The URL can be used to link to this page

03/19/2002 (2) ;/ ". " ~~'~<~'+ ( '~ ;/.: ' '" , ' ',I .,., t: ..', .;\.. , ,e ',' " ' '" . _r ~ '. \ c./ I' ? :1 I , .... C~-r :(!:.;.i!~f:'M~h!.. ~+~.h . ~."I. "+\ ~, , ~.~, ,~..; ~ 'c:, "l,.I).~.'r.,~c 1.'1 " C ~ .~. I~' 1- .,"..,'; ",1. , .' r:, ';-, ,,' ;~ ., .a. ...' ~ : \i-', . ,~~\; \ T '" :,:,:,0 ~\ .~ ""~. . i:..>.~: ..:;.: }::.: ' ,I' . ~,;u:1 C '. . t~(::,\ .:~(\~,~l . .1': .~<:~ : /. 1.. , .. ..... \C;-; ~. .<' :~, ~> cl.~ 1'/' ~ ,: ; ,~.. ,> rf.::>,:-:~::'~', ~l~,',t.F' ., , f,<./~:' .," t.tt. F'r' ,. ~J:,S:'.":':/ ; niJ.",':~: .'.. :~?;,:,..,\:, ~. :"~, " < {>~~(),:: ' ,:i,,~~: ~:r~..> ,'~' ~~ ~;;' . ' . ~. , . Hq , "l" .., 1.; . ;,'+ 'I I (,' , ';,:C~' ~:. I: ," t ~,', ; \. ::: ',,:,.;. '. c,i c. ~~..y E :\ ~~ \ :~\ \> I:~ " : ;:. '!:~i'" ' I .1 . ~;; t ~ .:' ~, '., '~ ~, \, , ~YI., C~:! T ~ " ~i:~." ~':. > . .~ ~:'~: {~< it,"' ,. '" <'~ " , ~,:",o: !.~. 'c ~:,:. ': ).:. ,. ' . .r'c,. I. l~ j: : < ' .~' , .::/'.::1. .~ i '"~ ~\~ ::', ,j, ",j J;~{:~".!,;>:; 'f. ~~~', ,'. ,'. " 'I, ,/, /' " ' " '.. " ,/ 'i,' ~\', ";\, " ", , : , I': . '" 0, , '~ ~ {. .:, <. . I I ~ , " :...:~. . ..'f,," ~ :.. Ct.. '" " '. . ~~ .'11. ., . ..... .\' : !, J1'o-['. ,: , , "I. COB Community Development Board lYIe,eting : ';, " , " ,,', MINUTES" ", ' , . :, I.,c ,,' , . ">" '. ,.' " i, " ' ll, '; I '\ ',' 03/1 c:t' /6 J.. ", Qatt:i " I. .: , ' , , 'II'. ,I. " " ,', ': , ,.' ~ ~' <I; !, .;" 'I ,. ,', l' ,,' " " ,Ie " , I I I: I.: . .c. " " " p, . , .', j '" ,LoG::)' , , !' ,e, ': " . I '. '. " .. " ; i::- , ,'. .; ~ l ~ )., ' : .~' " < I >. . ~ " , , J , I I ~ I. CI <"', " .; , .1 .': .'. 0- , " ACTION AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 19, 2002 Meeting called to order at 2:03 p.m. at City Hall A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 19, 2002 ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 , A. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Iten:"lS 1-51. The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc., ,and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. ' 1. Case ANX02~01-01 - 3010 Grandvlew Avenue - Level Three Application Owners'tApplicants: Thao Nguyen and Vui Nguyen , , location: 0.17 acres on the north side of Grandview Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of Bayview Avenue Atlas Page: 283A Request: (a) Annexation of 0.17 acres to the City of Clearwater: (b) land Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential Low Classificati,on (Clearwater): and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential" Single Family, District (Countyl to lMDR, Low Medium ~ensity Residential District (Clearwater) Existing Use: Vacant lot Proposed use: Single-family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner' I ~. < :"C:), ~ . .. ,"';';' ACTION: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0 2. Case Z02-01-01 - 101 South Old Coachman Road (Post Court Apartments) - Level Three Application , 'Owner/Applicant: Post Court/Keith W.' Bricklemyer Location: 7.7 acres on the east side of Old Coachman Road, approximately 600 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and 520 feet west of US19 North Atlas page: 29GB ,Request: Rezoning from 0, Office District to MDR, Medium Density Residential District , Exlsthig Use: Multi-family residential , Proposed Use: Multj~family' residential Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ,ACTION: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0 3. Case FL01-12-38 - 1860 North Fort Harrison Avenue - Level Two Application Owner: HBH Power Corporation Applicant: Robert Szasz, . Location: 0.86 acres on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue, , ap;Jroxlmately 360 feet south of Sunset Point Road ..,.~ ' ':...J 1 . ,03/19/02 'acd0302 ;, :~, .'. (,;1., >~ .,-,,'.', ::',: ;:!.:~":,::'>,,:,,:i, ,(.~~,:';;i,'~,;;;.;;; ::~ !,:;::>:'<':'\,::"i,,:;, <::, ,;;' , ~.':,:,j-:,,>,,:, :,,':.,~;;."~~':T~~;:>,'., ",:'~\:;c , , ",l d. i. 0.1,. .~'? ': ., j , ('. . " } .r .~ "+.l. ,'. .', J " 'I') ; ......... ,v , .:/ , ' , Atlas Page: 2598 Zoning: T, Tourist District , Request: Flexible Development approval to permit direct access to a major arterial road (North Fort Harrison Avenue) within the Tourist District, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803. Proposed Use: Redevelopment of the site with a 24-unit condominium development, 50 feet in height, with access onto North Fort Harrison Avenue. Conditions: 1) The final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB, and 2) all signage comply with Code. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner ACTION: " APPROVED 7:0 4. Case FL02-01-01 - 1648 Sand Key Estates Court - Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: David Richardson Location: 0.16-acre site on the north side of, and at the terminus of, Sand Key Estates Court . Atlas ,Page: 3198, Zo.ning: HDR, High Density Residential District 'Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required rear (north) setback from 15 to zero feet (to deck) and reduce the required side (east) setback from '1 0 to 5 feet, as pert of e Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504 Proposed use: The proposal includes a 330 square foot wood deck, approximately , 4 feet in height, in association with an existing single-family dwelling. Presenter: Mark T. pa'rry, Planner ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 5., Case FL02-01-02 - 100 North Osceola Avenue - Level Two Application Owner/applicant: City of Clearwater Agent: Philip Trezza; Jr., of Harvard Jolly Clees Toppe Architects, P.A., AlA Location: 2.1 acres on the southwest corner of Drew Street and Osceola Avenue Atlas Page: 286B Zoning: 0, Downtown District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a governmental use (library) in the Downtown District under the provisions of Section 2-903. Proposed Use: A 90,000 square foot, four-story main library Conditions: 1} All measures shall be taken to preserve the 60-inch oak tree at the southwest side of the site, during all phases of construction; 2) all signage meet Code; and 3) dumpsterls} no larger than four cubic yards be provided within an enclosure, to the satisfaction of the Solid Waste Department. , Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner ' ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 B. NON-CONSENT AGENDA - (Items 1-4) 1. Case FL01-12-36 - 2004-2010 Drew Street - Level Two Application acd0302 2 03/1 9/02 ".' L ~ L . .t+.., " , ., .' ~ :~ .'t.,,", , \I!I,,,,,,,./'. ,::} , , , " <<, Owner: Equity Holdings Group, Inc. (Gregory Politis, President) ,Applicant: Kevin Scherer Location: 0.42-acre site on the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of North Hercules Avenue Atlas Page: 2808 "Zoning: C" Commercial District , Request: 'Flexible Development approval to reduce the following: front (east setback along Patricia Avenue from 25 to 12 feet to pavement, reduce the required front (south) setback along Drew Street from 25 to 1 0 feet to pavement, reduce the required side (west) setback from 1 0 to five feet to building, reduce the required side (north) setback from '10 to five feet to a dumpster enclosure and pavement, reduce the required parking from 11 spaces (five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area) to nine spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) for a proposed retail sales and services establishment and reduce the required, parking from 27 'spaces (15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to 13 , , spaces (seven spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) for a proposed restaurant, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program. Proposed Use: The application includes a 4,068 square foot single-story building with ,a 2,268 square ,foot retail sales and service establishment and an 1,800 square foot restaurant. . , Conditions: 1) Any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the . Community Development Board; 2) the color of the building be earth tones acceptable to'the Community Development Coordinator, consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 3) the site be limited to one monument sign oriented towards Drew Street, with a solid base coordinated with the design and color of the building and at a maximum height of six feet, to the satisfaction of Staff; 4) the landscape buffer along the north side include a six-foot masonry-type wall, with a stucco finish and painted consistent with the building design and color, reduced to a maximum height of three feet within the front setback and constructed with a pier and lintel foundation in the vicinity of the adjacent oak tree to preserve the root system; and 5) landscape plan be amended to' include coordinated and additional plant'materials, to the satisfaction of Staff, prior to the issuance of any permits. Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner ACTION: ' APPROVED. 7:0 2. Case TA02-01-01 - Community Developrnent Code Amendments (continued Item) - Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning D'epartmont Request: Comprehensive amendments to the' Community Development Code, as a result of the annual review, including amendments to the General Provisions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Development Review and other Pro,cedures, NonconfoqTlity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions and, Rules of Construction. Prese~ter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner acd03,o2 3 ,03/19/02 . I' . . > ~ .. I .. . < ..". , . . , : ", . I'. , '. :"~ ''':)' () I , . ~ ~. . I '. ACTION: APPROVED 7:0, EXCEPT FOR THE SIGN AND ROOF OVERHANG/SETBACK ITEMS WHICH WERE CONTINUED TO APRIL 16, 2002 3. Case APP02~01.01 ~ 1060 North Myrtle Avenue - Level Three Application , , ,Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Tom Sehlhorst Location: 0.109 acres on the west side of Myrtle Avenue, east of Blanche B. Litdejohn Trail, approximately 200 feet north of Cedar Street Atlas Page: 268B Proposed Use: Vehicle service " Request: Appeal of a denial of an occupational license for vehicle service in the Commercial District for property at 1050 North Myrtle Avenue" under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. Presenter: Lisa Fierce, Assistant Planning Director ACTION: DENIED 7:0 ' 4. Case TA02-02-03 .:.. Residential Rental Text Amendment - Level Three Application. Applicant: City of Clearwater, Development Services Department Request: Amendment to Article 3 of the Community Development Code requiring occupational licensing for certain residential rentals. Presenter: Jeff Kronschnabl, Development Services Director c. ACTION: APPROVED 6:0 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Request for time extension - Edgewater Inn Redevelopment - FLOO-12-63 at .1919 , Edgew8ter Drive (request one year extensio~ from March 20, 2002, to March, 20, 2003) 2. 3. Other ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 Update from Assistant City Attorney regarding Clearwater Group Limited (former Sunshine Mall site) appeal , " ACTION: POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING IN APRIL 2002 Chair Figurski thanked everyone for their service on the board and for his luncheon today. He also thanked his wife Melody. He sairj the CDB is the best board he ~as ever seen, and this is the best staff he has ever seen. D. acd0302 ADJOURNMENT - 5:30 p.m. "C 4 , 03/1 9/02 ' , " .. . > . ~ . ill . Cc ,., ~ ~ . "I. + . .. ~ ".." . t '. ~ rl ' ./"'\ l.~ FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY , MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER'LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME . FIRST NAME. MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD. COUNCil, COMMISSION AUTHORITY OR ZtJf2- :J fl- IS.bw A,zb COMMITTEE CO~ .:De,,~ \17 BJ lUNG ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSI , AUTHORITY OR COMMlTIEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY ME OF POLITICAL SUBIVISION: C-1et:...n,.J ~.i-~ V MY POSITION IS: Dr" CITY COUNTY 'D C/&(' WJ-e...v-~,~bl ~ .(. (( DATE ON WHICH VOTE QCCURED 2&'~ c. Co... m,' o ELECTIVE PPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM sa This form in for use by an person s.&rVing at tho county, city, or other IocaIlovol of governrrte(lt on an appointod or elected board, council, CQmIl\ission, authority, or corrvnittee. It appnes equally to membors of advisofy and tlOO-lIdvisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of lnterBSt undDr Section 112.3143. Florida StaMas. y~ ~ibilitios under the law when faced with a measure In which yoo have a conflict of interest ......1/ vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective, or appointive position, Fa( this reason. please paV close aUention to the instructions on this form before completing the reversa side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3U3, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or :ilppointfvo county, munlcrpal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN h'om voting 00 a measure which inures to his special priv;lte gain. Each elected or appointed local orrlCOr :also is pl'ooibited from knowingly voting 00 a measure whk:h inures to the special gaIn of a principal (othQr than a govemmoot agency) bV whom he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a , COfpOOIta principal by which he is reblned); to tho spoc/;ll private galn of a relativo; 0( to the spectal privato garn of a business associate. Commlssionel'$ of communlty fecleveJopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S.. and officers of indl.lpendent spacial tax districts elected on a ona-acre. ono-vattl basis are not prohibitod from wting in that capacity. For purposos of this law. :iI "rolative" Includes only the offlC4lr'G father,' mothor. son, daughter. husoond, wife, father-In-law, mother-In-law, SC(l.ln-law. and daughtor-in-Iaw. A "busl/'le$S associate" moans any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise w\\h the officef as a partner, joint venturer, CC>OYmOr of proporty. or corporate shareholder (whero the shares of the corporation aro notlistod on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstalnlng from votill\J in tha situations described alx:No, you must disclos& the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly tho nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing ;and filing this lann with the person responsible for rerording the minutes of 1he meeting, who should incorporate ~ form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A1though VOU must Bbsbin from voting in tho situations dtr3Clibod nbove, you o\hefwiSl) may participate in 1hesc matters, Howover, you must dlscJor...e the nature of the connict boloro making any attempt to influence tho decision, whether orally or In writing and whether made by you or yeur direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE T A)(EN: . You must complote ~nd file thIs form (before making any Qttempt to inlluenco tho decision) wilh tho person responsible'tor recording the minutes of the mooting, who will Incorporate tho form In the minutes. . A copy or tho form must bo provided Immediately to the other members or the agency. ~ . Tho form must be read publicly at the next meeting aftor the 'orm is flIed, CE FormBD -10.91 PAGE " , c 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE OECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: i · You ITIUlrt disclostn mJy U~ nab.n 01 you- c:onftlct 10 tho n"lOQSln bofOl'" partlclpatic !g. , ~~~ · You'must complete the form and file It YMhIn 15 dayt Rftor the VI:M DCCtn with ttliI person responsibfo for reoording the ~ ot meeting, who ryu;t Jnc<<ponte the fonn 10 the rnIr'lutzM. A copy of tho fcnn most be PfC'Adod lmrl'Md'l8te1y to tho other member. of !he ~. and the fonn must be road p.Hdy at the next rnaotlng aRot the form Is filed. '1.. rJp 't. .)It '1-. ~ 4-. whom I"" ro",,",,' ~ . whlcl1 is the p:lrant organization Of subslcflary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The r:neaSUfO befol'o my ~ancy and tho nature of my conlfJCtlng Interest in the measuro is 3S fo/lov.rs: ,. if .ot~ ~ -r- N-~ ~ tL ~. M'J ~/ Ftr...:J.:- ~~4) ;." -fk ~~ ~iL~. (" '. , 'J . I J ~ I .3/Ji~~ Date FUd NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES !j112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REaUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FORAND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOITION, REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL T" NOT TO EXCEED S5.ooo., W CE Form 68. 1{).91 PAGE 2 l.i(.~~ Tr ~ tL ~. /If? ~/ Ft--:Je:- ~C~4) t., iL~-1 .~ 'fL.~. ( .. ," 'l >. . ,. ~ . IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT 6'( DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: , · You moat crlSClo6ure Ol'a,Dy the nature ot )'O'S eonnlc:t In the me3sore before participating, . ( ". , · You must COO'Ipkdct the form and file It withlr115 d;;ly. after lho vote ooeu-s with u-.. por&On I'8sponci~ tor recording tho m1nutos ~ . meeting, who rpust ir1cofporate the fonnln the minutes. A copy 0( the form mlJ$t be provIdod Immodiately Co the oCher mombera of the agoncy, God the bm muG1. be road publ'dy at th& next mooting aflortho fonn \0. filod. ~ ..~ - , ~ .:' ~~:6lsCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFfICER'S INTEREST I. &J",,,,...J ;11/<..)".-. -i;:~>:<. ~di<close!hat.. .3 /1"/ (a) A ~re came or will come bolero my agency which (check one) inured to my special privolte gain; inured to tho special galo of my bUsIness associate, , lnUrod to the spacial gain of my relative. '1-. . Inured.. the special goln of ~ . 0.1<=:(;.. :J.-- Inurocl to the special gain of -z.. D~ 1- '. ~~wMml~r.~;~ . which is tho p:olrent CW'ganlzation or subslcf13ry of a principal which has rBtalnod me. (b) The m9asure beforo my agency and the nature of my connictlng Inlorest In the measure is as follows: i07/P~ Date FiIId ' , NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FL.o'RIDA STATUTES 9112.317 (1991), A FAlL.URE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED OJSCl.OS~~ CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMO . OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOITION, REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALT" NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE ~orm I3B ~ 10.91 PAGE 2 '.. " .. : ~ , ':/ ~ ;. 'I,' . .>1:... ~:;;~,I: /:,;~';j'",;,"" ;:\.'.~:..~ I 'i. f-:~:( '\ '. :.1L .. ~ ;; ':. ~: ~ 't: '.. ',..,:~ .. :.L .. .' ,- r... " :,~' . ... t . '.1, ..", r~ ~ . . :.', ~~:. " . ,"f~.\ .~ ." . . , . ,( ~., ,:. ":7;' ..'. . " q .. .,;,... " .;~ ;':r. "j' ,. ~, ~ ~.. . , ,,~. 'c, ., }o./l ..'..' ". . :~.:. ,', ...., ,'~ ... " ':;~; " :) " , . ~ '1 \.-:' :.. .' ~,. .., .:.....~, '.i'., j',I, -.+. , " . < I~' .,'~ '... " +.,' . ~ ~ ; '~ ...~.~,i :r ,~ " -/ 'oO'"': ):.~:: l.t ~ ~: ,i.' ~ " ' " " ':' .~. ~, '.,- ,.'..;. " !.o.,'t:. , '. I .. ~ . ~' '.. .;<{ " ..: : .~ ~ '; j'~ '. . ~ - 1 .: .. '. .::<' .i,..... , .- , I.',. 0','; ,f'., , i, " c , , 'r ., I . ~ : ., . ," ':.:' . 1. ,.... . ~: J -.'... .',. .' .... . '. .' .,<' : ,I- -t" l".. \' ',.:: ,....;. , .. ~. ,.' , " ,./,' 1 ' .,"':.. " . .1,< ':+ , ,j,c,', i " . , " " \',' 'I.. ,',1 :><<':,,;';':, >":,":' I~': 0' , " ,., COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 19, 2002 Presen t: Gerald Figurski . Carlen A. Petersen David Gildersleeve Edward Mazur, Jr. Shirley Moran Alex Plisko ' Ed Hooper ' Frank Hibbard Chair Vice Chair Board Member , c Board Member - departed'3:48 p.m. Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member (non-voting) 'Also Present: Leslie Dougall~Sides ' , Cynthia Tarapani' Lisa L. Fierce ,Gina Clayton Brenda Moses Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Long Range Planning Manager Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.rn. 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. A.: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 19, 2002 Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 19, 2002, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded arid carried unanimously. ' B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-5). The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc., and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Case ANX02-01-0 1 - 3010 Grandview Avenue - Level Three Application Owners/Applicants: Thao Nguyen and Vui Nguyen Location: 0.17 acres an the north side of Grandview Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of Sayview Avenue Atlas Page: 283A , Request: (a) Annexation of 0.17 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land , Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential Low Classification (Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater) Existing Use: Vacant lot Proposed use: Single~family dwelling ,Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner' mcd0302 1 3/19/02 I'. . I .' . ~ ... J'.r ..."I..J l., , , ..' ~,I ,,' , ' " ' ,;\ .",. " " ,'. ,; ,< . '.....,' .,', .,{ ~; . '. ' " .,., " " . .. ~ ,,' -. \ :: :"; ~: '," I .....> . ' " " .:.: . ~., .'t.,! .:'. ; ~J" ~ :. ..' . >..~. . ,t.' 'r; " , L.t.,. ". ~: . :.01.:' ~ ... .,.'. " '.., .',; . .: :~. " '" r:. t... .. ~' ......, ., .~.~ 1.".. ...., ":::: ..... " . " ;.'1 '" " .:.:. .'. :,...: . I...::.....~. i.,",.,. .,.,." I~../:~. I. .~..:.,...,., .'.'~" ..r' ~...:~..,I.:\ ~...~'.~~. ,." ~~. :..:',;..;.::" ,'" ','./',:: ~ ..:,'I~~'.':.: '. ~ ~. , :: : ~,... : , ' , " 0,. ,.,~' , ' . . '~.' \ . . Ii, ~ ,-. .......;) CJ .;"_"f~*f" , ; , < " , ' The property owners are requesting annexation into the City and approval of the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district for 3010 Grondvlow Avenue. The proposed annexation can be served by City services, including Bowar, water, s6iid waste, police, fire' and emergency medical services without any advorso effect on the service level. The applicants have paid the applicable sower Impact fee of $900 and are aware of the additional cost to connect the property to tl10 City , sewer system. The proposed annexa'tion and the proposed development arc conslotont with ,the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with rogard to tho Future Land Use. Map as well as goals and policies. The future use of this alto os 0 single-family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. ' The proposod annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through Its adjacency with City boundaries and is compact in concentratIon. Based on the above analysis, t~e Planning Departme~t recommends tho following actions on ~he request: 1) Approval of the annexatlo~ of tho property ot 3010 Grandview Avenue with the condition that all new construction moet tho requirements of the Clearwater Community Development Co'doi 2) approvol of the Residential Low plan category pursuant to the City's Comprehenslvo Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Zoning District pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. 2. Case Z02-01-01 - 101 South Old Coachman Rood (Pout Court Aportmonts) - Level Three Application Owner/applicant: Post. Court/Keith W; Brlcklamyor Location: 7.7 ac'res on the east side of Old Coachman Road, approxlmatoly 600 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and 520 foet wost of US19 North Atlas Page: 290B Request: Rezoning from 0, Office District to MDR, Modium Density Residential District ' . Existing Use: Multi-family residential Proposed Use: Multi-family residential Presenter: Etlm S. Ud6h, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting a rezoning from tho Offico fQ) zoning district to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district in ordor to bring this existing use into conformity with the Community Development Code for 101 South Old Coachman Road. The proposed Medium Density Residential (MOR) zoning district Is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with tho surrounding area, does not conflict with the needs' and character of the neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect the provision of tha public services, Dnd the boundaries are appropriately drawn. mcd0302 2 3/1 9/02 .'~. . 1- , , .::. . ,'~ . !,". ..,.:', .. :"1' , T~> ~ ," ~\~. : :'. " ,') ,~ , "':"..) , ~ ' . ' , " , , '.l- ." , The Planning Department recommends approval of the following action on this application: Amend the zoning district designation of the subject property from Office (0) to Medium Density ResidentiallMDRI. 3. ' Case FL01-12-38 - 1860 North Fort Harrison Avenue - Lovel Two Application Owner: HBH Power Corporation Applicant: Robert Szasz , , Location: 0.86 acres on the west,side of North Fort Harrison AvorllJo, approximately 350 feet south of Sunset Point Road Atlas Page: ' 2598 Zoning: T, Tourist District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit direct access to 0 moJor arterial road (North Fort Harrison Avenue) within the Tourist District, os po'rt of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803. , , Proposed Use: Redevelopment of the site with a 24.unit condominium development, 50 feet in height, with access onto North Fort Harrison Avenue. Cond'itions: 1) The final design and color of the building be consistent " with the conceptual elevations submitted or os modified by the COB, and 2) all signage comply with Code~ Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner , The owner is requesting to permit attached dwellings within the Tourist' District with access on a major arterial road at 1860 North Fort Hnrrlaon Avenue, The Development Review Committee reviewed the Dppllcntlon and supporting materials on January 1 7, 2002. The Planning Departmont rocommonds approva,l of the Flexible Development application to permit direct 80COSB to 0 major arterial road (North Ft. Harrison'Avenue~ within the Tourist District, as port of a 'Co~prehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2.803, for 1860 North Fort Harrison Avenue, with the following bC:lses and conditions: 'Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexlblo Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopmont Project per Section 2.804 B; 21 the proposal is in compliance with other standards In the Code Including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) the development is compatIble with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment eHorts. Conditions: 1) The final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB, and all signage comply with Code. 4. Case FL02.01.01 - 1648 Sand Key Estates Court- Lovel Two Application Owner/Applicant: 'David Richardson mcd0302 3 3/19/02 . ~, ~ . . .r'- ~ 1 .' ~ . :.~ I ' .. '- " . '( . ... ~ . ; '",' c, ' 'I: ,,"., c ,.' ~ '~ ") '.---, 0,: '"< .~, , ' , '1~:;>~J.;;'~ ~}'i~)T<C '..j L. " ' " ' " Location: O. 1 6~acre site on the north side of, 'and at the terminus of, Sand Key, Estates Court ' ' . Atlas Page: 31 9B Zoning: HDR, High Density Residential District Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required rear {north} setback from 15 to zero feet (to deck) and reduce the required side (eDst) setback from 10 to 5 feet, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504 , Proposed use: The proposal includes a 330 square foot wood deck, approximately 4 feet in height, in association with an existing single-family dwelling. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner The owner is requesting Flexible Development approvai to reduce the required rear (north) setback from 1 5 to zero feet (to deck) and reduce the required side (east) setback from 10 to 5 feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504 at 1648 Sand Key Estates Court. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and su'pporting materials on February 14, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to reduce the required rear (north) setback from 15 to zero feet (to deck) and reduce the required side (east) setback from 10 to five feet (to deck), as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504, for 1648 Sand Key Estates Court, with the following bases and conditions: . Bases for Aoproval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-504; 2) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per'Section 3-913; and 3) the development is compatible with the sL!rrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) All applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks, and 2) all building permits be securedf as applicable. 5. , Case FL02-01-02 - 100 North Osceola Avenue - Level Two Application Owner/applicant: City of Clearwater ,Agent: Philip Trezza, Jr., of, Harvard ,Jolly Clees Toppe Architects, P.A., AlA Location: 2.1 acres on the southwest corner of Drew Street and Osceola Avenue Atlas Page:' 2866 Zoning: 0, Downtown District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a governmental use (iibrary) in the Downtown District under the provisions of Section 2-903 Proposed Use: A 90,000 square foot, four-story main library , . Conditions: 1) All measures shall be taken to preserve the 50-inch oak tree at the southwest side of the site, during all phases of construction; 2) all mcd0302 4 3/19/02 .~..., .:l i~ . .:: I ~.: I : ; ~:. '. 1, I . ,. I . I". . I .' 11~1'" ": ; . " . ,'., ~'." ~:. :',.. ~::.,~ \:~~I~;,^~j~~~,\~I~~'~; :t,:~~~:l:;~ ;'~, ',~ :":: - I',' }, : ':f .1'" d ~~ '. . . '<i'~' ), ~ \' " " ", :.,.. .:~;..::l~;:: .' " , '~ signage meet Code; and ,3) dumpster(s) no larger than four cubic yards be provided within an enclosure, to the 'satisfaction of the Solid Waste Department. Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner The owner is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a government use (new main library) in the Downtown District under the provisions of Section 2-903 at 100 North Osceola Avenue. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on February 14, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a government use (new. mllin library) in the Downtown District under the provisions of Section 2-903 at 100 North Osceola Avenue, subject to the following bases and conditions: . I;: ' 8ases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria for a governmental use under the provisions of Section 2-903.E; 2) the 'proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General Applicability Criteria of Section 3-913; 3) the proposed library is in conformance with, the People, Activity and Amenity goals of the' Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 4) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and may encourage and act as a catalyst for further redevelopment of the downtown area. i, ,:=), Conditions:' 1) All measures shall be taken to preserve the 60'-inch o'ak tree at the southwest side of the site, during all phases of construction; 2) all signage meet Code; and 3) dumpster(s) no larger than four cubic yards be provided, within an enclosure, to the satisfaction of the Solid Waste Department. ,. . Member Mazur moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 81 - 85. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. NON-CONSENT AGENDA - (Items 1-4) 1. Case Fl01-12-36 - 2004-2010 Drew Street - Level Two Application Owner: Equity Holdings Group, Inc. (Gregory Politis, President), Applicant: Kevin Scherer ',Location: 0.42-acre site on the northwest corner, of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of North Hercules Avenue Atlas Page:' 2808 Zoning: C, Commercial District ,Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the following: front (east setback along Patricia Avenue from 25 to 12 feet to pavement, 'reduce the ,required front (south) setback along Drew Street from 25 to 10 feet to pavement, reduce the required side (west) setback from 10 to five, feet to building, reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 to five feet to a dumpster enclosure and pavement, reduce the required parking from 11 spaces (five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor areal to nine spaces (to'ur spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) for a proposed retai! '~) mcd0302 5 3/1 9/02 ,~''''''', . i ,;f ..\ \^, ~:i.;.";'~.,!, ...-cl.;"," ';;i.t'..~f/'" .~~ 'i.-,-,' .:.,'"',',_,,.,_:,: ~ ~ ;.<,_'.,~,. ""'~" ,:',1.":",,'.',, : ',' : ",' '"" . C . .. . . ..... .......... -, _ ... . ....}~~..;..:;-.~I:~'.c} ..,~'. !'i.,..:.~~,~";'.:'c":T" It... .':..,:...."7:':'~ .:':'.;~l...,+ , j,' .,:..i~j ,:~. . ,.'. '~"....:~.~ .>:' T,. ">CI;.~' ,':.'~:.:T'.':\~ 'J " -"1"", sales and services establishment and reduce the required parking from 27 spaces (15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to 13' spaces Iseven spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area) for a proposed restaurant, as a Corrjprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program. Proposed Use: The application includes a 4,068 square foot single~story building with a 2,268 square foot retail sales and service establishment and an 1,800 square foot restaurant. Conditions: 1) Any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complimentary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by , the Community Development Board; 2! the color of the building be earth , tones acceptable to the Community Development Coordinator, consistent' with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 3! the site be limited to one monument sign oriented towards Drew Street, with a solid base coordinated with the design and color of the building and at a ' maximum height of six feet, to the satisfaction of Staff; 41 the landscape buffer alo,ng the north side include ,a six-foot masonry-type wall, with a stucco finish and painted consistent with the building design and color, reduced to a maximum height of three feet within the front setback 'and constructed with a pier and lintel foundation in the vicinity of the adjacent oak tree to preserve the root system; and 5!landscape plan be amended to include coordinated ,and additional plant materials, to the satisfaction of Staff, prior to the issuance of any permits. presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner Senior Planner Wayne Wells presented the request. The applicant is' requesting to develop the property with uses permitted as minimum standard and , flexible standard uses, but with deviations from setback requirements. '~ , . Mr~ Wells said staff received a letterof concern regarding the application from 2 residents who reside directly north of this property; He met with them to discuss the site plan. They are in favor of the masonry wall along the north property line and generally are pleased with the site plan. They requested the applicant's lights shine away from their property, there be no public telephone on the site, and that the property be kept clean. ~ The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and , supporting f!1aterials on January 17, 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a retail sales and service use and a restaurant in the Commercial District with a 12-foot (east! front setback ' , to p'avement, a 1 Q-foot (south! front setback to pavement, a five-foot side (north) setback to a dumpster enclosure and pavement, a five-foot side (west) setback to building, 'and with a reduction in the required number of parking spaces to four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a retail sales and service use and to seven spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a restaurant, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2~ 704, with, a Comprehensive Landscape Program, for tho site at 2004- 201 0 Drew Street, with the following bases and conditions: mcd0302 6 3/19/02 ";'r:t:r:' <' ',"- I. .'. ' '"'' ,'; .;~:~.""~~i.:.~'~+~ ' .<.: , . , ' , . 1~:';~~~:'~~1'~'t\} /t~1\ ":1 :'~"~:'~~~,:::,"', 'c, .r~. ; . c> ,. . ,I"..' " '.. ' '. ~ ~ '~ " ' ..--..... : ) --- , .. \". ....) . ~.' .".. .'. .. ,<' Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal compiles with the Flexible Development , criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.B; 21 the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; 3) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the' Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 41 the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions: 1) Any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complimentary ,operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board; 2) the color of the building be earth tones acceptable to the Community Development Coordinator, consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDS; 3) the site be limited to one monument sign oriented towards Drew Street, with a solid base coordinated with the design and color of the building and at a maximum height of 'six feet, to the satisfaction of Staff; 4) the landscape buffer along the north side include a six-foot masonry-type wall, with a stucco finish and painted consistent with the building design and color, reduced to a maximum height of three feet , within 'the fmnt setback and constructed with a pier and lintel foundation in the vicinity of the adjacent oak tree to preserve the root system; and 5) landscape plan' be 'amended to include coordinated and additional plant materials, to the satisfaction . of Staff, prior to the issuance of any permits. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Case FL01-12-36. The motion was . duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Case TA02-01-01 - Community Development Code Amendments (Continued item) - Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department Request: Comprehensive amendments to the Community Development Code, as a result of the annual review, including amendments to the General Provisions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Development Review an~ other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings , and Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner " Mr. Kephart reviewed the comprehensive amendmen'ts to the Community Development Code. At the February 19, 2002 meeting, the Community' Development Board deferred action on the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Ordinance No. 6928.02) so the Planning Department could research several issues raised by'the Board. ' The City CommIssion also reviewed this proposed ordinance on February 21, ,2002, and deferred action until additional information could be provided on seveml proposed provisions ~n the 'ordinance. mcd0302 ' 7 3/19/02 ,~...rltl"'iU"~~~~,1~"i ; I~.t~~..~. . . < ..~ ; > '.: " . ~ . ,"i :~.,,! ,~.,. . I. '. '_ j J. :"'+ .<, '. l{.~.( I :: ~ ' ~ '-:.) .....-:../ " " ~ ' ',-"" .. ~ '.' > Listed below are the issues that were identified through the meetings with, , the Community Development Board, the City Commission, as well as Planning Department review. Community Development Board issues are listed first, followed , by City Commission issues and finally Planning Department revisions. Each section " identifies the issues and the analysis 'section id,entifjes what revisions were made. COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT BOARD ISSUES The Community Development Board discussed and requested further lnforr:nation or made specific requests on the following five issues: . Final plat approval and issuance of building permits . 'Evidence presented during an Appeal Hearing · Setback measurements' for non-vertical' structures o Parking demand study requirements . Roof overhang into required building setback After conducting the necessary research, the Planning Department is recommending several revisions to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address the ,COB's concerns. Several changes discussed by the COB, however, are not recommend,ed by the Pfanning Department and have not been included in this ordinance. Below is a discussion of each issue. 1, Final Plat Approval and Issuance of Building Permits (Section 108, Section 109, Page 45 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department recommends revising Code Section 4-702, whic,h regulates subdivision plats, to eliminate inconsistencies between Code Sections 4-702 and 4-708.C. regarding when a building permit can be issued for property involving a subdivision plat. In response to concerns raised by the COB, the Planning Department also is proposing to revise Code Section 4-708.C., which requires the recording of a fin'al plat prior to issuing any building permits. The revision proposes to give " authority to the Community Development Coordinator to (!lIow the issuance of certain types of permits such as demolition, site and utility after final plat approval but prior to final plat recordation. , The 'Planning Staff researched 1 2 local jurisdictions in developing this , revision. Those 12 jurisdictions included Pinellas County, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Oldsmar, St. Petersburg, St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, Hillsborough County, Tampa, Bradenton, and Boca Raton. Of the 12 local jurisdictions ' surveyed, only Largo allows building permits to be issued before the final plat is recorded. See attachment for each jurisdiction's requirement. 2. Evidence Presented during Hearing Appeal (Section 105, Page 44 of proposed ordinance.) , , mcd0302 8 3/19/02 ., '... " , : ~: "':'. . ~ .J, ,.' ~ ~ ' . I,' ~ .. I .'.of ~.~.. " r ::~ < . ,,-,." 'c ,le <. ~. .. . . .......... .",~ ," .,' .... '. .,.:' ,'~ "f .,.':\~. ':. ...... .'io. ~.: j.: .... ~ .:..";.... {' ~...,' ......~. :,~ '"~ .",'. ',~' t..":, ':~". ,~ ,The Board requested that no new evidence be allowed to be presented,durlng an appeal hearing so that the appeal would be based on the record and 'not be a new hearing. Preventing new evidence in the appeal hearing is the same type of appeal hearing that is conducted by the court system. The philosophy of, the current code allows two appeals from each level of approval. By requiring a hearing officer to perform the same review of the record performed by the court, there is no need to have the hearing officer appeal. Making this change would leave only one appeal and change the philosophy of the Code. The Planning and Legal Departments recommend that the original' proposed ordinance language not be revised so that the appeal process is maintained at' the local level and the philosophy of the code is upheld. .'.-, . 3.' Setback, Measurements for Non.Vertlcal Structures (Not within proposed ordinance) :~ The' COB discussed the issue of how setbacks are measured for non-vertical structures (such as brick pavers and parking lots). Concern was raised that pavement, pool decks, etc. must comply with building andlor accessory structure setbacks and this is too restrictive. The CDB suggested in the alternative to establish a percentage of the setback that must be landscaping. This Issue was not addressed in the original proposed Ordinance No. G929-02~ , 0> , The Planning Department recommends maintaining the current method for , measuring setbacks. As the City continues to redevelop, this method will ensure a' consistent width of landscaping and open space within the required setbacks. This is particularly important in a redeveloping community because it will create a predictable vista along the roadways, which will enhance community aesthetics and it will also' provide adjacent properties with a predictable area of open and green space. " To avoid any possible confusion to the public, the Planning Department has already revised its notices to surrounding property owners distinguishing between a setback reduction for a building and for a setback reduction for paving/parking 4. Parking Demand Study (Section 62, Page 36 of proposed ordinance.) The COB noted it was not clear who is required to conduct a parking demand study and when such study Is required. 'J The Planning Department has I'evised proposed Code Section 3-1401.C clarifying that the Community Development Coordinator may require an applicant to prepare a parking demand study in conjunction with' a request for deviations to the required parking standards. mcd0302 9 3/1 9/02 j ~'t' I. ,l c ,\ C (I cj. .'. . , , ' ,1 :;'.c ." .fl","..'. ",: c ,~ " ' .... ~;. i'. '." 1.-. _I., ... .~,~. \ ), . '. ,.~"', ',' I;, '.. .,... +: I ...., ,\. .. ..... . '" ... ...~. ~. ~ i I.... :..., ,.' i ." '.~"r. ~:r.' '.-.~ . ,', ,~', ., ,~. ~,.~ ',.~ : r .. , " ~ 4.' Roof Overhang (Section 49, Page 31 of the proposed ordinance.) Based on conc~rns raIsed by the CDB that a 30" roof overhang is too limiting and did not relate to existing and previous code requirements, the Planning Department is proposing to identify roof overhangs and eaves within Section 3- 90B.A. that allows for building projections to extend 40% Into the required setback or 10 feet whichever is less. In the "C", "T" and "0" districts building projections are allowed to extend 1 0 feet into required setback. This change will make roof overhangs and eaves consistent with existing and previous code requirements. .', r CITY COMMISSION ISSUES " ' The City Commission discussed and made recommendations on three issues found in the proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 at the February 18, 2002 Commission workshop and the February 21, 2002 public meeting. Those issues included the following: . Portable storage units and length of time that they w~uld be allowed to placed on property during emergency repairs . Signs at elevated intersections . Vending machines " ---I Additionally, the Commission requested the Planning Department provide the ' Commission with graphics to illustrate proposed changes to the sign ordinance. ANAL VSIS The Planning Departme'nt is recommending three changes to proposed Ordinance No. 6928-02 to address concerns raised by the City Commission. 1. Portable Storago Units (Section 94, Page 42 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing to limit a portable storage unit to a time period of 15 days for emergency home repairs, with the possible extension .of an additional 15 day~ if needed to complete emergency repairs. The Planning Department revised this section to address the Commission's concerns'regarding the lengt,h of time a portable storage unit could be on a property for emergency repairs. 2.' Signs at Elevated Intersections ISection 86, Page 39 of the proposed ordinance.) u' The Planning Department is proposing that signs at elevated intersections be permitted at 14 feet above the highest point of the elevated road within the property lines that are perpendicular and adjacent to the elevated roadway, excluding frontage and service roads. mcd0302 10 3/19/02 ~~~~~)A~.',i~~~!~'~~~~.~(::~.J.L'{l. :..).. ~;l~'i ':~'.! .:\ ~.,::\.::~~\: .r::~:/, ,).,:/r ~>~ ;r~ , ~l ;.~: ..:,:',,' \,,~: ,:. < , , c . ~::"~ .: 1,;,\.:~'.~\+~'.:,;,I~{~)i .'~d< {;.t~'J>i'!~': ~. ' . ,. {':,'I,,>. ."<', :1: ,'.~, ~~....~~., ~:~: I \'~" '5 ,..., " ~.: .,' :. .\.f.~.~,~,; ~~,: ~~ ~~.~ ,~. .j.c.....t. This modification addresses the Commission's concern that properties located along elevated intersections would all be 1 4 feet above the highest point' of the road regardless of where the business is located along the elevated roadway. " 3. Vending Machine Signage (Section 52, Page 32 of'the proposed ordinance.l At the direction of the City Commission, the Planning Department Is proposing ,to limit the amount of signage allowed on the front of vending machines to 35 % , of the front of the machine, includinq the selection buttons. The previously '"' proposed amendment excluded the selection buttons. ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVISIONS i " In addition to the amendments discussed above, the Planning Department has made five more revisions to the proposed ordinance since the Community Development , Board and City Commission meetings. These revisions address the following: -';, :.:) . Maintenance of seawalls . Transfer of Development Rights , . Address signage allowed in addition to total square footage of signage . Competent substantial evidence in appeal hearings . Fences on attached dwelling lots ANAL VSIS 1. Maintenance of Seawalls (Section 75, Page 37 of proposed ordinance.) , At the direction of. legal counsel, the seawall maintenance provision has been modified to specify that seawalls shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition and shall comply with applicable building and coastal construction codes. The original proposal did not identify who would be responsible for inspecting the seawalls and what criteria would be used for that inspection. , This revision also addresses concerns raised by the Marine Advisory Board. 2. . Transfer of Development Rights ,{Section 113, Pages 46-47, Section 114, . Pages 47-48, and Section 115, Page 48 of proposed ordinance.} " :;)"'" , , , ' Based on input from the Pinellas Planning Council, the Planning Department, is proposing 'to make' several mInor editorial changes to 'the Transfer of ,Development Rights regulations. Code Section 4.1402 is being revised to better identify the criteria necessary t6 use Transfer of Developmont Rights. The , ' proposed revision requires SllCh transfers to be in compliance with subsections 1, 2, and 3 of the provision and specifies that they are, permitted only in circumstances outlined In either subsection 4 or 5. Proposed Code Section 4. 1403.E is being revised to further identify. that development rights transferred from a Community Developm'ent Dt~trict, Central Business District, or other mcd0302 , 11 , 3/19/02 . .r,.i'J;;":~~".'Ht"~. ..,' ..t:...,;::~. .~~\.I h""l' 1" :~ ..~. I L! I," , . ..",.:: :: ~ " I . ." ,:..+<~. .:.i'.'~~, ';.,':,.. :~, " . 1,1' I ~ '.l;: . "i, ., +. q ~ +. .:.,1 .il' ~ . . .L" ;' ',' " )/::., . . ." ", ~ J r""') '..... c ,""";"1 ~ designated redevelopment area may be transferred onlv to property located within the same designated redevelopment area. proposed Code Section 4-1403.C specifies that when reviewing height increases for, projects using transfer of development rights that compatibility with the surrounding area and the viability of the project should be considered. The Planning Department is recommending to replace "viability" with "feasibility" so it is clear that the criteria is project feasibility and not solely economic viability. 3. Address Signage Allowed in Addition to Total Square Footage of Signage (Section 81, Page 38 of proposed ordinance.) The Planning Department is proposing an amendment to the sign ordinance to clarify that address signage is allowed in addition to the total permitted sign area. 4. Competent Substantial Evidence in Appeal Hearings (Section ,102, Page 43 of proposed ordinance.) ., The Planning Department is proposing to revise Code Section 4-502.A to identify that an appeal of a level one' approval by an applicant or property owner must present competent substantial evidence in the Level One review. 5. Fences on Attached Dwelling Units. (Section 45a, Page 30a Insert to proposed ordinance. ) The current fence ordinance restricts fences on attached dwelling I~ts to four feet, except along the boundary of the property. Based on the fact that many such properties have existing six feet high fences, the Planning Department 'is proposing this amendment to accommodate existing development and to allow privacy fences within this type of development. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must ~omply with the following:, 1. The proposed amendment Is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a, selected list of goals, policios, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by tho proposed 'amendments to the Community Development Code: . Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize Innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices; and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage Inli11 development. , mcd0302 12 3/19/02 '~;.,. ",.J;," ,\", ".i. '.'~.I.' '.'~'(.''''':'' '..~ ',.~: :"".1'.: :.... . .;. "~': ...t : .:..... .:~..~..,.. .......,~.I.....~...L..I....~...~:....~ :,.,:.,1. ......"'.. ~ ~ · Policy 2.1 .2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights- of-way, the vacation of public rights-at-way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and' the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. , " L., . , ~ ~ · Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing' development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation andlor catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plan. '::) . Policy 2.1.3 - The area governed by Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines shall be recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use 'map as a Community Redevelopment District. This area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the block between Acacia' Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east and the Sand Key Bridge on the south, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive. Beachfront and public property located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of Recreation/Open Space shall be excluded from the Community Redevelopment District. D Policy, 2.3.3 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. . Policy 3.2.1 - land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted ,by, special area plans or redevelopment plan approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning district, as established in the City' 5 Community Development Code" may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment. . Objective 4.1 - All signage with the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found in the Community Development Code, and all proposed ~igns shall l\e evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. :) . Policy 4.1 .1 - Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide, for highway safety and to allow the identification of business locations. mcd0302 13 3119/02 .'.:'~'o~. '11\,:.' ;l'f:~"~'~ ,'~.,:-:"..' ....-/ ~,<,,' ..:....., ::0. . ',:,.,.,"'.';. ": .::"':' ""'..:' .',' .......~<:.1"...", ,.~.:,..::. ::'~'.. ~I'o:.....,.'..: . ;r',', \'. ~ . Objective 4.2 - All development and redevelopment initiatives within the .Clty of Clearwater ,shall meet the minimum landscaping/tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation' of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and' the overall quality of development within the City. . Policy 22.2.7 - Transfer of development rights should be implemented to provide alternatives to development and degradation of wetlands and other natural resources. 2. The proposed' amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City, ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendments include a broad range of regulations ranging, from permitted uses, numerical standards, flexibility criteria, procedures, enforcement and definitions. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of , Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the Code. .~ ,.j The proposed, amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. The amendments permit certain uses in a wider range of zoning districts. They also provide more appropriate development standards regarding marinas, signage and tree replacement requirements. They also strive to, improve community aesthetics through the additional regulation of sign design and the limitation of the number of vending machines allowed outside of a building. In many instances the proposed amendments promote more site-specific solutions. These solutions ultimately promote economic development and maintain 'high standards for development, which are essential in a community undergoing redevelopment. The Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. . 6928-02, which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. +~ ~. ~ ~ ---) Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said that regarding Section 105, Page 44 of the proposed ordinance regarding Evidence Presented during Hearing Appeal, the CDS had made a recommendation to the Commission at a prevIous meeting, that no new witnesses be allowed at appeal hearings. She said some alternatives to consider are: 1) Accept the Planning staffs suggested language in the packet; 2) provide for a review by the Administrative Law Judge by sub~itting the record to him/her in Tallahassee and requesting their written proposed final orders without a hearing; 3) hold a hearing in. Clearwater and have the Administrative Law Judge write the final orders after returning to Tallahassee; or 4) omit the Hearing Officer procedure entirely and go directly to Circuit Court. She recommended option #2 or #4. ' ' mcd0302 ' 14 3/19/02 "-.;' ~ '~:""..'I'I ~:~t' ...f....':..:,... :":,'.. ,"...... \',.+:'. ,1,- :.:1 :....l"+~ .....~./;' ..' ...,..!.t..~" .,t., ': .~:"J,'\~:":.' ~.~ I.....:....... .;'\.".'.....:.\:.",.: ':.....;,~:.I. ~ A citizen commended the City for instituting the Administrative Law Judge coming to Clearwater for appeal hearings. He felt the current system works well. Consensus was to modify staff's proposed language as follows: 1I...By requiring a hearing officer in Tallahassee to perform the same review of the record , performed by the Community Development Board, there is no need to have the hearIng officer appeal... II ' In response to a question, Mr. Kephart said currently, staff has th'e discretion to permit up to two times the total area of sign faces permitted under the Comprehensive Sign Program. Under this sign ordinance proposal, the absolute minimum amount of signage is being increased to 20 square feet and up to 5 % of the building faQade square footage for signage. He said language related to sandwich board signs has been removed from the proposed ordinance pending current litigation. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said due to pending litigation, some sign code amendments have been placed on hold. II It was remarked the CDS had concerns at a previous meeting that the language In the Transfer of Development Rights section of the ordinance has not been clarified to define what is a "reasonable" relationship between a transfer in height. Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said the COB would be responsible to make the determination as to what is reasonable. ~~) In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the Code does not require sidewalks for a single~family residential area to meet setback requirements, although they would be required to be of a specific size. Concern was expressed that roof overhangs should have the same consideration as side setbacks in the LMDR Zoning District, as they would have less , impact than bay windows and balconies. Consensus was to recommend to the Commission that roof overhangs have the s8!Tle right as side setbacks in the LMDR Zoni~g District. . , Extensive discussion ensued regarding the Comprehensive Sign Program. Mr. Kephart said staff arrived at the "up to 5 %" criteria after extensive research and feels it is a good measurement for determining allowable signage. Staff would make a determination based on design guidelines, proportionality of the sign, the building; quality of the sign, architectural integrity, etc. He said existing signs that do not meet the regulations for signage in this proposed ordinance would be grandfathered in until the site was redeveloped. Concern was expressed that co'mmerclal developer::; would challenge the interpretation and application of these ,c'riteria. ,:J' Two citizens expressed concern regarding the sign ordinance proposal. Discussion Included: 1) the provision regarding up to 5% of the square footage of the total building faQade for signage versus minimum and maximum allowable signage; 2) varying sizes of buildings with regard.to height, multiple buildings, mcd0302 15 3/19/02 . l~ c~,"n...'.' ~ ,. ': I \ . ~ ~ ~ . I.. . >" 'c,.. . ~ :. ~.t~~,~,: ....;. , , '4" . T, .~., .f{ ..'L'..\":',.....<::~.\..:~:~.:I~\::. ..,,'. ....i " ,.1. .:r'(., '...'r, . . :. IF. ,.: ~l ..."<. ~. :;..../1., ".':'I,II"('I.:I..',,'f~:, .,: "'f", ..',..'I:'..~ 1.'I,".l.~. '.\':.:"":,.~.'.,, .1:', '4.' ,.,: ,"I,~":-~'::".'.'... ,:'~",'l.''''.'. .';'~.:.,'.:I")-..li."~':'" ',',4.':... t) property sizes, and their related setbacks; and 3) site visibility, frontage, and access to the site. Ms. Dougall-Sides said one of the three billboard cases that have been filed against the City attacks the provisions the City uses to limit the size of freestanding ~igns with regard to the size, height" and setback requirements. She said she had recommended a number of sections, which would have amended the sign code ordinance, be put on hold. She felt that the more the City relieves those size, height, and setback requirements that have been relied on over the past 17 years, the more It would weaken its position In the pending litigation. \\ ,Discussion ensued regarding a special meeting to further review the signage , portion of the ordinance. . ~' ,F Member Petersen moved that the signage and roof overhanglsetback issues in the proposed ordinance be continued for review by the COB at their regularly scheduled meeting at 2:00 p.m. on April 16, 2002.' The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was noted that the Commission makes the final decision regarding this ordinance. The COB only makes recommendations to the Commission. . '............. " ,) " ........,;... Member Gildersleeve moved to accept the items presented in the proposed ,Ordinance No. 6928-02, except for the sign and roof overhang/setback items. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Case APP02-01-01 - 1050 North Myrtle Avenue - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Tom Selhorst Location: 0.109 acres on the west side of Myrtle Avenue, east of Blanche B. Littlejohn Trail, approximately 200 feet north of Cedar Street Atlas Page: 2688 Proposed Use: Vehicle service , Request: Appeal of a denial of an occupational license for vehicle service in the Commercial District for property at 1050 North Myrtle Avenue, under the appeal provisions' of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. Presenter: Usa Fierce, Assistant Planning Director , ~~., ','~ .v Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said this case is an appeal of a denial of an occupational license -for vehicle service use in the Commercial District. The site is zoned Commercial District with an underlying land use designation of CG, Commercial General Classification. The Commercial District permits the following ,minimum standard uses: governmontal, indoor recreation/entertainment, marinas, , offices, overnight accommodations, parks and recreation facilities, places of worship, restaurants, retail sales/services, and vehicle sales/display. Additional uses are permitted under the FlexIble Standard Development and Flexible Development provisions. Vehicle sorvice, however, is not permitted in the Commercial District under any provisions. mcd0302 16 3/1 9/02 ; ~.'..' :...... 'PI', :..'.......,. :':.,\ ....,..,:~.,.;;. I, :...~..,.;". ",". ;:'\'.:..,...:...:....j..~. . ,: ...~r:~.l:...".\.:',':'..,'..; ,.;....':...'..,:.,~.~.... I.'..... .,t,,":.' The property owner, Mr. Tom Selhorst, filed this appeal on December 31, 2001. (Refer to the letter and application for proposed use submitted - Exhibits G and H.' Section 4-205.C. of the Community Development Code provides that a denial of an occupational license may be appealed in the manner provided in Article 4 Division 5. Section 4-501 A.4. of the Community Development Code states that the Community Development Board has the authority to review appeals from denials of any permit or license issued under the provisions of the Code. Section 4-502.8. provides that an application/notice of appeal of any decision of the City, as provided in Section 4-501, may be initiated by the applicant or any person granted party status within 14 days of the decision. Section 4-504 states that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator (regarding appeals from decisions set out in Section 4-501.A.) the Community Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render a decision. ,~ The occupational license application was denied by the Planning Department on December 31, 2001 ~ because the vehicle service use as requested is not p'ermitted in the Commercial zoning district lrefer to application for occupation license, Exhibit B). The Code defines vehicle service'as an activity conducted entirely within an enclosed structure primarily involved in servicing or repairing automobiles, motorcycles. trucks, boats, recreational vehicles and other similarly sized vehicular transport mechanisms or heavy machinery. Vehicle services include washing, waxing, changing oil, tuning, installing mufflers or detailing, window tinting, shock absorbers, and painting. lRefer to the vehicle service definition in the Code, Exhibit C., The vehicle service use is permitted in the IRT, Industrial, Research and Technology District (Refer to a portion of the use chart in the Code, Exhibit D.) ,On March 1, 2001, Tom Selhorst (appellant) submitted an application for occupational license for the subject property. The application was for an individual business that was described as "re'pair and service, no vehicle service or repair. includes handyman". (Refer to occupational license permit application OCL. 0007484, Exhibit E.) The application was approved by all applicable City departments. The Planning Department (zoning) conditionally approved the application as a contractor's office, w~ich is permitted under the Commercial District, with a condition that no repair or service of equipment or vehicles is permitted on this site. (), On May 25, 2001, Glass America LLC submitted an application for occupational license for the same site. The description of the business on the application stated, "auto glass replacement work done off premises - no work done on site - no outdoor storage - office use only." This application was approved by all City departments, including Planning, as an office use. It is permitted under the Commercial District provisions. (Refer to occupational license permit application OCL-0008018, Exhibit F.' <.:J mcd0302 17 3/19/02 ' I -t '. , ....' . ...... .:'..~.'. :.-. I....; . ...t, ~'.' .\,- .,..t.~.. '. .:'" .'.,: ~.' .....,. .:,:....~ .~\ f..... 4" ~.. ..: j... .."~ ;...~...t '.',"~"~". I:",...:I~"'~..., '~:..l.'~~.;. ',,' . l,:,.,.,.";~:':":.. '.~r,..,.I.' ~"'.~,,:..' .",. ~:' :..~..:.I,!~:. ~....I.'I':!....'...........'..:..I1..I.:".... ." :".~~.:,...:.; :..:': ."",~",:). '............: The Community Development Code and Code of Ordinances have two " ,inconsistent appeal procedures. IA code amendment will be needed to address the issue.) In addition to the process as discussed above, Section 29.44 (Appeals) of the Code of Ordinances states that any applicant or licensee who has been denied the issuance of an occupationallic,ense pursuant to Section 29.31 r 29.38, or 29.41 (5) shall have the right of appeal to the City Manager. The decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive, subject to judicial review. The appellant was given the choice of either of the two appeal procedures. He first chose the hearing by the Assistant City Manager and it was held on January 24, 2002. (Refer to meeting minutes of the Administrative Hearing - Exhibit I.) During that meeting, the applicant decided to pursue the appeal process through the Community Development Board. Pursuant to Section 4-504.C. of the Community Development Code, in order ,to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presente~ by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appeale9 from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code: 2) the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code: and 3) wlll not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Ms. Tarapani said the building was under construction pursuant to the former Code'. The construction was not completed and occupied under any allowable uses under that Code. The building was completed after the new Code became effective. :,...-) '" Ms; Dougall-Sides defined the substantial competent evidence standard that applies to this case. She also reviewed the time limits for hearing the case. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said all 3 of the criteria listed above would need to be satisfied by the appe!lant. Ms. Dougall~Sides said should the CDS decide to approve the appeal to hear the case, that decision would overturn the decision made by staff. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the COB's decision regarding the request must be based on permitted uses regardless of building design. Tom Selhorst, applicant, said he has been through 5 zoning changes since he pu~chased this property in 1 977. He said he has followed the regulations of the code that was in effect when he began 'construction of the building. He felt it unfair that the City would change the rules after he has spent considerable funds on ,this property. His property is in an Enterprise Zone and is regulated by the, applicable standards. He said the section of the Code he feels applies to his property is Section 40.431. He submitted a section of the commercial infill conditional uses portion of the former Code, which includes vehicle service as a p~rmissible use. <~ mcd0302 18 3/19/02 ...':.""'.,~:.\./" '.~: ,.#,:...,<..... ..~..:~... .'," : l.,~'. .... ...>...r:...~....:r.:.':..:."."..j.,.'.,:.~..,.::.I~..,..I.~...:;....::.,;.~.I:."~...'.::' .;,'.'~-';',:..' ~,J.... .~. ,;".,~ ,') In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said Mr. Selhorst's use was not established in the former Code, therefore, she did not feel his business could be grandfathered in as a permitt~d use. Commercial h,fill areas were required to be separately set up and approved by the Commission. Mr. Selhorst's property is zoned Commercial District, not Commerciallnfill. Ms. Tarapani said when the new Code was adopted; it included several transitional provisions with regard to previously granted variances. She said the applicant started and stopped . construction under the former Code and never occupied the building for a use that was allowed under the former Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Mr. Selhorst signed City Exhibit B, Application for Occupational License, which states that nO,on site repair work would be done. The applicant waived any claim to provide vehicle service and repair by filing application for office use only. :~n)... ~- Mr. Selhorst submitted Appellant Exhibit A, a copy of a Variance Application, VR#96-48, indicating that the Zoning District at the time of application was Commercial Infill and the Land Use Classification was Commercial General, Appellant,Exhibit B, a copy of a Certificate of Occupancy issued on February 27,' 2001, after the new Code was adopted, Appellant Exhibit C, a copy of a paid permit fee for $6,120.38 for transportation impact fees, etc., and Appellant Exhibit 0, a copy of a, former section of the Code referring to Conditional Uses. He said he did not understand why the City would hold up a Commercial Infill application for 9 years while he purchased buildings and proceeded with construction. He felt there would be no reason to apply for a conditional use permit until the roof was , completed on the building. He said the City needs to get behind Enterprise Zone regulations. He said he had received 2 citations regarding si9nago. The appeal court judge dismissed the case regarding 1050 North Myrtle Avenue. Mr. Jacobsen submitted Exhibit E, photographs of the subject property and a Glass America truck. . Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibit #1, a copy of a Pinellas County Justice Information System Case Progress Docket report, showing the result of a case involving Mr. Selhorst versus the State. She said there were 2 cases regarding 1050 North Myrtle Avenue., The court dismissed one case, as the judge felt Mr. Selhorst had made some efforts toward compliance following the citation. In the , other case, the court found Mr. Selhorst gullty, withheld adjudication, and assessed a fine, which was concurrent with 2 other cases in which Mr. Selhorst was found guilty of sign violations. Marc Jacobsen, Mr. Selhorst's tenant and owner of Glass America, said the majority of his business Is done on the road in self-contained vehicles. Only 5 - 10% is done in the shop. No heavy machinery is used. He said there are other businesses listed in the telephone directory that perform the same type of work his company provides. He said auto glass is not specifically listed under the auto services section of the Code. He wishes to open and keep his business at the subject location. ' ',,-) mcd0302 19 3/19/02 ..:,".;.. ...:. ,.:~ .'I....~,'v,_J.~.... L'~ '~.I ..,.~.., I.,'..~~'..:"':"" .\..1.... : :":.'-',II.~,/..'r,r...L:':..:'I','.~.. I', ."....,....J:. "",."." ,:,'.., ~~:,'" '"I.: ':I'j::~'.~. I') Mr. Selhorst said Glass America already has obtained an occupational license: No complaints about the business have been brought to staff. He said Glass America Is a glass contractor and provides services other than windshield repair. In response to a question, Mr. Jacobsen said he would probably need to hire 2 employees at this location. i j In response to a question, Mr. Jacobsen said Glass America's shop manager signed City Exhibit F stating the information provided was correct. Mr. Jacobsen said he actually filled out the information. He said the Code does not address his type of business. It was remarked that by virtue of Mr. Jacobsen supplying the information and one of his managers signing a sworn document, he had agreed not to perform on site work. Mr. Jacobsen said he was told by staff to write that language on the form. He said not all customers want mobile service. -I' In response to a question, Mr. Jacobsen said he relied, on information from , Mr. Selhorst that this site was approved for office servic~s, and he proceeded to set up the business. In response to a remark, Ms. Tarapani said the Certificate of Occupancy was not issued under Commercial Infill designation. One person spoke in opposition of the business. ",~Ik, . \rlU'rI C Development Services Director Jeff Kro,nschnabl said staff thoroughly explained to Mr. Selhorst and Mr. Jacobsen what was permitted under the Code. The City has a host of other violations against Mr. Selhorst. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said staff determined this use falls into the definition of vehicle service under the Commercial Zoning district. She said Mr. Selh~rst feels he was approved under a Commerciallnfill Zoning under the former Code when he applied for a variance. Mr. Selhorst did not act upon the variance and now feels that variance is in effect under the new Code. She said the building was given a Certificate of Occupancy for an office use only. Ms. Tarapani said although the City encourages businesses in the area, Mr. Selhorst must adhere to the current Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted that Mr. Selhorst has not presented any conditional use approval today under the former Code. Member Hooper moved to accept the Appellant's Exhibits (A, 8, C, 0, and E), the City's Exhibit #1, and the City's Exhibits as provided in the board's packets (A - II. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. :..;' Mr. Selhorst said he tries to find good businesses for his properties. He said under the Commercial Inflll established in 1993, 27 different businesses were , 'permitted. He said he has 67 building permits and other permits for buildings throughout Clearwater. He has a sizeable investment in his neighborhood. He paid , over $6,000 for a building permit for a 12,000 square foot building. He said it takes a long time to find a good tenant. He felt he had never been given the opportunity to obtain a condItional use for this property. Mr. Selhorst said he did not feel the City would want to see mobile auto glass service at the beach. , mcd0302 , 20 3/19/02 , , , ~. . , < '\ " ' " .:'~ f"~~ , \J>f)" , ., , ......, ~l, } > ~ " l < .'! Windshield repair service is only a small portion of the total business for Glass America. Work would only be done in the shop on an emergency basis. , It was remarked that Mr. Selhorst had not proven that staff misconstrued or misinterpreted the Code. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the City does not use Federal SIC Codes to determine uses. Staft uses the definitions in the Code and determines the use that is most similar to the use being applied for by the applicant. Member Petersen moved to deny the appeal primarily based on the applicant not showing the decision made was misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:20 to 3:28 p.m.' ,4. ' Case TA02-02-03 - Residential Rental Text Amendment - Level Three Application , Applicant: City of Clearwater, Development Services Department Request: Amendment to Article 3 of the Community Development code requiring occupational licensing for certain residential rentals Presenter: Jeff Kronschnabl, Development Services Director Development Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl presented background on ' the amendment. For approximately one year, the Development Services Department has been working with a diversified community focus group consisting, of representatives from the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, the Association of , Realtors, the Coalition of Clearwater Homeowners Association, the Bay Area Apartment Association, the Tampa Bay Chapter of National Association of J:le~idential Property Managers, individual owners of residential properties and citizens to formulate regulations to assure residential rental units in the City are in compliance with the minimum housing and property maintenance standards. The Development Services Department is requesting the COB to consider amendments to the Community Development Code developed through this extensive collaborative process. Proposed Ordinance No. 6932-02 establishes a new division in the Community Development Code to regulate rental resid~ntial units. The purpose and intent ot the residential rental compliance code is to gain compliance with minimum housing and property maintenance standards which will clean up, repair, stabilize, encourage revitalization, strengthen, and preserve our neighborhoods to create a ' safer, aesthetic, economically viable, and more livable community. As part of this , program, the City agrees to continually provide Information and education to the community and applicants about the Code. Proposed provisions will requIre the occupational licensing of single-family' residential rental dwellings. Current provisions' In the City's Code of Ordinances mcd0302 , 3/1 9/02 21 " , , , , ~ , . ~ , req'uire licensing for two or more units. The proposed ordinance requires owners of residential rental property to acknowledge receipt of information that outlines minimum housing and property standards that rental property must meet prior to issuance otan ,occupational license. , This acknowledgement must be given by signing a form entitled Residential Rental Compliance - Notice Requirements of ' Minimum Applicable Standards (see attachmentl. This form lists the most commonly violated minimum housing and property standards. In addition this document specifies that any violation that clearly constitutes a hazard to the safety or health of the occupants must be immediately corrected, by repair and rehabilitation or by demolition in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building , Abatement Code adopted in Section 47.051. By signing this notice, the property owner agrees to meet the requirements of the residential rental compliance ordinance. The proposed ordinance provides for compliant driven or inspector initiated, inspection~' of rental residential units by the City. If any inspection reveals more than three violations, an interior inspection may be requested and made upon consent of the property owner. ':~ , Mandatory periodic inspections were not required by this ordinance be.cause the focus group was concerned that such a program would penalize the responsible , landlords and property owners who are keeping their properties well maintained, safe and desi~able for'renters and the community. The foc\.ls group's majority was in favor of requiring inspections and penalty charges to property owners who violate the laws in such a manner that jeopardizes, andlor negatively impacts, the life, safety and living conditions of the' tenants, neighbors and the community in general. The focus group strongly recognized this direction as a tool with which the City can hold unresponsive residential rental property owners more accountable' and responsible. The proposed ordinance specifies that any violation that is not corrected may result in the,issuance of a Notice of Violation, which may require appearance before the' 'Development Code Enforcement Board, and/or a Notice to Appear before County Court. Should the preponderance of the evidence show that the property owner was non-responsive to the violations noted then the property owner could , find their right to do business within the City in jeopardy, as their occupational license could be subject to revocation. , , " ! ' The proposed ordinance assesses a non-compliance inspection fee of $50 per unit per re-inspection to be charged if any violation still exists after allowance of a reasonable time period for compliance. :I':'~ The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and , the C,ommunity Development Code. The amendments require compliance of minimum development standards, and associated housing standards for residential rent'al property owners, occupational licensing and fee of rental of single family residential propertIes, a re.lnspection foe of $ 50 per unit per re-inspection if violations have not been corrected within allowable time frames, and a Notice of , ! , J j , . .. mcd0302 22 3/19/02 , ,~:/ <;' It::, :~"', '~.'~ * : ~. J' ,',,,. ..~ " .'~.,' . ~ ...... ,... ,: '. :. f4c: '.'. p. ,,-.'. .... .'-,',:' " . 1 ..~.., .;',~:. ..~. I .. .,.',.:;.'" :.1.,.... , I , ' .' ; :/ ,'L" ,.,. J'i. ~ " c Requirements document linked to the occupational licensing of residential rental properties, which will require the licensees to be aware of the standards, inspe,ctions requirements and violation procedures. The Planning staff, in cooperation with the Development Services Department staff, recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6932-02, which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. :" ,I Two residents spoke in favor of the proposed residential text amendment. , ' Member Hooper moved that the Community Development Board recommend to'the City Commission to adopt Ordinance TA02-02-03. The motion was duly second~d. Upon the vote being take'n, Members Petersen, Gildersleeve, Moran, Plisko and Hooper and Chair Figurski voted "aye"; Members Mazur and Hibbard wers absent. Motion carried. ' .: "'. f ,.... " " ~' ~. t'" ' .,. ,0 Mr. Kronschnabl was commended for his efforts regarding the rental ordinance proposal. D. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS ," c, '0' , ','I, c . ";., 1. Request for time, exteJ:1sion - Edgewater Inn Redevelopment - FLOO-12-63 at , 1919 Edgewater Drive {request one year extension from March 20, 2002, to March 20; 20031 ' Barry Bywalec, representative for F1C?rida Design Co~sultants, requested a one-year extension for this resort development project, as 'progress had been impeded by the events of the September 1 'I, 2001, tragedy. ,Ms. Fierce said staff recommends approval' of the oneMyear extension request. I,' , Member Hooper moved to approve the request for a one-year ,extension from March 20, 2002, to March 20, 2003, for the Edgewater Inn Redevelopment project' at 1919 Edgewater Drive. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Petersen, Gildersleeve, Moran, Pliska, Hooper, and Hibbard and Chair Figurski voted "aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. ,I, 2. Update from Assistant City Attorney regarding Clearwater Group Limited (former Sunshine Mall site) appeal This item was postponed to the next meeting. Other '::.J Chair Figurski thanked everyone for their service on the COB and for his , luncheon toda\,. He also thanked his wife Melody. He said the COB is the best board and staff he has ever seen. mcd0302 23 3/19/02 . '<' .' > .~. J ~ i, ,.. " > . i > f : ~ ..: ~ ~ ~.. ., , ;., '. e" :;., '~<: " , ' , , , . " :';,~ ,~.. <. :"'> ~ '~' . . I': ' .. . , I, ~<';" ,.:' ~" '~::,';" <\j:,:':'.i:<,:,::~~;' ,....i:.":!}:> ;;:,L!,>:;:;'::~~"i~/~,}:; ': :' "\ .' .'.:.':,;, ~'p ;".:, '<"", , ~ ~'..t"~i'(;.~}~!',;;.~r\"lt,~~.~1,.:~\1i'''~~;,~;,.~[,:.(,,(IJ r::','; :\~t'~L-t').~.' :,~ '~.'. ,', ' '~J~f~:F~,I';W::i~;:;li:':::,~::;:n.r i::'::\,-:. ,~,:r',,~\','h:':T ".{ ",,-:.':., " ",:., .,.". \ I ~t?'.':,; ~';f,t;,<,' .. 'E ~",:,~,~.' .",',';'-' "':' :,' ;::;':~'/:~~~y1,:;,'..< .. II,' . ',' ,.. 'J ,,;. . '1', .'. " ',. '\.' .', : :, ~. ~ : . ,:>' ~ I. , I ~' '., . ..: ,. .~.' .: ' {"e c ~ , , ~ , _ ~ :r;" ;- ~. .. .' .,,~.: ~ " y,~~ I.. ~' ':' .... - , .. ' ' . , ~J;;f>'<::,"" ... 1. .~ 'r.,. . <-: it',',"/~:"':~:; . ;.. ~;'c j,~i".:~', ',.>. >;.' :..., J~'.. ,.:. lL?:~:i:'~ ~ rJ; . ~I;..,I: :T~".-" (:~, :';;:, ,=1 ',~ I ~ :~~\:,c: :(~,:, ... \-.,:" ." g,;.:':,',; ~,: ':' ' ... 'I'~,~'; . ,I, ),. ~}:' ':... "'~ tr \~ f~::->' " '" . ~ ~ " ';, I " " , ;, .1-, . : ~ . I,.'.: ,'." .i, .., ", " " \ ,I.. I, ., .... ':.." , , .:~~. .' ' , ;;":';'';:~~''~,'" "~, .c.;'~'~ ."!'~"'i" J~::c."., -(.. .. "1 .:. T ~ .~ . ~ ' \. . .. . I ~ . . , ~0;"u'. ':' ~~d0302,'" 24,' '. ..1 . . .: \ If. ".. ~J I.' '. . /J;i::",.,:.,.',,;,."'., :n,',.",,\;, -:"<" ,:' , " '" ',,' ,,: :, ,: , " . ',' :' ',""', "'" ~~r-:~~.~~~~~,~'iA~\i:~~~i;;jt.,!~il,~,:~~'iU\it?i1@li~Ii-~~~'G:.~~\~(,~;";~;iil{~ll~if.I~m~)iir8},>~1?~lh'itiJ:I~iA;.~~:.,:~'~;~~ii<:r~\ ~:C~~)~~;;:lt !>.~~!~::'~i:~::;}~;~':~fi:'~~,i;.,w..1~~\il~' . . , " . ~\. <>:j, I ',e'l' " , ".;~,\ ';:'.':> 'i ',: :! ~f.:. "I: ' ,.".., ,ll , , .; . 1" !, t. 'i , , I, ". I ... ,r, .". ADJOURNMENT " e' , .' , . . , ~eetlng ~,djourn'e'd a~' 5:30 'p.m., '\~"".\.~. 'Chair ~ " Community Dev,elopment ,Board' " The .l '+ ',. " l .,' .'. .' Attes't:' , l.J2~ ~...A11f~/ht7~ <~'rJlJl JYw.(J.j I fWAW Board, Reporter, ;.', .1, " , , , ,\ ~ I , ,I '. . ~. " ',I ') ,,. ',. " ; , .' :' ',. ~ " " I, .' . J " .; ',\, \'. :.' I , ".' , , '" )1 , ) .; .. " '. ,,/ '.: .,it .:' " .. " , + ., " .\ .' , ' ~ '. t ,< :. '," '., " ,; , II r I I ,:T . :' . ,.,c \ ' ,', , ' '., , I , , !\ " .'1 ,. " ',j. " ), (, ,.\ .' " i, -... > I'~ " '.c ',\ I ," " , . . . ~ '. ) , .,' :/1 .. C.' ..:.." ':'. " ":1' . .'.' " c., _'" . >~... t '" '1+: ~ I >~. ' '. 'fl. , ~. , ; , ' ~ , .. .J ,: :,~ f::' .;.F '.' '/1 ..' ," I,.:, '.\ .:.- .'~ . ~ .'. ,.,. , " . , . " , ., ~ I,' . . ' '... :~ 0: ~ i' . ,\ ' '..1 ". ;' II .'1> . .' , .1,: .,e \' '. ) ,., :,'.;. , . ~ l. > <,i. jl ,; :;.,1 : ',: ~ I. " . ~ ,. ,.' " ,3/19/02