~mework for neighborhood enhancement and changes and will serv'e as an official
document of the neighborhood and the City. This special area plan will be used to
coordinate public and private initiatives, as well as provide the basis for the
Implementation of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
The Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan also is consistent with the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan.. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 01-23 that
adopts the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan.
AND
Item #04 - Coachman Rldae Nelahborhood Plan: Coachman Ridae Neiahborhood' ,
and City of Clearwater - Owner/AooUcant. Request rezoning and applying the
Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation District as an overlay District in
addition to the Existing Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density
Residential Zoning districts, for property at the northeast quadrant ot State Road
590 and Old Coachman Road, west of the Florida Power right-ot-way and south ot
Campbell Road. Z 01-06-02
Pursuant to Section 4-608 of the Community Oevelopment,Code, the
Coachman Ridge neighborhood submitted an application and the required petition to
, Initiate the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) planning process in
October 2000. At the January 16, 2001 meeting the City,Commission approved
tho application. Between February 200 ~ and May 2001 the neighborhood, in
conjunction with Planning Department staff, held a total of five public meetings
with the neighborhood to develop the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. The
Plan focuses on neighborhood strengths and weaknesses and includes goals and
objectives to address those issues.
The Coachman Ridge neighborhood has two different zoning designations. '
Thirteen properties located in the northwest part of the subdivision and platted as
Coachman Ridge Tract A-III are zoned Low Density Residential (LOR). These ,
properties are located on Lee Road, Casey Jones Court and Wetherington Road.
The remaining 242 properties, platted as Coachman Ridge Tract A-1 and Tract A-II,
are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMOR). The Coachman Ridge
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (CRNeDD) would apply to the entire
subdivision and fulfills the intent of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Plan. Staff
recommends approval.
, .
AND
Item #05 - Taxt Amendments: Amendments to the Community Development Code
reQardlna the orovislons ot the Coachman Ridae Neiahborhood Conservation
Overlav DIstrict. TA 01-06-02
mcd0701
7
07/17/01
" ,
. \ '.
~
i.
()
'\.;J
, ,
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-608, the Coachman
Ridge neighborhood received approval from the Commission in January 2001 to
proceed with the planning process required for implementation of a neighborhood
" conservation overlay zone. Between February 2001 and May' 2001 neighborhood
residents, In conjunction with Planning Department staff, developed the Coachman
Ridge Neighborhood Plan. The Plan details actions required by neighborhood
residents and the development standards to be applied in the CRNCDD.
Proposed Ordinance No. 6825-01 creates Division 16 of Article 2 of,the '
Community Development Code entitled Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
This division will contain the provisions for all neighborhood conservation overlay
districts. Additionally, this ordinance creates the Coachman Aidge Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District ICANCDD), which contains amendments that are
specific to the Coachman Ridge neighborhood. The ordinance addresses: 1)
Purpose, jurisdictional boundaries and relationship to underlying districts; 2)
permitted uses and dimensional standards; 3) driveway materials; 4) parking on
landscaped areas; 5) parking of certain types of vehicles; 6) fences; and 71
'screening requirements for trash containers, oil tanks, gas tanks, soft water tanks
and other similar equipment.
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6825-01 that revises the
Community Development Code and establishes the first Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District.,
Ms. Clayton briefly reviewed Items #03, #04, and #05, including: 11
Existing conditions; 2) neighborhood strengths and weaknesses; 3) goals and
objectives; 4) implementation; 5) neighborhood location; 6) neighborhood character;
7) neighborhood infrastructure; 81 neighborhood security/safety; and 9) property
values.
Ms. Clayton said neighborhood residents who participated in the publicly
held meetings identified the f~llowing as Coachman Ridge strengths: 1) Location;
2) neighborhood character; 3) neighborhood infrastructure; 4) neighborhood '
security/safety; and 5) property values. The following weaknesses were identified:
1} Possible impacts of new community sports complex; 2) neighborhood perimeter;
3) traffic and parking; 4) property maintenance; 5) voluntary homeowners
association; and 61 lack of reclaimed water.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the Coachman Ridge
neighborhood has permission from the City to maintain the entryway into the
neighborhood, which is funded thro!Jgh the Homeowners Association. The
Association is discussing expanding the entryway landscaping and ,obtaining
e~sements from property owners. A code enforcement process has been identified
for the neighborhood. Violators would receive a notice from the neighborhood code
. enforcement contact that they are in violation of the code. If the violator does not
, comply within 10 days, upon reinspect ion and confirmation of noncompliance, a
. violation letter would be issued. In the event compliance Is still not gained, the
. neighborhood enforcement contact would report the violation to the City's
. Community Response Team. The City would begin the normal process for code
mcd0701
8
07/17/01
~I .. .' j .
,.:
t ".
'~
:;
Q
,
, "
, ,
violation enforcement. Ms. Clayton said staff feels this plan would give credence to
projects that may impact the Coachman Ridge neighborhood. In response to a
question, she said t,he neighborhood had extensive discussion regarding an .
architectural review body and it was decided they do not VVish to dictate colors of
homes. In the event the City recognizes sustained, extraordinary actions in the
neighborhood that result in Increased costs for City staff, the program would be
reevaluated and possible fees could be assessed. No specific fees have been
discussed.
Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff does not believe there
will b~ a higher than normal level of enforcement in this neighborhood. She said:
most of the issues In the overlay district are already addressed in the
neighborhood's deed restrictions. It was remarked that t.his process takes some of
the burden off the City's permitting staff. City permits have been issued that may
, have violated a neighborhood's deed restrictions.
Concern was expressed by a board member that when the process began,
thElre was a requirement that 60% of re'sidents must agree to pursue the NCOD,
however there is no requirement to have 60% of residents to agree to implement
the process. Ms. Clayton said one resident petitioned the neighborhood. She said
she was informed that approximately 130 petitions 'were received in support of
Implementing the process. The City Clerk Department received 20 letters from
persons opposing the implementation of NCOD. She said a vote was taken at the
fifth public neighborhood meeting by those in attendance, however no vote was
taken upon completion of the process.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Commission has directed
'staff to prepare an ordinance that would call for a straw vote by residents within
any ov~rlay district prior to the preparation of a tinal plan. The results of that final
vote would be presented to the CDS and Commission when the neighborhood plan
,and proposed overlays are reviewed. '
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said items such as chain link fences
that were permitted prior to the implementation of the NeOD would be
grandfathered. Staff could research County and City records if any questions arose.
Robert Losi, applicant representing the Coachman Ridge neighborhood,
reviewed the history and status of the Coachman Ridge neighborhood and
association. He said the neighborhood has experienced minimal infractions. In
1999, when the Homeowners Association learned.of the NCOD, they felt it would
bolster deed restriction enforcement. The Coachman Ridge Homeowners
Association submitted an application in October 2000, and the required petition for
NCOD'designation to the City. He felt. the NCOD would not water down deed
restrictions and would maintain the high standards in the neighborhood. He said
when the Homeowners Association petitioned residents to apply for NCOD status,
190 out of, 255 residents voted in favor of starting the NCOD process. The process
began with the appointment of a Study Committee. Four public meetings were
scheduled and an additional meeting was held to' allow residents to comment on the
final 'plan. In addition to the public meetings, the Study Committee and City staff
mcd0701
07/17/01
9
~. ,,'. {,I".: ' '.' ",,,,,.'. I .'.' f ~ . ~' . L L I; ..., . > I: . '~."".. ~ .. '. ;.1,1 .. ~ ',' '......1 ~ ~I '( 'or'. ': . .: . :', . .,; .:', ~.' ":' r: ;f \,' 'l" l .' "'f. ,'., ". ~ ~. ~: . ;::. L ~ '. '.. .~. '.' :;.+: I'." ":!:,' .. ;,:.. .' . :'. i:.i .,:. i ~. : .'~' ~
( '"
'I
,I "
,J '
I
I. "':'Ol~
"1' ,f.'. '''\
., \...3;1
j
1, ,:
, "
t '
:' ~ .
!'
i
" \'
.'
,.
" .
." ~.
,
, .'
'. > i '.~
I..' '
,,-. I
. '.
. "
,
" '
:~
'~
.sttended 6 planning meetings to discuss the process of formulating the NCOD plan.
'Attendance at neighborhood meetings averaged 30 - 40 people per meeting.
Those in attendance at the last meeting were overwhelmingly In favor of the plan.
All residents received caples of the NeOD plan. He said residents had every
opportunity to participate in 'the plan process as they received notification in the
mail and via signs at entrances to the neighborhood. He said some people
distributed handouts opposing the plan, which included inaccurate and misleading
informat,ion. Approximately 2 -3 people who attended the final public meeting ,
,objected to the plan citing concerns regarding: 11 fences not being permitted in
front yards (which was later amended to permit them in the LOR zoned area); 2)
prohibition of parking of boats or commercial vehicles on lots unless in a garage; 3)
the plan allowed community residential homes; and 4) the plan allowed for the
possibility of a service fee. .
Mr. Losi said Florida S~atutes and City code allows community residential
homes to be viewed as single family residences. Some residents said they did not
mind paying a fee for services but the majority was opposed. Mr. Losi said
residents were informed that if they determined that the NeOD plan was, not
working, a vote would be taken which would require a' 60% affirmative vote of
re~idents,in favor of , opting out of the NCOD. He commended the City for being
flexible during the process.
, Three persons spoke in support of the plan. Seven persons spoke in
opposition of the plan. One person was neither for or against the plan but was only.
. ,
concerned about protecting the quality of neighborhoods.
Discussion ensued regarding residents in Tract Alii that have larger lots than'
homeowners in Tracts AI and All asking to opt out of the NeDD. It was remarked
that the entire, neighborhood should have the opportunity to adopt or reject the final
plan.
Ms. Tarapani said City ,Code does not change deed restrictions.' In response
to a question she said only personal vehicles can be parked in a driveway. Certain
types of vehicles such as commercial and recreational vehicles must be parked
inslde'the garage.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the provision in the Code
'regarding community residential homes being recognized as single family residences
is not new and has been in existence since approximately 1980. In response to a
question, she said the Commission has directed staff to consider amending the
Co~e to allow for a final vote by residents on the development standards proposed
to govern the overlay district.
, In response to a question. Ms. Tarapanl said the Island Estates neighborhood
needs to be aware that pending legislation regarding the NCOD may affect them.
The Commission has directed staff to continue with the process and report back to
the Commission on Its progress.
0'
mcd0701
07/17/01
10
~. i."":~; :. .' .t
':>~:i~}_'<'.~'t~:\.:.;':.:'.~:. ...~..:"-."'..,':':c' ~l'.;:.;'. I~' . ;.",. ':., . . f' .
; ,~&Jh,..,.,o.,.t...\ :~, ',',:.<kl;\",t\,~I~;,." l"" ., .." '. , ' '",' i " " " , ",: I'
'l.~ .. ""\~,r.~{~(j., \l,'. .... J.i /:'1-, 'I'~; cJ;'. ';, r~~".' Tf e ;'1: J:~"~: ~ :::};:~!!t /;t. .,/,<,:' ".',' ',,) :. ~ ;,
. >, "
;'.' :'i~~,.:~~C::d:1i;~';:; i'h::'i~,,~> ": :::,::..,':: ~;::;'''::';:::':;~:':'; ;'",:,{(\', .':,': .::,;;,~,:~',,~;,j~:LJj~~:~~
'"
, ,
I J'. "
'~'
, ......,
, , I
'1"'-"'J,f'
Q
~ .'
'\
"
:, , Mr. Losl said the Coachmun Ridge' neighborhood is taking advantage of a law
that was initiated by the City because there are some mutual benefits to be gained.
He said one vote per household was counted when the petition to begin the process
was initiated. He said none of the provisions in the NCOO conflict with the existing
deed restrictions. He said deed restrictions for Tracts A 1, A2, and A3 within the
neighborhood are the same. He said residents that expressed concern regarding the
NCOO have enjoyed the benefits of a homeowners association and will continue to
do,so. Mr. Losi said he is not opposed to a final vote on the plan.
Concern was expressed that the City may be applying additional restrictions
on homeowners. It was remarked that when Charlie Siemon of Siemon and Larsen
originally proposed the NeOD, his intent was that 'the NCOD would protect
neighborhoods with unique characteristics. It was remarked that the 13 homes in
Tract Alii are different than in Tracts AI and II. Ms. Tarapani said the rules were
outlined, pu~lic meetings were held, and all residents of the neighborhood had the
opportunity to participate by attending meetings or contacting the City, the
Homeowners, Association, and members of the Study Committee.
It was suggested that the neighborhood hold a final vote on the plan before '
i~ goes to the Commission in September ,and that voting guidelines be established.,
, In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the ordinance regarding the
NCOO would be presented to the Commission at the second Commission meeting in
Septembedor possible adoption'!n November.
Member Moran moved that regarding Items #03, #04, and #05, to
recommend to the Commission adoption of the Coachman Ridge Neighborhood,
Plan, approve the rezoning of Coachman Ridge Subdivision from Low Density
Residential (LOR) to Low Density Residential/Coachman Ridge Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (LOR/CRNCOD) and Low Medium Density
Residential/Coachman Ridge Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(LMOR/CRNCOD), and approve Ordinance #6825-01 that revises the Community
Development Code and establishes the first Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District, subject to a final vote of the neighborhood. The motion was duly
seconded.
It was remarked that costs or fees associated with the NCOD should be
addressed.
Upon the vote being takon; the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 4:22 to 4:33 p.m.
ITEM E - lEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS
, Item #E1 :.. 1100 South Missouri Avenue: The Clearwater Group, Ltd. -
Owner/Applicant. Request an amendment to a previously approved Certified' Site
Plan (Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a change of use for undeveloped parcels (from
commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of existing
m'cd070 1
07/17/01
11
..\/>"
. , I ~ r +
'. '
~
..'
~....If:tt...,
","';;1
i~
"
"
.
, "
commercial use, and an additional access point on Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1
(restaurant), for 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and south
Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of south Missouri Avenue,
approximately 1,150 feet south of Druid Road, Sec. 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 &
, 34.011 and Sec. 22-29-15, M&Bts 21.11, 21.12 & 21.13; Zoning: C, Commercial
District. FL 01-01-05
The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved Certified
Site Plan ISunshine Mall) that authorizes a change of use for undeveloped parcels
(from commercial to multi-family) totaling 156 units and 15,602 square feet of
existing commercial use, and an additional access point on Missouri Avenue for
Parcel 1 (restaurant), for 3.6 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and
south Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the west side of south Missouri Avenue,
approximately 1,1 50 feet south of Druid Road.
This case was approved by the COB at its March 20, 2001 meeting. Code
requires that all property owners within 200 feet of the subject site be notified of
level Two requ~sts. Because there was an error in notification of surrounding
property owners, this case was scheduled for another public hearing. The applicant
has included an additional driveway along South Missouri Avenue for Parcel 1 (The
Stadium Restaurant) as part of this proposal. There are no other changes to the
site. There have been minimal changes to the staff report.
The rectangular site is 7.155 acres total including 3.6 acres on the
southwest corner of Druid Road and South Missouri Avenue and 3.55 acres on the
west side 91 South Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,150 feet south of Druid Road.
It has a total of 1,345 feet of frontage on Missouri Avenue (east) and 240 feet of
frontage on Druid Road (north). The site is comprised of seven parcels: 1, 2, 3, 4,
4A; 5 and 5A. These parcels are part of a larger development known as
Renaissance Square (formally the Sunshine Mall) approved as part of a certified site
plan on March 12, 1998. There are three additional parcels (6, 7 and 8) part of the
overall site that have been developed by others with attached dwellings. Parcels 7
and 8 extend east to Missouri Avenue and separate Parcels 4A and 5. Parcel 6 also
extends east to Missouri Avenue separating Parcels 3 and 4.
The Certified Site Plan specified the permitted uses for each parcel. Parcels
1 through 5A (subject property) permitted non-residential uses including retail sales
and service, restaurant and office. Parcel 1 is the current site of a 5,602 square
foot, one~story restaurant (The Stadium) for which an additional driveway along
Missouri Avenue is proposed that is necessary to provide reasonable access.
, Parcels 5A and 2 are the sites of a 10,000 square foot, one-story retail sales and
service establishment {VisionWorksl. It is anticipated this structure will be
demolished and replaced with up to two buildings totaling no more than 10,000
square feet.
The Parcels 5A and 2 comprise. a corner lot with two front setbacks - nortll
(Druid Road) and east (South Missouri Avenue). Parking lots and associated asphalt
exist at or near zero feet from all property Hnes on all parcels. The original shopping
center (Sunshine Mall) was demolished in 1999. Parcels 6/ 7 and 8 (compromisIng
mcd070 1
12
07/17/01
';.' '::', ,: L.",:,; ...~ ...: .:. I.~' -',':' '~". ':~..""-:. .',t_",,:.~, . Ii:. '... ',\:. .:;'" : ':..~:" ......:;.,:...,' ~\. ~l: ;.~.f..,.'..,'.\i :,,". '"." :", "".;'"',",' ....~<f~~;.; /. ~I',~,..:. .:L, ..'
more than half the site) have been developed with three apartment complexes
~ including 17, three-story buildings with approximately 650 dwelling units.
The applicant wishes to amend the approved Certified Site Plan by expanding
the permitted uses on Parcels 3, 4, 4A and 5 to include attached dwellings. The
proposal includes 156 attached dwellings within two, four-story buildings on Parcels
4, 4A and 5 in the center of the overall site.. The proposed building on Parcels 4
and 4A will include 131,542 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) and 108 dwelling
. units. The building proposed for Parcel 5 will encompass 52,236 square feet of
GFA and will include 48 dwelling units. A 2,500 square foot, 35-foot tall clubhouse
is proposed on Parcel 3. The proposed buildings will be built to the setbacks and
other standards required by the approved Certified Site Plan including 32.25-foot
front and 10-foot side and rear setbacks for buildings. The applicable Code
regulations in force at the time that the Certified Site Plan was approved did not
include parking or other types of pavement in the definition of a structure. The
, setbacks to parking/pavement uses were dictated by landscape buffer requirements
or 15 feet along major arterials, 10 feet along local streets, and five feet along side
and rear property lines. The proposal meets all setbacks and landscape buffers that
were required by the Certified Site Plan.
, ,
I
The developer proposes relatively low intensity on the two commercial
parcels (Parcels 1, 2 and 5A). It is further proposed that the development potential
unused for these commercial parcels be added to the potential for the residential
parcels. To compute the density for this mixed-use application, development
~~! potential was determined for the developed commercial parcels 11, 2 and 5A).
'!!~~ Those parcels comprise 3.885 acres of the site. It was determined that the land
, area necessary to support the existing buildings 115,602 square feet) on those
parcels is 0.65 acres. If that is,subtracted from the total acreage, there is a net
land area of 3.235 acres available. The maximum density permitted under the
Commercial General Classification is 24 dwelling units per acre. This results in the
development potential of 77.64 dwelling units on Parcels 1, 2 and 5A. Parcels 3,
4, 4A and 5 (3.27 acres) have a development potential of 78.48 units (3.27 acres x
24 dwelling units per acre = 78.48 dwelling units). The total residential
development potential remaining for the site is 156 dwelling units.
Future development and/or redevelopment for Parcel 1 and Parcels 2 and 5A
will be limited to the existing square footage (5,602 square feet and 10,000 square
feet of gross floor area, respectively). Site restraints including setbacks, impervious
surface ratio and parking will be dictated by the requirements of the approved
Certified Site Plan. A new driveway/curb cut is proposed for Parcel 1 (existing
restaurant) along Missouri Avenue.
; 'j
~
The proposed buildings will be finished in a style similar to the recently built
apartments on Parcels 6 through 8 including tile roofs, a stucco finish, window.
details and contrasting color bands. The proposal also includes extensive
landscaping along South Missouri Avenue and will match existing landscaping on
'part of Parcels 6 through 8. Interior landscaping will also exceed the intent of the
current Code. All proposed signage will meet current Code requirements.
mcdD701
13
07/17/01
"
/,.'
'.1.
" ,
-,
~
/ Ij{f; M~\
\ 1.",,'"
u
"l;,
"
"
The ORC reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 14,
2000. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Any
, fu~ther additions or changes to the site plan (not included with this request) be
, reviewed by the COB; 2) the final design of the buildings be consistent with the
conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB; 3) the density of the
site be limited to 156 dwellings units and 15,602 square feet of non.residential
uses; and 4) all signage comply with Code. '
In response to questions from Ed Armstrong, applicant's representative,
Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce said this application meets the criteria for
a certified site plan in terms of setbacks and general applicability requirements of
the Code. She said the setbacks are the same as the previously approved site plan.
, Robert Pergolizzi, applicant's consultant, said he felt the criteria for approval
of this application have been met. He' said he reviewed the intensity of the
proposed amendment versus the initial intensity proposed in 1998, and felt the
bulks, height, and setbacks are consistent with the certified site plan in every
respect. He also analyzed transportation impacts and determined that applying
standard traffic generation rates that under retail development these parcels could
generate over 7,000 daily trips, yet under the proposal, it would only generate
approximately 1,680 trips, roughly 25% of the impact. He said overall impacts are
less than or equal to what was approved in the initial site plan.
Scott Steady, representing Renaissance Square Apartments, Ltd., said his
client abuts the subject property, which is shown as Parcel 6 in the certified site
plan. His client also owns the access road that would provide access to Parcels 1,
3, and 4. The applicant has an easement to the road.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the COB (Community Development Board) could
recognize Mr. Steady if they find his client is a substantially affected party.
Member Moran moved to recognize Renaissance Square Apartments, Ltd. as
an affected party. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Armstrong said this application is almost the same application that came
before the CDS in March 2001. He said the case was postponed because of an
, advertising error. He said this 36-acre site was intended to be developed with
commercial and apartment uses. When the objector purchased his property, it was
obvious the certified site plan reflected those outparcels along Missouri Avenue
were slated for development. Mr. Armstrong said what is being proposed is of
lesser intensity than what was originally proposed.
Mr. Steady said the COB must make findings of fact and determinations of
law related to the criteria. He said the criteria are confusing to him. As this is a
Level Two Approval only, his client does not feel this proposal has been accurately
brought before the COB. He said transitional provisions in the Code state that
regardless of whether a plan is approved, the development can still be followed.
Howevor, the Code does not address how that plan can be amended. He said he
has no question regarding the commercial category. He agreed that under the
mcdD701
14
07/17/01
........_~.:.. .:. r'I+' .',~r:.. :".,L'.:< '....,:.: ;,:,~.\;,;:,"""';r,,,I~:.'/,':\I~.t.,.~,,:
~
. f"\.\~
\:;.,tifil
:' 'i
~
> ,
Comprehensive Plan designation, the permitted number of units is 24. He said the
'question is the process required for approval to amend the site plan to obtain the
,residential units on the fiont portion of the property. Mr. Steady said as the
, property is currently'zoned commercial, he does not believe the level Two Approval
standards are sufficient or that it is the only criteria the applicant must follow to
legally amend the Code for approval of this applicatlon~ He said in addition to the
standards of a level Two Approval, the only way under the Code to obtain approval
, is to look to the Comprehensive Inflll redevelopment provisions which are not in the
staff report. That section is comprised of 9 criteria. The applicant must meet those
criteria by providing substantial competent evidence.
Hugh Caraway, representing Renaissance Square Apartments, ltd., said'
when he purchased Parcel 6 to construct a 200-unit apartment complex, he was
aware of the applicant's approved site plan and thought it was a good one. He felt'
it was a great opportunity to develop the area and that the site plan accomplished
the best use of that site. At that time, the site plan proposed residential toward the
rear of the property and commercial in the front portion. He relied on the
designation that was in effect at that time which included language referring to the
site plan for the outparcels as "permitted uses", not "apartments". It also 'states "
that those designations shall be in effect for 5 years. He said he did not believe
that 4~story apartments on top of a parking garage would be built on his front door.
He said the applicant's traffic study was not done during peak hours. He said there
are,3 separate parcels and believes the site plan is faulty. His driveway splits
Parcels 4 and 4a. Residents will be crossing the street between parcels and there
will be frequent residential traffic. Mr. Caraway said the applicant's proposal would
adversely affect his 2 and 3 story buildings and is concerned that he will have no
, visibility. He said the project also would decrease the value of his property.
, ,
In response to questions from Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Caraway said he has no
professional credentials in the field of land use planning or traffic engineering, but
has been an apartment developer for 20 years. Mr. Caraway ~aid his apartment
complex's occupancy rate currently is 93%. He said he was aware of the existing
grade change and assumed when he purchased his property that retail would be 011
the front parcel. He disagreed that the site plan has indicated that since 1998,
development could be constructed up to 50 feet. He thought that development had
to be commercial.
Ms. Fierce said the certified site plan that was adopted in 1999 provided for
commercial development of a maximum height of 50 feet.
Ms. Tarapani said the staff report is part of the record and the criteria staff
, used to evaluate this case also is available to the public. She said the reason this
'application was treated as an amendment was because the Code is silent on what
happens if a certified site plan is changed. Staff was of the 'opinion that since the
application was a major change of a use, it should be heard at a public hearing.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City Attorney's office concurred that the flexible
development leval Two approval process was the most analogous and appropriate
mcd07,O 1
15
07/17/01
'. ~~....;.~ .~l .,~.. ~\',lf~'''''''1 ". . . ..':'. :..:.......'....;..f:.;I. '",~I~." ':~.'t,; '.',.,~'..",~
"
'~
.i .
'0'
::;
.'
"
I,
for the amendment to a certified site plan, which had been certified under the
former Code.
Mr. Armstrong said he did not want to belabor discussion of the criteria used
by staff. Ho said those criteria are discussed in detail in staff's report. He felt the
expectations of Mr. Caraway,are not being defeated by approval of this application.
He felt apartments are compatible with other types of developments. He felt the
criteria have been met.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said there is an easement over the
property owned by Mr. Steady's client.
,
. I
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said she is comfortable with
staff's analysis and the expert testimony by the City's planners that the applicant
meets the criteria for approval according to Code.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said if this project is approved, it
would complete the density allowed on this site. She said the remaining
commercial projects could not be converted to residential uses. ,
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said a wide assortment of commercial
uses is permitted to be constructed up to a maximum of 50 feet high on this site.
Those uses include indoor retail sales, medical clinics, businesses, professional
offices, restaurants, laboratories, business services, personal services, indoor
commercial recreation entertainment, nonprofit social and community services,
trade schools, gas stations, hotels, motels, accessory dwellings, art galleries,
studios, etc.
Member Hooper moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
amend a previously approved certified site plan (Sunshine Mall) that authorizes a
change of use far undeveloped parcels (from commercial to multi-family) totaling
156 units and' 15,602 square feet of existing commercial use and an additional
driveway along South Missouri Avenue on Parcel 1 (The Stadium Restaurant), with
conditions: 1) Any further additions or changes to the site plan (not included with
this request) be reviewed by the CDB; 2) the final design of the buildings be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB; 3)
the density of the site be limited to 156 dwellings units and 15,602 square feet of
'non-residential uses; and 4) all signage comply with Code. The motion was duly,
seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Petersen, Gildersleeve, Plisko,
Hooper, and Hibbard and Chair Figurski voted "aye"; Member Maran voted "nay".
Motion carried.
Item #E2 - 13 Cambria Street: Linda and Anoel Delgado - Owner/Applicants.
Request a flexible development approval to reduce the minimum lot width 'from 1 50
to 50 faet, reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to 5 feet and to permit a parking
lot design other than what is required by Code, as part of a, Residentiallnfill Project,
for 0.09 acres on the south side of Cambria Street, approximately 100 feet west oJ
Mandalay Boulevard; Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District,
Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 3, Lot 4. FL 01-05-18
mcd070 1
16
07/17/01
b~~'.l'\'l-}': ';f"( ::'.:. ';'~':'L ,.~'c.,:" - ;' '21 ., " ,i.{/_c ':' I ~ I . ~
. i:!btd'J'f.},'i) .t,.l~. "lJ.,)i.!t.c.,~,.).~ ...'.~........~;, '.,..~'~' :. ...
'. ,......>...'Jl,'~,~.. ,". "t':.~>_/. '., .'~i ...> :;:'.'i<..~:~':,;/:~L:..~':',+,., I.~
, ~ ..' ; :,", ,::: ,::,'" :""",i,. ", ~.;:~,.,:,:.,;'tl',;..
\;;~ "'.0 ',,'\) .: ~ I ,j:,"., '::. I . ' ~
,'~'
......ri~.)
I c
,
't""
[' ;"",
~
:,,\.
" '
"
The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum lot width from 1 50 to 50
feet and reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 to 4,350 square feet. The parcol
Is an existing nonconforming lot In the Medium High Density Residential District that
otherwise permits higher densities and a mix of housing types. Given the lot
dimensions. any substantial Improvements would require approval by the Community
,Development Board as part of a Residentiallnfill Project. The proposal also includes
a request to reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to five feet. The existing
structure is nonconforming with the respect to setbacks as are the majority of other
slructures along Cambrra Street. The reduction in the side setbacks is in keeping
wit~ the neighborhood chara9ter. The RH, Residential High Plan Category, permits
two dwelling units based on the property size.
The request includes permission for a parking layout other than what is
, required by Code. With the exception of single-family dwellings, Code prohibits back
out parking onto a road right-of.way. The proposal provides adequate parking on
site'for the two units; two in the garage for the owner-occupied unit and one space
in the driveway for the second unit. Neither parking space blocks access to the
, 9ther ahd will not include parking in the right-of-way. The proposal meets Code in
terms of required number of parking spaces.
This one-story Caribbean-style house with a one-car carport and a large front
deck on a 0.09-acre site on the south side of Cambria 'Street is approximately 250
feet west of Mandalay Avenue. The parcel is nonconforming with respect. to lot
area, lot width, and all setbacks. The site is' comparable to many neighboring sites
in terms of lot coverage and limited setbacks. The style resembles other "Old
Florida" style structures typical of the beach envirol')ment. Overall, the site is in
good condition and well landscaped.
, The immediate vicinity includes a mix of detached and attached dwellings.
The majority of the structures are in fair to good condition and are located on
relatively small lots. The neighborhood is identified in the special area
redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as the "Old Florida" District. The Plan
identifies this area as a primarily residential neighborhood with limited retail uses that
, serve local needs. It recommends the redevelopment of the area with single-family
dwellings and townhouses. Beach by Design acknowledges that a lack of parking in
this area may hinder revitalization of existing Improvements.
The ORC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 14,
2001. Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1) any future redevelopment
initiatives include a parking design that complies with Code or is approved by the
Community Development Board: 2) the final building design is generally consistent
with the elevations submitted to staff April 24, 2001, or as modified by the
Community Development Board; and 3) should the existing/proposed units be
rented, the terms shall comply with the Countywide ~ules (no less than 30 days).
, Concern was expressed that Condition #3 of the staff report reflects
language in the Countywide Rules which references a 30-day minimum requirement
mcd0701
17
07/17/01
" ,
" .
"'l" t'". ,".' .
, '
,< ,
; . .': ~.
I
~
for existing/proposed units to be rented. Ms. Tarapani agreed that the City has not
adopted the 30-day requirement.
Concern also was expressed regarding the land use. Calculations for the site
plan and the green space do not appear to meet the intent of the Code unless open
decks are being considered as open space. Planner Mark Parry said the City
Engineering Department treats wood decks as impervious surfaces. It was
,remarked that Cambria Street is made up of small cottages on the north and south.
The, character has remained over the years with the exception of the waterfront
lots. It was felt that a rental unit in ,the limited space required for residential parking
is inappropriate and would create circulation problems.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said a driveway could be placed on the
property line through this process. She said the existing conditions of these lots
were considered. Concern was expressed that if one cottage were granted this
approval~' the others also would apply for the same use, which would adversely
affect the streetscape. Ms. Fierce said Beach by Design recommends this area be
developed with single-family uses and townhouses.
Ms. Fierce referred to drawings of the elevation of the street and the east
elevation of the building. In response to a question, she said staff has received no
objections from the, abutting property owners.
''':)
'I
. 'A...\
It was remarked that Beach by Design intends to keep old style architecture
in this area and does not encourage the assemblage of modern style properties.
Tom Drunasky, applicant's representative, said the garage door would be ,
moved over a few feet. He said the property is unique and the applicant wishes to
compliment the existing landscaping.
Angel Delgado, owner/applicant, said the adjoining property to the east has a
roof style that sticks out over the street which creates the illusion that building is
higher. He said a veranda could be added on the second floor -For aesthetic
purposes. ,Mr. Orunasky said in order to provide the adjoining neighbor some
privacy, the building does not include windows on the second floor of the east side.
Member Pliska moved to approve the flexible development request to reduce
the minimum lot width from 150 to 50 feet, reduce the side least) setback from 10
to 5 feet and to permit a parking lot design other than what is required by Code, as
part of a Residential Infill Project, for 0.09 acres 011 the south side of Cambria
Street"approximately 1 00 feet west of Mandalay Boulevard, with conditions: 11
Any future redevelopment initiatives include a parking design that complies with
Code or is approved by the Community Development Board: 2) the final building
design is generally consistent with the elevations submitted to staff April 24, 2001,
or as modified by the Community Development Board: and 3) some type of railing
system that gives the illusion of a balcony be added to the second floor of the north
side of the building. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(;), Item #E3 - 1698 Gutf-to-Bav Boulevard - See Pages 3, 4, and 5.
mcd070 1
18
07/17/01'
. ".' ,,~.. I ",t. . '.~..:1'f +;~ ,'I.~ . ..' 'f. ',.." :~"i""'"..''/~''' :'~:'~. .~;i. .":,'j.~.~:1.':~'::-I';;' ..~... .
'~
", ,
I:)'
( , .. '
"
'~
Item #E4 - 1521 E. Druid Road: Salvation Armv - Owner/ApQllcant. Request
Flexible Development approval to permit social/public service use for 6.92 acres on
the southeast corner of Druid Road and Highland Avenue, adjacent to resldentlally~
z~med property, a residential shelter and a medical clinic in the Institutional District;
as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, Sec. 14~29-15, M&B
34.01 and Druid Groves Sub, Blk A, Lots 1-12. Zoning: I, Institutional District and
LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District. FL 01 ~05.19
Planner Mark Parry presented the request. The applicant proposes to
establish a social/public service agency adjacent to residentially designated property
,with associated uses including a residential shelter 134 units), and a medical clinic
within the Institutional District. There are no significant site or exterior building
'changes 'associated with this proposal beyond repainting and other necessary
" restorative repairs. The parking spaces will be required to be re-striped in
accordance with Code requirements prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. This will include bringing all handicapped spaces into Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. '
, The hours of operation will be primarily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A m'aximum of 75 employees would be on the
site at any given time. ' Deliveries would be made via a 14~foot, panel truck two
times per day.' Deliveries would occur at the existing loading dock located on the
east side of the building. The residential shelter will be in continuous operation.
,The residential shelter would provide housing (or one- and two-parent families. The
proposed medical clinic is exclusively for the "Mother and Child Care of Clearwater,
Inc. II and includes full laboratory and birthing room facilities providing pre- and post~
natal and pediatric medical care to mothers and their children who do not have
, insurance or other means to provide medical care for themselves. The site will treat
asymptomatic (no synlptoms present) AIDS~inflicted residents. No medical
treatments are provided. The Salvation Army has operated these programs at its
current site for the last 14 years.
The proposal also includes restoring the declining/dead landscaping plus
adding shrubs, shade trees and ground cover to the existing landscape islands in the
'parking lot at the northeast corner of Druid Road and South Crest Avenue.
The Salvation Army, is considered a social/public service agency that would
otherwise require a Level Two, Flexible Development review. Social/public service
agencies, however, are not permitted adjacent to properties designated as
residential in the zoning atlas. Properties designated as LMDR District are located
immediately to the east of the subject site along the entire length of the east
property'line. There are several other uses associated with the application that
would require a Level One, Flexible Standard development review and include
residential shelter, medical clinic and religious service facilities. The religious
service use includes a day care component that is typical with most worship-
oriented facilities. The best option available to the applicant Is to apply as a
Comprehensive InfillRedevelopment Project to Incorporate all of the proposed uses,
and allow the review of the social service agency adjacent to residentially-zoned
mcd0701
19
07/17/01
,>
',~
;:)
y
,
.. .
property. No expansions or additions or other site modifications are proposed with
this application and only interior renovations are proposed.
The "T"-shaped site contains 6.92 acres on the southeast cornor of Druid
Road and South Highland Avenue. The site contains a 92,413 square foot
masonry~block building that was the previous home to the Clearwater Community
Hospital. The 'building is located between 40 and 230 feet from any property line
and stands between 14 and 28 feet in height.
The site consists of two zoning districts: Low Medium Density Residential
and'lnstitutional Districts. The majority of the site 15.42 acres) is zoned
Institutional District and includes the building and most of the parking. The
remainder of the site, 1.5 acres at the southwest corner of Druid Road and South
Crest Avenue, is within the LMDR District. The City's Planning and Zoning Board
approved a conditional use application (CU 94-40) on June 14, 1 994, for a non-
residential parking facility within a residentially-zoned district for that site. There
are 55 parking spaces located within the northern-third of the LMDR District portion
of the site. Addition,al spaces were approved for the mid-section of the sitel but'
they were never constructed.
The, ORe reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 14,
2001. Staff recommends approvall subject to conditions.
In response to a questionl Mr. Parry said the medical clinic would treat only
mothers and childrenl not AIDS patients. He said approximately 34 units or up to
111 residents would be accommodated in the residential shelter.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said she was unsure if the use of
l1elicopters or heliports run with the land or with the use. Ms. Tarapani said the
COB's approval today would supercede any previous approvals. This application
does not include a request for the use of helicopters or heliports. The staff report
includes a condition regarding expansion of parking requires review and approval by
the CDB.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said there would be birthing rooms. Ms.
Tarapani said staff's understanding of the birthing rooms would be for those
patrons who could not go"to a hospital. Concern was expressed as to whether this
facility could handle neonatal emergencies and birthing with proper equipment. Mr.
Parry said the applicant is limited to their specific services. He said he did not feel
this facility would adversely affect the surrounding properties.
Roy Johnson, representative for the applicant, said the Salva tion Army has
been a good neighbor for 75 years and is sensitive to its neighbors' concerns. He
said there would be no chl1dbirth at the center. It will serve as a post.natal care
center. He said other facilities have an AIDS center that allows for 4 residential
u'nits and another center with 9 units. He hopes to expand existing facilities for
transitional housing and an emergency family shelter. The CHIP IClearwater
Housing Initiative Program) assists with transients.
, mcd070 1
20
07/17/01
'..
r.--,
Gregg Rose, Salvation Army, said the Salvation Army is in the business of
improving people, neighborhoods, and communities. It is sensitive to the safety,
health, and security of employees, residents, clients, and the community. He said
the Salvation Army touched over 60,000 individuals last year alone. In response to
a question, he said the Salvation Army currently has 9 transitional housing units for
,homeless families coming off the street or from emergency shelters.
Eight persons spoke in opposition of the application.
, In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Code uses the term "flexible
development" as a process for review. The process includes a public hearing to
allow the applicant to submit a specific application. "Flexible" refers to the ability
of the COB to evaluate a proj~ct and have some degree of flexibility regarding
, setbacks, height, and any other pertinent criteria that are pertinent to the
application. It does not mean the applicant can be flexible with,the project once it
is approved. The applicant must abide by the approval according to Code, including
any applicable conditions. '
, ,"-.,
'..~,I
In response to a question, Mr. Rose said the 6 apartments being planned for
transitional living are slated for graduates of the CHIP program. The CHIP Program
is a separate program. All the residential programs are long term and none are
,emergency uses except for those 6 units slated for single or dual parents and/or
families. He said presently, there are no units available in Clearwater or in upper
Pinellas County for emergency family shelters, which is a big concern to the
Salvation Army. The Salvation Army only supervises misdemeanor probation cases
for the State and 98% of them are traffic violators. No felons or addicts are seen.
The Salvation Army has an adult rehabilitation center in upper Pinellas County that
serves that population. This facility would serve stabilized people. The facility
would have a full professional staff 24 hours a day.
,~
Mr. Johnson said he felt the Salvation Army is not introducing problems in
the community as there are problems that already exist. He said when the
Salvation Army tried to renovate the property on Ft. Harrison, it could not be done
in a fashion that would comply with Code and meet the needs of the facility. In
response to a question, Mr. Johnson said the Salvation Army's intention is not to
bring a large homeless population into the area. He said although he does not feel a
police presence is necessary, one of the ways the Salvation Army is responding to
community concerns is consideration,of a police substation. He said administration
has responded to letters and concerns received. He said there is always a concern
that no one wants t~is type of facility in his or her back yard, but it is needed and
has to be placed somewhere. He said this facility would allow the Salvation Army
to use it with a minimum of expenditure and minimal upset to the neighborhood. In
response to a question, Mr. Johnson said Salvation Army facilities are In different
types of areas but mostly in urban settings. He did not feel this facility wou~d
increase traffic in the area any more than the hospital had. He said this 94,000
squa~e foot facility would be a state of the art facility compared to the tYPical
building. He said the application includes preliminary projections regarding the _
operation of the building. This facility would allow the Salvation Army to operate a
Christmas Joy Program In-house rather than searching for an outside facility.
mcd0701
21
07/17/01
~
C)
V,'
, '
In response to B question, 'Mr. Rose said very few clients would walk into
the facility. Most' o~ them w~uld have their own transportatlo'n.
, In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said staff is unaware of any major
Code complaints regarding the Salvation Army facility on Ft. HarrIson. Staff
believes the Salvation Army has been a good neighbor in the Old Clearwater Bay
neighborhood and will continue that practice.
,It was remarked that some residents that had expressed concern regarding
the CH!P shelter have changed their minds regarding that facility. It was remarked
that the Salvation Army is a reputable organization that performs its job well. It
was felt that large vacant abandoned buildings typically encourage the type of
activity that requires police activity. It was remarked that vagrancy Is no longer a
violation of law and those empty buildings contribute to those adverse conditions.
It was remarked that ,this application will improve the services to the community
and wlll not adversely affect the surrounding homeowners' property values.
Member Hooper moved to approve the flexible development request to
permit a 'social/public service use for 6.92 acres on the'southeast corner of Druid
Road and Highland Avenue, adjacent to residentially-zoned property, a r,esidential
shelter and a medical clinic in the Institutional District, as part of a Comprehensive
InfHl Redevelopment Project" with conditions: 11, All dead or dying landscape
material be replaced by October 1, 2001, or prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first; 2) all Brazilian pepper trees and hazardous trees
, be removed, through City permits; 3) all signage comply with Code; 4) all
, handicapped par~ing spaces be upgraded to meet City standards and that a
, sidewalk be provided along Highland Avenue, prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy; and 5) no expansion of the parking lot within the LMDR District portion
of the site be permitted without additional review and approval by the Community
Development Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM F - DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
A special COB meeting was scheduled on September 14, 2001, at 12:30
p.m.' at the Municipal Services Building, Planning Department Conference Room to
discuss CDS procedures and standards and criteria used in making board decisionsl
recommendations.
It was requested that staff provide the COB with information regarding the'
former AMSCC>T case. Concern was expressed that company indicated check
, cashing would not be a major part of their business.
It was requested that the Chair request everyone turn off their cell phones
and beepers at the beginning of me,etings.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the Community Response Team Is
addressing Issues regarding the former' Icehouse building.
mcd070 1
22
07/17/01
, '
-\ ~" ,
. . ~ '". , .. ~'Tt
.'.:or,.
, ,~ "
" "
c'..
~. I
.',
,;
~ I '
,
"
'"
,', '
"
>.,:,
, ,
"
, i:
..,: " ~:
'. ~ ~, \
"
,~ ,. c
'. . :.
f. ';.'>'Il.\
, "
,,:c
..;,1
'.'
: ': '~\"P~~~,~.,:l' :" ')"'/o,'.",~L~:,'~//.~~,+~.~',>I~:~ ':+"..-', ~.l
" ':--:'; :l~(.~~l~~.'~'"~.~~~f:rltl~~~I:t,::~~',r~.L....~'i/,it~t~\/{'J.~~~~i :',.'-..... " ~I".'
~~,~~",t!{1~~~J,/..~.....t':'~"4'''1::~~~,I~.~\~oJ~I"~,''~ LJ"..t{i :....,~~..'~fl. ;':,r>';' ~'.
~-!!':'.~/,;I',I.";':';"\\!'';'\<:'i'.,>!,\;,.,~",)i'" ',' ";'" '., , .",
N~~\Jr~\~:~~,;{~~.<t~'i:i,).~',~:~f;\,Y':~\:~?~';"~:~.,i,,?:.',';/'.,', ',',',:c:;\ :. ", ..,'
I.
,.,' +
. .,'
-,'.
I,
',.
HI.
'I'
"
I,
,"
'.:., .
.',: f'
, .'
'.'
, ,
; ,
,.' ;
,,'
"'el,
,,'
:;~ r: ~.~.:'
t:;,',\,;'. ',c'
y/: ,I
.r'(t
',i,;'.' :;' "
~~c';.l~," (I '. ~,
~.f : ,~,. " :' .
I~ . c .!.,
'"
. .
.., .
;~I,\' '&
~_,~.r,~
..J..., ~,1.':~
" .
" ..
Staff was complimented for their efforts on the Neighborhood Overlay
',DIstrl9t project., . " ,
.'
,
ITEM G ~'ADJOURNMENT
.,The meeting ~djourn,ed at 6:35 p.m.
air
Community Development
.;. "
r~..., ., ~
.!, < ~
: .." ., ~
~~.'/ :~
l J.: 'I,
')1;'.\':','::" ,
/~;: c;. r ~'!
-t..." .
'\
,j
.{~, . ~,
.t:-
t;t~'":~;,;,,:.,,:,,
f!~\";<" :
~', I \
~~.;";: .'
~: J".
"
.,+ .
.. I I
, .
.\
"
',1
";'
'.
>; .c,
'f,
"
.:'/
.'
" '
,I
" .
....c .'
;"'0
>' '" , c
.. . i ~ 01-.. ' .
I/:.! ',.......' , ,
:,<','
"
"
. '
"
'"
, ,
"
,I
"
',.
!',
"
,I "
I:"
~ '. ~
"
. ,
'!'
" ,
'Il'
, '
,,'
",
"
I'
"
,..i. '
:\"t::'\: "
:. ~ .
, "
I';" .
"
,
. .. ~
" '
,.' .'c ! '
'}(\ , 0
1 ~ F r \
;::~/ '
Lt
'(':
\,;
".
" J
'"
.'1.
,',
"
, "
.: :
",
{:.:, ',. "\,
,1"
I'.,
;...~ . ,:
.\'" .~ ~. . ~
,':\' ' . /:J;;)if.;>ll' ,
" . {' \
l': ''''"' I.
~~:,:< \ "
!~~:, \~;j>)::,:','.
:~~::'~>/\"::J "\,,
'\i";}! . '. )0 , , , ,
.J;\t::.}~<1 ;..:;~!; "I~'~>:.<~~' " '"
\f~7t;.~;;?:t-(r~.:~\"':1,,r~:~ . ~l,~;,'; ,:
" ,
"
.'
'.\"
"
" .
','
"
mcd0.701 .
23
07/17/01
.,U + ."
Or".,
i. .
. . I ." .c ~ .
'~ , ,....."'. ,
"
.....
{,,'O .,1, " ..... l'+,:1 "I:;I,.,~',..,"."\~ '.' .:',' ,", ....: " .r.: ~.I ,,0 :~I'I'.",~/."~""",:,~,,,.