Loading...
04/16/2002 (2) : . ' I I .',' ',I ' " I r .: :: .: . ,', ' , ,~.., I < >' ',. . , _ : . .~,' ',,' , '/ " t'" ': ~ , ' ' .' '. " :" - '.~ '.,' ,,' '., "~ ~ j' I"..,: ~', ,: ',' . r ':: . .'\ , ' , /~ " " ., ;. , , , ')" .<' \ ,'. . :1. > i' ,; '., '"> " . " . . " ", C"c. . ~ 'r .;c. . ,. " , " . . ': " . +'';'' ," ,.~:... >~.... f, ..~: /~~r-7: ';>" cl,~ \ ~_~ '\ h' q ~ .' ",. 'II..' , l ' " ~ ~ . . I. ,"" .....~. .~.ii 1;- " '1 '~ '. :1. i. .. ~; , .....;0.' . \" .' ~ ,'<,I "'r. '-I' -'.. "f~ I. . oj-' . ~ 4 ~. ,;, ~\~ ' " , ~.' ,;. ' r.:::::' ',. , '(', \. , " CDB L>> ";;;," t:-:,'':','::.'''',' ;.;'",/, I ~. .i,N:!\" j,' r ~ :. ...1",., .. ,\.," Jr':,::.,., ~ '~l{;::' Commu'nity Development ~~ard Meeting MINUTES " " " Itr~." ,.!' "<>' ~~:,.,. > 0;:"". " 1i;< :':., ;~'::":,": ~;~:;i<.I,:::"'" :.t',,+ ',"' N.'.". ~N<~.~~'.' w'::....~., 'l~.t '} I " ~I." "," , ", ': .. / " I, Date - ;~,\. ", .o' . " " ;: . ! .. ' ~ . ". . '. I+C r , . ' ,.;J~ .' : . ,IJ. :1" '., :l-,', , '.. (:' . i~ . I. . ~i'; , , , " ." \':. ' . . '" ~';, " '1:' ,l*'", .j!'.. :~', " '-:'i ~ ' " 'I.' ',:'<',; " " ~ I, ' , , " " ',' ',' I ~ ,,' , ;:;:< ~ \ ; , , , .,. .,',',l !,t;. " \. , .., [, /"'0 ' . , , , ~ ...' , ,I '" dil ; , . : I ~,: 'l::;:~(.i,,;:, ", : /' ,: '.' : . " :,",", . I' j I ' "~.'I , . ( ,:' >",; ".. . ':': t, .' _. _ ~ ,', + .: ........ . . . ", I. " ' .. ;', ' ~", " ',,' .: : ,~ ~,': ' .;,:'.".. .' ., :', ~ . ~ '... . .~. " ' ,';. :. .' '.. 1. .,~ .'. . , t~" "'e..~ ., " .":'.} 'y ACTION AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER . April 1 6, 2002 , Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: March 19 & April 3, 2002 ACTION: APPROVED - 6:0 B. CONSENT, AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-3). The following cases are not contented by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc., and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Case: ANX 02-02-02 - 7 South Hampton Road - Level Three application Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel, Willi'am C. Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers, Limited Properties, Inc.,/James F. burns; Joseph J. So rota, Jr., Trustee of Florida Land Trust #172916/Brandon Realty . Venture, 'Inc. Location: 3.91 acres on the east side of Hampton Road, approximately 270 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard . .Atlas Page: 291 B Request: 'Annexation of 3.91 acres to the City (land Use Plan amendment and Rezoning pending Case #lUZ 02-02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner 2. Case: LUZ 02-02-02 - 7 South Hampton Road - Level Three Applicat;on . Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel; William C. Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers; Limited Properties, Inc./James F. Burns; Joseph J. Sorota, Jr. Trustee of Florida land Trust #172916 and Carol D. Allen, Trustee of Carol D. Allen/Brandon Realty Venture, Inc. Location: 4.22 acres on the east side of Hampton road, approximately 270 feet north of Gulf-fo-Bay Boulevard Atlas Page: 2918 Request: (a) land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban Classificaiton to R/Ol, Residential/Office Limited (pending case #ANX 02-02- 02), and (b) Rezoning from R-R, Rural Residential & A-E, Agricultural Estate Residential Districts (County) and lMDR, Low Density residential District (City) to 0, Office (pending. case #ANX 02-02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner ACTION: ITEMSB1 AND 82 APPROVED - 6:0 3. Case: FL 02-02-06 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue - Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: The Clearwater Group, Ltd. location: 7.166 acres total including 3.69 acres on the southwest corner of ' Druid Road and South Missouri Avenue (proposed Parcel 6) and 3.66 acres acd0402 1 4/1 6/02 ".; .:'., .'.." ....,; .~....' -"::..~. .',,'~~"'; ,", 4.a:..... ......,". ""'. .~ on the west siqe of South Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,100 feet south of Druid Road (proposed parcels 1, 3 a'nd 4) Atfas Pages: 296A ad 306A Zoning: C, Commercial District Request: Amendment to a previously approved Flexible Development application (FL 01 ~01-05) to decrease the number of residential units from 1 66to 11 6 units on Parcel 4, increase the gross floor area of non-residential , use from 15,602 to 64,684 square feet (parcel one to be limited to 5,602 square feet and parcel 5 to be limited to 49,082 square feet), replace a 2,500 square foot clubhouse/42-space parking lot with 49 parking spaces on Parcel 3, replace a 52,236 square foot, 48~unit building with a 6,300 square , , foot commercial building and a portion of a 4,060 square foot commercial building on parcel 5, combine Parcels 2, 5 and 5A into a unified parcel 5 (consisting of Lots 7,8, 9 and 10), and combine parcels 4 and 4A into unified Parcel 4 Proposed Use: A 116-unit apartment complex with 5 commercial buildings totaling 49,674 square feet, in the Commercial District Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner acd0402 2 4/16/02 " ': ACTION: ITEM 83 - APPROVED - 5:0: MAZUR ABSTAINED. C. AEQUESTS,FOR CONTINUANCES:, The following cases are requested to be , continued to the May 21, 2002, COB meeting (Items 1 - 4): :'.....) '".,,,' 1. Case: ANX 02-02~03 - 25633 US19 North -Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III Agent:, Harry S. Cline, Esquire Location: 1.04 acres on the east side of US19 North and west of lake Chautauqua and north of First Avenue North Atlas page: 233A Request: (aJ Annexation of 1.04 acres to the City; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from R/O/R, Residential/Office/Retail (County) to RIOIR, Residential/Office/Retail (City; and tc) Rezoning from CP-!, Commercial Parkway District (County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner . 2.' Case: ANX 02-02-04 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (Proposed) - Level Threa Application . Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr. . ,Agent: Harry, S. Cline, Esqu,ire Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US19 North Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A. Request: Annexation.of 23 acres to the City of Clearwater (land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning pending #L.UZ 02~02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner (' T ........." . to." r',....~.....'.".\".....~,."....;'...i'. .... . ~l",/"<,,~ -:;.::>~).ll,~...: .,.....1 \ ~ ,: _. ~ ,', 'c,'- f'l ~~~ i)~''\(1 . () " 4. acd0402 3. Case LUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue tProposed) - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr. Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US 19 North Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A Request: (a) Land Use Plan amendment from RS, Residential Suburban & P, Preservation (County), to RU, Residential Urban and P, Preservation (City), (pending Case ANX 02-02-04) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner Case FL 02-02-03 - 1 B Glendale Street - Level Two Application Applicant: Scott Ogilvie . Location: 0.10 acres on the north side of Glendale Street, approximately 150 feet west of Mandalay Avenue Atlas Page: 258A Zoning MHDR, Medium High Density Residential Di~trict Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south) setback from 25 to 1.6 feet (to deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west) setback from 10 to 1.9 feet (to deck), as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404 Proposed Use: A 264-square foot wood deck as accessory to an existing dweling Presenter: Wayne Wells,Se:nior Planner ACTION: ITEMS 1- 4 - APPROVED 5:0 D. NON-CONSENT AGENDA: (Item 1) 1 . Case FL 02-02-04 - 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard - Level Two Application Applicant/Owner: Thanh Phuoc Nguyen Representative: Patrick T. Maguire, Esquire Location: 0.28 acres on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 100 feet east of Bayview Avenue, . Atlas Page:' 292A Zoning: C, Commercial District Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of , parking spaces from. 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (32 spaces) to 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area {1 a spaces~, reduce the front (south) setback along gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 to 3.6 feet to building and 12 feet to pavement, reduce the side (west) setback from 10 to 3 feet to pavement, reduce the side (east) setback from 10 to zero feet to a dumpster enclosure and 5 feet to pavement, reduce the rear (north) setback from 20 to 1.6 feet to pavement and to permit direct access to a major arterial road (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704 with Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202 3 4/1 6/02 (;l' Proposed Use: A restaurant within an existing one-story 2,132 square foot masonry block bulJding, with access on to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Conditions: 1) A business plan outlining the operation of the proposed restaurant user with the maximum number of employees on the largest shift, the hours of operation, delivery hours, parking demand, etc. be submitted to the Planning Department and be approved, prior to issuance of any permits or licenses; 2) any change in the type of restaurant be evaluated for complimentary operational characteristic and parking demand, and may require approval by the Com.munity Development Board; 3) the building appearance be improyed with the use of windows, paint, and awnings, acceptable to the Planning Department; 4) any upgrade to a dumpster larger than two yards will require a new pad and enclosure; and any upgrade to the dumpster is to be done without removing any parking spaces, and 5) all site and exterior building improvements be made to the satisfaction of staff, prior to the issuance of any licenses or Certificate of Occupancy.. Presenter:, Wayne Wells, Senior Planner ACTION: ' APPROVED - 6:0 E. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Item 1) 1. Case TA 02-02-01 - Community Development Code Amendments 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, Zonign Districts, Development Standards, Development Review and other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner (~') acd0402 4, 4/16/02 ACTION: 1) RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION STAFF'S MODIFICATION TO THE CODE WHICH ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION'S CONCERN THAT PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG ELEVATED INTERSECTIONS WOULD ALL BE 14 FEET ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROAD REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED ALONG THE ELEVATED ROADWAY, AND 2) RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AS PRESENTED, EXCEPT THAT THE SECTION REGARDING MAXIMUM PERMITTED AREA PROPOSeD . FOR ATTACHED SIGNAGE IN THE CODE BE INCREASED FROM UP TO 5% OF, THE BUILDING FAC;ADE TO UP TO 6% OF THE BUILDING FACADE CITYwWIDE. - 5:0; MAZUR ABSTAINED F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: Election of Officers - Chair and Vice-Chair '~J .' /" .".,.,'; 1 :,", :', ....:. "'~ ".' '. '.. .,.' ,.... '..:t '.~\,"., ,"'.' .,)', ','~' . '....': '....:.. ...+~ .,......:, ....'... ...... .::..'.....'....;. :", '~":! ", r, .J y . '.:,' . ~ I ' .I' , /~ '.' ) . ~ ., , ,I, " ", " .' ..... 11 It ,\ '.\ ' "..: ," ., ;. ; , " '. ': \~~l ':' ! ,J' , iiJ;' .. ~: ' , .. " \ ' . . ~ ~ '-. " , " '. , '. \. ~ . ~ " , ~:.'. .J. ;,;' ~'~I, i,~.~': 'f'" ;.,\, c..:;>t '1;,' \'.-. ,\-t ,. , ' .C.:' :, .:i. j. . J.' ~ CJ . .; ')' .,',~, . :'- ' ' . - ~ /.,' I ' l:~\;~;~~ ;!/~ij~~ :~~.':{;;;,,~~:':~.:~,;"~ \~. ,::(:~>:'~,;~~:~.:~'~~ ~,:: '. ~ r ~ 'f. ''. ..: - <.:......,..".'~. ... >; ",' ,.:.... .\ " ~ I '. J .~" : ~ ' ','f .~. '., I' , " t:', : ~ ", . . " ,) " '>(, j~: .:.: ,: ~.~ ~ ~ " . , ,; :~} . ~;i':'.o: ',... .1." .1 "\j ", .;1 "-". \' , ' . I .) . " ACTION: POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING !, 1~'~"r~ ;l;.',': 'J:'L~f~J, C '. ',' 1,:::.'1:'1', [.I:' (f..... '~:'" . :~. ,l, ';~':': : J" '. ,. . AC,ceptance or Marc Mariano, Planner, as expert witness i.' ACTION: ACCEPTED 6:0 J."-i t>.. c" ~~ ' '.' , Discussion of July. COB meeting date. ;~,~<': I":" vi' ..t, ". ~\)~.:.' '~'.~ t;:.;,;~'. .."" .;\~c':' .. li1:~>::> .. lj,\:>:: . ':. . ~ ~".. ,10,' '.',: I '~,{,;,:',:,;,,::','.;,. ) <.:' " ':i:~; ;~:,' "", - >..,,' .;:'Ic' ',' tl : \.' ,'~ " I' ~ '. .t ~l, . c ' , ;' ,',', ACTION: MEETING MAY BE,RESCHEDULE[) TO JULY 160R 23~ 2002 ,G. ADJOURNMENT 4:26 ~.m~ '; ,) '! . , , , f'" ", " " " ' " ).' .... ' ': .t' .";',' ,~ , ,', ;. ", I " ,; '.'. /' .t. < I. ,\ ", " . .' I . " , " :' ,j I" ;u~~.~; .. ~. ' I '.'.: ~ " . " .E.' .. .. .j' r. ,'- .' ""i ,.,.;\ , . ' '. , t,' I t!, ;-, , .. #t:8 :/;:,;,,~, : ~.: ," 'i; ,', . " : / . ,i '" .I I,.' ,o' . ':' \-;' " " " '.1 " ,. ,I, \ " . , ' .,"'. 1\ '0. T\: ,\ , " ,. ~ t ..1' . ~ . . . :, I . '. ~. I t ~ . ""," " " ' '(, " " '. ,,' C'" . ~' ~'''. . I " ' .~ , J . > t~ " ,I',", '. :'\ " ' ," 1 ~. ,.~ ' .t JI:1 . " ,c . " I. I .... , '.t:. : ' . ': ~ . " c . ~ , .\' c. ~ i 0 > ., , ;: .I,". ,J ,.'1 ' ., , "I' \\\r~ >>, . ',1', I'". , . ': " , " ' . ' .. I ., ' I" 1'> 1':) ~}'c ,'cl:' 1(./:,;','\.,::; , ';, .~~'~--:='~...~.. .,'j'.I, ~~Ei';';,'>' i'.~1',,:..,r'./~~~. "~I' ".'... . " I.. . ~ . \ , '.,. ;, .' \ .' ~ " " 1/ ;; . .. .J .' i, " " " . c acd0402 " , / ~' . 6 4/16/02 . ~ ~ ~ ~ 'c I'. ! ~ . , ., \ ~ 1 . " , ' . ,. ",' (: ':1 ., ','" i' '~.' J....'.~: ,"'I' "'" .".. .....,. t.......,.t .". '....'~ .:'J.~".' ..t'..:."..:.....\t...,;..." ~.j,l' ~ ,.......tL "':~1;~. .~. ..,. ","", _~~~L.'../::.I_.~"', .~.' ...::~..l... l~,"',~;' .,'.,: ..:'.~.+t/"'I,...."'. '~',.;...."I:..~.""'.' ;~::"'''~f'~:q.''.;~I:'.:~.:..'~'.'.:~.., :........ FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS lAST NAME- HMoS,. l'\AME -MIODLE NAME NAME OF IlOARD. COUNCIl.. COMMISSION, AUTIlORITY. OR COMMITTEE Z. ~ Eel ..:r; C, · ~ c.A. . G r (:J (e... t:.. COUNlY :P, C COUNTY o OlllER WCAI. AGENCY NAME ck:~~:t:S;:: MY rOSlTION 15: o ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B 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 commiltee. II applies equally 10 members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting connicl of interesl under Section 112.3143, Florida Stalutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you 'have it connict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. for this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on Ihis form' before completing the reverse side and filing the form. j, ,', ,: '. r ~, INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES . , ,~.... A person holding elective, or: appo,intive cou,nty;'municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting em a measure )which inures to his special priVate gain. Each elected or appointed local offiCer al!;o' is prohibited from knowingly votin'g on a measure - which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agcncy~ by whom he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retain,ed); to the special private gain of a relative; or t9,the special private gain of a business ,asspciate. Com~issioners of community. redevelopmefll agencies ,under Sec. .163.356 or 163.357, F.s., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, onc-vot~ basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mOlher, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law. mother-in- law, son:"in-Iaw, and daughler-in-Iaw. A "business as~oci~te" mearr~ any person or, entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the oflicer as a partner. joint venturer, coowner of property~,or corporale sha,reholde( (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ' 'ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the connie!: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly staling to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure 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 incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain (rom votinB.in the situations described above, you otherwise may p3rticipale.in these matters. However, )'OU must disclose the nature of Ihe connict before making any attempt 10 innuence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. i IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A1TEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to innucnce the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeling, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. . A copy of the form must be provided immedialely to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the neXI meeting after the form is filed. CE FORM BB. 10.91 PAGE I ..:. '..~ (~. '\- ...',....... I " I..'~." :'. .: ......,l. "',,"('~..';,... '" "~.:'~::. ."',J':": \',.; ,.... :", '~~II:: ~',.,...~.: .'~~ '~':":'.":I.~" .~'.. I, IF YOU MAKE NO AlTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: '. You OIust disclose orally the nature of your conniet in the mC3sure before participating, · YQ.u mus,t coinplcle, the form ~nd, file. it, within .I ~.;da'ys after the: Vole occurs with tP.e person responsible for recordJng \h~ ,mi'~ules of the meellng, who must incorporate the form In the minutes. A copy of the form must be proyided immediately to the .;'her members of Ihe agency, and the form must be read publicly al the neXI meeting after the form is filed, . f , h t .".. '" . ...... ., . ~ ~. . '"-. .. . JffJ ' DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFJCER'S%IN RAES A 1. ". ,. t/ I b- -0 ~ I, IV{~ IN , hereby disclose that on . , (a) A measure carne or will come before my agency which (check one) _ inured to my special private gain; . _ inured to Ihe special gain of my business associate, '~ inured to the special gain of my relative, _ inured to the special gain of whom I am retained; or /'f ~nured 10 the speci~1 g~in of ~~f,~. L#~, . . . IS the parent orgaOlW110n or subSIdiary of a pnnclpal wltfch has relamed me. . (b) Th~ measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: l- .....~ III .. ; ,19_: . by . which ~~4/~~/ ./~. +t..~. ~~'i~ .1L~(r~cL.M) ~ .)t,,,,,, E -I ( c,<<... Jf -:- () l. ~ t:1) - 0 I (:':'1) ~ ~ 1:' ,'.. ( . NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~I 12.317 (199]). AlLURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIf'!,f'i: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION, REDUCTIO~ SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO. CE FORM 88 - 10.91 PM;E: ".< H.~' " '. > . .j'+, ..' :. . ., ~.: ~"".~i: .4~~ .~.~... .:" '::.'.:.....T ~.....,~...,.~.,.I....., ,.' 'I.." '~'.:',":,..<.,~.....'I~'.'~'.'~~"\."'.>:'.'''~,~','/,'''.~:.... ..I~.,..'~, I':' ,~.~.I.:,I ':.~! ..' ,". IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally 'the nalure of your connicl in the mcltsure before participaling, · Yo.u must complete-the form ~nd.rjte,il within ,lS,days after the: vote occurs with tpc person responsible for recordJng thcminules of , the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be proyided immediately fa th'e Ii 'her members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting tlner the form is filed, . ( , . t .. . 'z J' , , DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER:)NJ:RES] ., I. ;:;::::el.1../.."'ij~ . hereby disclose th.' on tf./!- /:!! (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) -' inured to my special private gain; - inured to the special gain of my business associate, - inured to the special gain of my relalive, _ inured 10 the special gain of . whom I am retained; or ;rl ~nured to the special gain of ~ U is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal w ch has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my connicting interest in the measure is as follows: ,19_:' , by , which ~lVt4/~ ~ ' -f~>-- iL ~' ~ ""'- iL +L ~~ ~oL. M) -r:- Jl-fIV\ E -I (~ jf- (~I ~~, ~< { ". \...,J O~~t1)-OJ ') LI#"/(J 2- Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (1991), AlLURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE "CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIr-If,: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCflor SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO. CE 'J,=ORM S"D. 10.91 PAGE: A """"'<[ _ FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST N^ME-l-Ifl~T r-4"ME-MIDOLE NAME &1.v<l11~ O~ C" rr../ e.. If:... COUNTY )>, f!.1 NAME Of BOARO. roUst'IL. COMMtSSIO~AUnIORITY. OR COMMITTEE . ~V. ~d TIlE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTlIORITY OR COMMITTEE DOl \lI1lIC1l1 !;ER VE IS ^ UNIT OF: JLo.TY' 0 COUNTy 0 OTIIER LOCAl. AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIYISION: c.J~NIV~ My rOSltlON IS: o El.ECTIVE Al'rOfNTI\'E WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, cHy, or other locallcvel of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authorily, or committee, It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting connict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Stalules. Your responsibilil ies under the Jaw when faced with a m"casure in which you have a conniet of imcrest will vary 8reatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position, For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before compleling the reverse side and filing the form. CE FORM 88 . 10.91 "AGE I INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ~ " ".. '..... A person holding electiVe or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting ~n a measure )l...hich inures to his special private gain, Each elected or appointed local officer.also is prohibited from 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 organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of 3 relative; or to the special private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or ~63.357. F.S., and . officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one~vole basis are not prohibited from voting in that capa'dty. . . ., I ~ ~ ~ i" For purposes of Ihis law, a "relalive" includes only the officer's father, mother, son,'daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in~ law, son.in-Inw, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterpri!ie with the orficer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of properly,l or corporate sha"reholdcr (where Ihe shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional slack exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from vOling in the situations described above, you must disclose the connict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating 10 the assembly the nature of your interest in the mC3sure on which you are abstaining from voting; ond WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the.situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these mattcrs. However, you must disclose the nature of lhe connict before making any allempt 10 inOuence lhe decision, whether orally or in", writing and whether made by you 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 tile this form (before making any at/cmpl 10 innuencc the decision) wilh Ihe person responsible for , recording the minules of the meeting, who will incorporate the (orm in the minutes, .A copy of the form must be provided immedilllely to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly al the neXl meeting after the form is filed. ~. .....r ..~ \ ....~.I.:.. +. ". ': ....~.,..;.,.".;. I~ ~'."'~,. ....~....... .... .......:. .tl....~ ~ .~,...:'.~t~.,' .~." I,. .. I.:'... "1':' t.." ~ . l . IF YOU MAKE NO ,ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conmct in the measure before participating. . You mus't comp'lcte~'he form,and file it ,within .I ~.days after the vole occurs vlith tre person responsi~le for recording the rPinu1t:s of the meeting, who must incorporate the' form' in the: minutes. A copy of the form' must be provided immediately (0 the (!hcr members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly ntlhe next meeting nft~r lhe, form is filed. ,,e~ ! -\ I I i I I I I \ . DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S0TEREST , , helehy disclose that on ~ IJtIR "'a..- - . ,19_: I, fi-rl- bk.J lY " (n) A measure came or will come before my, agency which (check one) _ inured to my special. private gain; _ inured 10 th~ special gain of my business associate. . :__inured to the special gain of my relative, _ inured to the special gain of whom I am relained; or ~nured 10 the special gain of , is the parent organizati,on or subsidiary of a principal which has retained (b) The measure before my agency and Ihe nature of my connicling interest in the measure is as follows: . , by , ,C:;: , which J~ ',~fL }-.3 o l -.0 '- - Ob, ft~L2. ~Yl~~~. 7t!~c,U .;-. . ~ '.:, "",") .... .' ~/~1- Date FUeCl -- NOTJCE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.3 I), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWJ~IG; ,IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTICW SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,OOO. . CE FOftM 88. 10.91 PACE; '" . ;.'... "'~."':'." ,~:, I I """.' /'":\:~I": ,J ,.~ 11. ."::l'~:I:':" '::t.-:'::. '~~ 1..'....'.1..:':'1.~1 ~I/' .I IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPrTO INFLUENCE TUE DEd~ION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION ATTHE MEETING: · You must disclose: orally the nature of your connict in the measure before participating. · You musl complete the form and file it w,ith\n ,1~,days after the vote occurs v,lith t~c person responsi~'e for recording the minull!s of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form' must be provided immediately to the (~~hcr members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting afler the form is filed. ( , . , '. - . . . I. fi__L ~ llt \ ',' DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S 0TERES~ I hereby disclose that on \.I IJ,/v . ,19_: . . (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured .to my special private gain; _ inured to the special gain of my business associate, . , _ inured to the special gain of my relative~ _ inured to the special gain of whom] am retained: or r-' ~nured t~ the special gain of , <...!J), is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , \ . , , , by , which J~ .1$-3 ~ fL. 02.-0 '- ~Oh , ' ~~~~f- , ~ . 1/4 '\, / .~/f} 1- Date' FileCJ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.3 I). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWrr\lr~: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT; DEMOTION, REDUcriCI SALAR Y, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,000. CE FORM, SO. 10-91 . PACE: . .',~ .~~:.;..:.i,.,;~'"'''",,,,''.4 ~~"""l'".":'.r '," ,~,'.::i '.:"""':"':\.":'~".,~::,:'..I ;~I'''I''I'j.~';'''''I:'.:'~,:" /":,,;\.:;',;.>;".i,.;u} :'; ....: ..;:....'.........' :'-!.. :.1 /..~..,.,~":~l...,!. ~Iso 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 , , )' I . . ~ - .' .1,. . ., . , I" \' . I "< ~ . . . ~: "\,.., '. I'.' ; . c.,", I':' ..' . ;.;. .' ~ .' ~' > L' , . ;1 ".: . . ~ )', { . . , , .c' \ " ' .:' :.1'" , , ," '." I ", . /. I.' >. , r.... ,~ , , " ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY,OF CLEARWATER April 1 6, 2002 Present: . Ed Hooper Edward Mazur, Jr. Shirley Moran Alex Plisko John Doran Kathy Milam Acting Chair/Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member . Board Member Alternate Board Member Abs'ent: Carlen A. Petersen David Gildersleeve . Vice-Chair Board Member , '. , \, Planning Director Cynthia Tarapani called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall.' , ' , .'A . ,~~ Member Moran nominated Member, Hooper as Acting Chair for this meeting.' The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Acting Chair offered the Invocation, followed by the 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: March 19 and April 3, 2002 Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 19, 2002, and the special meeting of April 3, 2002, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The ,motion was duly seconded, and carried unanimously. B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Iterns 1 - 3). 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: ANX 02-02-02 - 7 South Hampton Road - Level Three Application Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel, William C. Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers, limited Properties, Inc.,/James F. burns; Joseph J. Sorota, Jr., Trustee of Florida land Trust #172916/Drandon Realty , Venture, Inc. . ' ." .... I 't;;I . , . , , . , ' mcd04b02 1 4/16/02 : I},.'.; ;' :.T, . . . T.. 1-" . I :' ~::." I~ 1.: :. r ~ >,' , " " , ,I I " " " ' , ~. \ . "'" Location: 3.91 acres on the east side o~ Hampton Road, approximately 270 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard ' Atlas Page: 291 B ' . , Request: Annexation of 3.91 acres to the City (land Use Plan amendment and Rezoning pending Case #lUZ 02-02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners have requested this annexation in order to receive City sewer service. The proposed annexation can be served by all City services, including water, sewer, solid waste, police, fire and 'emergency medical' services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicants are aware of the required impact fees and other additional.costs associated with the extension of sewer lines to the site. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding muniCipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact, in concentration. . , Based on the above analysis, the Planning. Department recommends the , following action on the request: Approval of the annexation of 7 Hampton Road and Metes and Bounds parcel 13/05 together with three vacant parcels cons.isting of Metes and Bounds 13/03; 13/04 & 13/041 in Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 16 East.. AND ,:-1 "'-<rf/' 2. Case: lUZ 02-02-02 - 7 South Hampton Road - Level Three Application Owners/Applicant: Robert G. Gabriel & Margaret A. Gabriel; William C. Caruthers & Mary K. Caruthers: Limited Properties, Inc./James F. Burns; Joseph J. Sorota, Jr,. Trustee of Florida Land Trust #172916 and Carol D. Allen, Trustee of Carol D. Allen/Brandon Realty Venture, Inc.. location: 4.22 acres on the east side of Hampton road, approximately 270 feet north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Atlas Page:. 291 B Request: la) land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban Classification to R/Ol, Residential/Office Limited (pending case #ANX 02~02~ 02), and (b) Rezoning from R-R, Rural Residential & A-E, Agricultural Estate .Residential Districts (County) and lMDR, low Density residential District (City) to 0, Office (pending case #ANX 02-02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner :8 This land use plan amendment and rezoning involves five property owners and six parcels 'of land. All six parcels have a Future 'Land Use Plan designation of .Resldential Urban. The five properties located in the County are zoned Rural Residential (R-R) and Agricultural Estate Residential (A-E) and the one in the City is zoned low. Medium Density Residential. The applicant is requesting to amend the Future' Land Use Plan to designate these properties Residential/Office limited and to rezone them to the Office (0) District to accommodate office development on this site. The ,applicant intends to con~trllct two 20,000 square foot office buildings on this site. mcd04b02 2 4/1 6/02 _: ., ;.'" .~\ .~~ 1,~~ ~J' (+.'~ oJ: " . T\ ~ .. . I" . ., ..' . ~ . , I' ..... I~', p. ." ~)'~ to :~. ",;, ._; . '. ..!. . ;;..", . \", T~i~" ~ ". . '. . . ',":""". ., :. . _,'I , . ~ \ " ., c' ~ L ~ , '... ~ ,:,.r') ",.,,>' . () .,.If ..." ~ , . ~ > 1- . ','\ , . The prp'posed Residential/Office Limited land use plan classification and the Office zoning district are well suited for limited mixed uses consistent with the , surrounding uses. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and medium density residential uses. The proposed office use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition/buffer between more intensive commercial uses to the south and low medium density residential uses to the east and north. The proposed Residential/Office Limited Future land Use classification and Office zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide , Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment ,and are consistent with the development regulations of the City. The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this application: 1) Amend the Future land Use Plan designation of Metes and Bounds parcels 13/02,. 1 3/05 and 13/01 together with three vacant parcels consisting of Metes and Bounds 13/03, 13/04 & 13/041 ,from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential/Office Limited (R/Ol) (pending case # ANX 02-02-02) and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of Metes and Bounds parcels 13/02,: 13/05 and 13/01 together with three vacant parcels consisting of Metes & Bounds 13/03, 13/04 & 13/041 from Residential-Single-Family District (R-3)/County to Office (0) zoning district (pending case # ANX 02-02-021.' Member Mazur moved to approve Items B 1 and B2, Cases ANX 02-02-02 and lUZ 02-02-02. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Case: FL 02-02-06 - 1100 South Missouri Avenue - Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: The Clearwater Group"ltd. location: 7.155 acres total including 3.59 acres on the southwest corner of Druid Road and South Missouri Avenue (proposed Parcel 5) .and 3.56 acres on .the west side of South Missouri Avenue, approximately 1,100 feet south , of Druid Road (proposed parcels 1, 3 and 4) Atlas Pages: 296A ad 306A Zoning: C, Commerc.ial District Request: Amendment to a previously approved Flexible Development application (Fl 01-01-05) to decrease the number of residential units from 156 to 116 units on Parc'el 4, increase the gross floor area of non-residential use from 16,602 to 54,684 square feet (parcel one to be limited to 5,602 square feet and parcel 5 to be limited to 49,082 square feet), replace a 2,500 square foot clubhouse/42-space parking lot with 49 parking spaces on Parcel 3, replace a 52,236 square foot, 48-unit building with a 6,300 square foot commercial building and a portion of a 4,050 square foot commercial 'building on parcel 5, combine Parcels 2, 5 and 5A into a unified parcel 5 (consisting of Lots 7,8, 9 and 10), and combine parcels 4 and 4A into unified Parcel 4 Proposed Use: A 116-unit apartment complex with 5 commercial buildings totaling 49,674 square feet, In the Commercial District Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner mcd04b02 3 4/16/02 .{ I '." c;'," . ~ .; ~' .. . ? Member Moran moved to approve Item B3, Case FL 02~02-06. The motion , was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Pliska, Doran, and Milam, and Acting Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. ' , " ....."" I') ;".,..w . I' I::) C" REQU~STS FOR CONTINUANCES: ' The following cases are requested to be continued to the May 21, 2002, COB meeting (Items 1 - 4): '1. Case: ANX 02-02-03 - 25633 US 19 North - Level Three Application 'Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire , , Location: 1 .04 acres on the east side of US 19 North and west of lake Chautauqua and north of First Avenue North Atlas page: 233A , Request: (a) Annexation of 1 .04 acres to the City; lb) Land Use Plan amendment from R/O/R, Residential/Office/Retail (County) to R/O/R, Residential/Office/Retail (City; and fe) Rezoning from CP-I, Commercial, Parkway District (County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner 2. Case: ANX 02-02~04 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (Proposed) - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr. Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US 19 North Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A Request: Annexation of 23 acres to the City of Clearwater (land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning' pending #LUZ 02~02-02) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner 3. Case LUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqu,a Avenue (Proposed) - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III ,& Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr. Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esquire Location: 23 acres on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US 19 North Atlas Pages: 233A & 244A Request: (a) Land Use Plan amendment from RS, Residential Suburban & P, Preservation (County), to RU, Residential Urban and P, Preservation (City) (pending Case ANX 02-02-04) Presenter: Etim Udoh, Senior Planner 4. Case FL 02~02.03 - 18 Glendale Street - Level Two Application Applicant: Scott Ogilvie , Location: 0.10 acres on the north side of Glendale Street, ~pproximately 150 feet west of Mandalay Avenue mcd04b02 4 4/16/02 '';:;Ll;';",.~{''''f'~''\ '... .~.. ~"'~. ~4".:~ ;'~~"'.-'::~~.~.~/"'''''.L~('''' ,e . , '. I , . ~" l' < J .:~\: i i Ie'., .:..... s '". : ~+~. '. .,r~:;~~"~~"~;A..i../.~..\.;:~:.:;~~~;;..',:::;,~:,\ ~'< }:-:' ,.,: . l" :;:'~\:';::l\~>.~.;.i'~"\!: .~.t:'.c... . ~ , .: '.',': ,;!;. . .,.I':.'.li..~.'~\'!y,/.~~.1:.f; '~.. r ; ....; . .,.~ . ; '. .' ,>- .' ' .,. , :"~ ...... . ," " , -I.. . , ., " ," " . -'~<~ !~ :: ,',. ,:. '.,\ ..-. " y: ...... " , ;'t", ~:\~~~. . :' ~ q- . ...f ..... . :t. ;::~\ .,f '." :; ,{ ~.~ ' ..... ~. -I. .- ......~I. , " . .. i'.'; .. \ ~ . .". ~" :~ . i ., . - \. I'~ ,#,J' 1';'.' ): ':: .:.; ,J ..J.,. ';1 : ,', ;~,., ; ~.'.~ ~\:,,: t.\t . }: ~ (. ,t..,:: ~ :. ,'. '.i . , ' . " " , . ' . >. ~ ',' :;). ..+, " , ',. I ': ~ ~ ..' ~ I, ',: ~ .../ . .;','1" : ,~ .- ".~ ~ / , .., '. ,r " , Atlas Page: 258A Zoning MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south) setback from 25 to 1.6 feet Ito deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west) setback from 10 to 1.9 feet (to deck), as a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404 Proposed Use: A 264-square foot wood deck as accessory to an existing dwelling Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner , Member Doran moved to continue Items 1 - 4, Cases ANX 02-02-03, ANX 02-02-04, LUZ 02-02-03, and FL 02-02-03. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. NON-CONSENT AGENDA: (Item 1) 1. Case FL 02-02-04 - 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard - Level Two Application Applicant/Owner: Thanh Phuoc Nguyen 'Representative: Patrick T. Maguire, Esquire Location: 0.28 acres on the north side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 100 feet east of Bayview Avenue Atlas Page: 292A Zoning: C, Commercial District R~quest: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 132 spacestto 8.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (18 spaces), reduce the front (south) setback along gulfpto-Bay Boulevard from 25 to 3.6 feet to building and 1 2 feet to. pavement, reduce the side (west) setback from 10 to 3 feet to pavement, reduce the side least) setback from 10 to zero feet to a dumpster enclosure. and 5 feet to pavement, reduce the rear (north) setback from 20 to 1.5 feet to pavement and to permit direct access' to a major arterial road (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704 with Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3.120'2 Proposed Use: A restaurant within an existing one-story 2, 1 32 square foot masonry block building, with access on to GultAo-Bay Boulevard Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner . ,Senior,Planner Wayne W.ells presented the case. The property owner is proposing to establish a restaurant at this location. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 14, 2002. The Planning Department recommends, approval of the Flexible Development application to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (32 spaces) to 8.44 spaces per 1,000 square feet of 9rossfloor area (18 spaces), reduce the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 3.6 feet to building (existing) and 1 2 feet to pavement (existing), reduce the side (west) setback from 10 feet to three mcd04b02 5 4/16/02 , ' ~ !~" .,,' t., \ , " . . .';' +:. ..: .: .;.~. ~'; '.j;':' ;. ;;..,..'.':"1.1., '"'" . c' ~ , c ' ~ ~ . . . ,.' ",.,,",.'.Il.>':" ";. " <, '''l' 't .-" feet to pavement (existing), reduce the side least) setback from 1 0 feet to zero feet to a dumpster enclosure (existing) and five feet to pavement (existing), reduce the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 1.5 feet to pDvement (existing) and to permit direct access to a major arterial road (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202, for the site at 3006 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: Conditions: 1) A business plan outlining the operation of the proposed rostaurant user with the maximum number of employees on the largest shift, the hours of operati~n, delivery hours, parking demand, etc. be submitted to the Planning Department and be approved, prior to issuance of any permits or licenses; 2). any change in the type .of restaurant be evaluated for complimentary operational characteristic and parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board; 3) the building appearance, be improved with the use of windows, paint and awnings, acceptable to the Planning Department; 4) any upgrade to a dumpster larger than two yards will require a new pad and enclosure; and any upgrade to.the dumpster is to be done without removing any parking spaces. and 5) all site and exterior building improvements be made to the satisfaction of staff, prior to the issuance of any licenses or Certificate of Occupancy. .Jfl~\ : 't:~l!t! Mr. Wells said one letter of objection was received from the property owners directly north of the subject property: In response to a question, Mr. Wells said this property owner was previously denied an application for a nightclub. The property owner plans to establish a small mom 'n pop restaurant use that would generate a lower traffic flow. . Patrick Maguire, representative for the applicant, said his client has had difficulty utilizing this property. Plans are to adhere to staff's recommendation to preserve trees and limit parking spaces on the site. He said if the owner ever decides to expand the business, he would do so on the east portion of the property. The hours of operation for' the proposed use would be determined .at the time such a user was interested in the property. , Mr. Wells referred to an aeria,l view of the subject property. He said there . are 5 homes to the north of the property. He was unsure of the number of homes on the south, east and west of it. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said surrounding property owners were notified of today's hearing and only one responded. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said although no restaurateur has been determined for this site, staff recommends the COB approve this request, as the user must adhere to the Code regulations relating to the number of allowable parking spaces, etc. If approved, this site could only be utilized for a restaurant use unless the applicant submits a new application for a different use. '~ mcd04b02 6 4/16/02 ~J~(~;,:'. ",~ : ;;;;;:\':';"l~~'';':: ',.~~,':: '. I" . . ...1, ',., . ~.: I. , 'I .; . " ~~'..' ~..\~ . .. .~, ,,1 ..:, , ,t .:.' . . '.. ~ , .. .>i ~. ,'I '''' , ,~~) '. '" \;J"'/ '. ~ ':0 , , q .. > " Planning Director Cyndi Tarapanl said staff normally does not know the exact uS,er of B site. If the COB approves this application for a restaurant use, staff will ensure, the parking and other requirements are met. Concern was expressed that there would be Inadequate parking for customers and employees. Mr. Wells said he . does not anticipate all 5 employees would park on site. It was 'suggested that as 'the Code requires 2 parking spaces be removed for a dumpster, Condition #4 be amended to include that any upgrade to the dumpster is to be done without removing any parking spaces. Mr., Magqire said his client has no objection to staff's proposed conditions or to the proposed amendment to Condition #4, He said more parking spaces would result in more business. Business owners try to limit the number of parking spaces employees use on a site. . Member Mazur moved to approve Item 1, Case FL 02-02-04, amending condition #4 to read "any upgrade to a dumpster larger than two yards will require , a new, pad and enclosure; and any upgrade to the dumpster is to be done without . removing any parking spaces." The motion was duly seconded and carried -unanimously. E. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Item 1) 1. Case TA 02~02.01 - Community Development Code Amendments Applicant: ' City of Clearwater, Planning Department , , Request: Comprehensive amendments to the Community Development , Code, as a result of the annual review, including amendments to th~ General Provisions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Develo'pment Review and other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner Ms; Tarapan'i g~lVe introductory comments and Senior Planner Rich Kephart reviewed staff's proposed changes to the Code and input obtained from, previous , COB meetings. At the April 3, 2002 COB (Community Development Board) Work Session, the following issues were identified regarding the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: ROOF OVERHANG The Planning Department recommended that roof overhangs be limited to , project 40% into required setbacks. Discussion identified that balconies, decks, bay, windows and similar features were allowed to extend 30 inches into the required setback. In areas that have B 5-foot setback, the 30 inches would extend past the 40% roof overhang that is proposed. The CDS reached consensus that the permitted 3~-inch extension into the required setback for, roof overhangs be changed to 24 inches. This change will mcd04b02 4/16/02 7 J.' ~~;';:~::fJ':.(~'~;--i ,,1', ~ :~.:,::' .l,;:.~: '.,:', :~ I' . c ~ . . . I T ~.:<:' .:; ':tc.~,~..~..:..:,!,> ~'< r.> ,c , ~~. \" ( , ' ", ' .: ~> ,11 . c.'. . " c. " , r' '. _ . ~.: , '{I, t ~J, l.. i::~;.~::'~~:' '~~'.:.'i'l ,I "1',' ~ keep roof overhangs, balconies, decks, bay windows and similar features consistent within the code 'and provide for uniform enforcement throughout the City. . HEARING OFFICER APPEAL PROCESS The COB was provided the recommended changes from the City legal Department on the Hearing Officer Appeal process. The COB asked for clarification on why persons may comment as members of the public at the appeal hearing. The COB also requested further clarification as to the difference between testimony that is not allowed and comment that is allowed by the public. ". Planning staff will contact the City's legal staff for further clarification on these issues. ' . OTHER ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER DISCUSSION , The following issues were identified for 'further di~cussion: Comprehensive Shin Prooram o. The COB discussed proposed revisions to, the maximum sign area permitted' tt)rough the Comprehensive Sign program (section 91 of the ordinance). At the request of representatives from the Sembler Company, the COB entertained a discussion about increasing the maximum permitted area proposed for attached signage from up to five (5) percent of the building faQade to six (6) percent. The , . Board also had a lengthy discussion about sign needs for large parcels and wnether different sign size requirements should apply to parcels exceeding a certain size. . The two methods for calculating freestanding sign area also were discussed by the COB. One developer who attended the COB Work Session had proposed, eliminating the building faQade method and calculating sign area only based on street frontage. The CDS also discussed whether or not a maximum size for freestanding signage should be imposed~ No consensus was reached on this issue.. Sandwich Board SiqnaQe The COB requested that the Planning Department consider allowing commercial areas on the beach to have sandwich board signs like those allowed in the, Downtown zoning district. Planning staff will include this issue in the. next Code update. PlanninQ Department Proposed Chanqes \;J Due to a conflict between window signage provisions, the Planning Department is proposing to delete Section 3~1803.U, which prohibits temporary , window signs in residential districts. No changes are proposed to the other provision, Section ~-1805.0, which allows window signage of a certain size without regard to location. mcdo.4b02 8 4/16/02 .tUU,{..j;:'i:i~~:: ;::".~, ':.I':J"~',"; ,,~;,,; "" '): ,'-". '.'.:.'. , I ~ I :<.'. , F . <'.\ :.:. <.:-:~ .:: ,F:',,::. \\r:r;:..:~.::>.t: , , I '7.' '."'c, ,", :> :, ,. ;: !., .' H c~~.~,...':.>,~:c' :jl~.L , tc,... " ,.' ,. . /, ~ . The Planning Department has Identified that the title of Section 45a of the proposed Ordinance is incorrect. Instead of deleting Section 3-804.F. /lin Its entirety", the section title should read, I'is hereby amel'Jded as follows." BACKGROUNo' INFORMATION: At the February 19, 2002 meeting, the COB 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 several proposed provisions in the ordinance. Listed below are the issues that were identified through the meetings with the COB, the City Commission, as well as Planning Department review. COB issues ", ' are listed first, followed by City Commission issues and Planning Department . revisions. Each section identifies the issues and the analysis section identifies what revisions were made. ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ISSUES I#~ -..('11'. The CDS discussed and requested further information 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; . Parking demand study requirements; and . . Roof overhang into required building setback. ANAL YSIS: 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 recommended by the Planning 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 Is recommending to revise Code Section 4-702, which regulates subdivision'plats, to eliminate Inconsistencies between Code' Sections 4.702 and 4-}08.C. regarding when a building permit can be issued for property involving a subdivision plat. ,~ mcd04b02 9 4/16/02 '"ji I. " ~ :r' - '\. TO:': l ~ ''-. I' . . I' I ' . ,~ : , ,.', ,;" ' ; ,";;':i~:: 'l.,",'; ',I;" ':' \.:, .,':; ,~i ~i: ;,i;:;:i;;.:~\,);:~,';'i~',\';~' ",.>, ';','::' '..' .~:;.,:...:' !::"~' <~~~~ ',"f,:~,~ :~'. -:.' ~.,,'~~. ,,< '!~\'>~;"',":!'.>'.:;:'~tji';' .; : , 1 ," ( .' .. : .( .' !, \' " . " . . '. .' ~. " " ., ..~ , .. '.. , , " " .' .. " , : , , " " . .' '., ,. '. '. f\": " .; : . . " " . , , -'r " : , ,/ . ' .~l . .', ~ 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 final plat prior to issuing any building permits. The revision proposes to give authority to the Community Development Coordinator to allow the issuance of certain types of permits such as demolition, site and utility after final plat approval but prior to final plat recordation. : , ~. .:1 ,!2', Planning staff researched 12 local jurisdictions in developing this revision. Those 12 jurisdictions included Pinel1as 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. . :1' .. .~ '. ,.' '" .. 2. ' Evidence Presented during Hearing Appeal (Section 105, Page 4:4 of proposed ordinance.) , ;1,. .~.':' '. , ,. " The CDS requested that no new evidence be allowed to be presen~ed during an appeal hearing so that the appeal would be based on the record and not be a new hearing. " ..... .~ ~ .",'. .;'" ;: : , t'~IoIl) .' ~t...f,-J. 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 . allow,S 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. , , .:;:: :'. : \ : . ',~; .1 : \, .'. . . - :I~ . 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. ':, ~ :? " I -, 3. Setback Measurements for Non-Vertical Structures (Not within proposed ordinance) '~..i ., , 1, " .~ '.,,1 ~r 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 and/or accessory structure ~etbacks and this is too restrictive. The COB suggested in tl1e alternative to establish a percentage of the setback that must be landscaping. This issue was not ad~ressed in tho original proposed Ordinance No. 6929-02. t. } .,' . <-.;' 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 mcd04b02 10 4/1 6/02 .;. " " of" ,I.>r" '; '",' .;'.1: .... ....,..I! ~".' i . ,".,t},' J' .....;..~~..... .~J.. o. ~.' " ' " " . \1. , ", f. ,~ "~ ' . " , , .,Jfo', . \J~ .( , "~~ " ') "~ ! " It wl\l"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 fora building and for a setback reduction for paving/parking 4. Parking Demand Study (Section 62. Page 35 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. The Planning Department has revised proposed Code Section 3-1401.C clarifying that the Community Development Coordinator may require an applicant to prepare a parking dem"and study in conjunction with a request for deviations'to the , required parking standards. 5. Roof Overhang (Section 49, Page 31 of the proposed ordinance.) Based on concerns raised by the COB that a 30" roof overhang is too limiting arid did not relate to existing,and previous code requirements, the Planning Department is proposing to identify roof overhangs and eaves within Section 3- .908.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. 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 meetin~. Those issues included th~ following: . Portable storage units and length of time that they would be allowed to placed 'on property during emergency repairs; . Signs at elevated intersections; and, . Vending machines; Additionally, the Commission requested that the Planning Dopartment provide the Commission with graphics to illustrate proposed changes to the sign , ordinance., ' ANAL YSIS The' Planning Department is recommending three changes to proposed 'Ordituince No. 6928-02 to address concerns raised by the City Commission. mcd04b02 1 1 4/16/02 ~ I . :,:, ~ 1,1,. 1 : . {~. . ~ . . > ..' ,:' ~'....' ~. . J . ".' < '~ +. c' ; i .' : "," l' .' l,l. ". , " ,1\' . ' ! .. ~ ' . , , L! . i .,'. ' l:_:' : ~:" " , c :: ~l-t I I /, . ..c ~ I ~'r ;:: .. 1. Portable Storage Units (S,ection 94, Page 42 of proposed ordinance.) '~ The Planning Department Is proposing to limit a portable storage unit to a time period of 1 6 days for emergency home repairs, with the possible extension of an additional 1 5 days if needed to complete emergency repairs. The Planning Department revised this section to address the Commission's concerns regarding the length of time a portable storage unit could be on a property . f,or emergency repairs. 2. Signs at Elevated Intersections (Section 86, Page 39 of the proposed ordinance.)' " 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. , This modification addresses the Commission's concern that properties located along elevated intersections would all be 14 feet above the highest point of 'the road regardless of where the business is located along the, elevated roadway. . 1. Vending Machine Signege (Section 52, Page 32 of the proposed ordinance.) A"~ ~''',) 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 In addition to the amendments discussed above, the Planning Department has. made five more revisions to the proposed ordinance since the COB and City Commission meetings. These revisions address the following: . ~aintenance of seawalls; . Transfer of Development Rights; . Address signage allowed in addition to total square footage of signage; . Competent substantial evidence in appeal hearings; and; . . Fences on attached dwelling lots ANAL YSIS 1. Maintenance of Seawalls (Section 75, Page 37 of proposed ordinance.) At the direction of I,egal counsel, the seawall maintenance provision has been modified to specifYI that' seawalls' shall be maintained in a structurally sound' ~, condition and shall comply with applicable building and coastal construction codes. , mcd04b02 12 4/16/02' :~\I'JL~~;';~:.~~"f.':j:"'!":~~Q"li~li:~~:'i~;);d;;;,;:i,':, .:".,}:,' ;,,<\i: 'II'""'." .j".;~~~',,:',\:-.:; !;,~:, ,< . '.. ., .. . ", ':".>,~.,:::, ~: :'~'~:~~\;.i; l',;~;\':i,,:::,-~~\~~!;/',,;,,":<:i;:~:;.:;:' ,:j\\;: ,,~,,:,~.. :\':~ "'~ ;:":'i:.:;;:'\<:'::;,>.";./.i1, 'I};/' ,;,t;::, . '! u"'; . " ,." f~l' ",~.;l .,-) I, 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 to use Transfer of Development Rights. The proposed revision 'requires such 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 Development District. Central Business District. or other 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 incr~ases 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 "viabilitytl with tlf~asibility" 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 Pla~ning Department is proposing to revise Code Section 4w502.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 1 review. 5. Fences on Attached Dwelling Units. (Section 450. Page 30a Insert to proposed ordinance.) The current fence ordinance restricts fences on attached dwelling lots to four feet, except along the boundary of the property. Based on the fact that many such properties have existing six (oet 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: mcd04b02 13 4/16/02 ; ~;'~ /TO/ ...+.If' ',c ~f I ,~'. . .. t", ' . " ~ . \: . >} " . " , . ", ~., c . '.' "., .. ~, :.~: : ~ ! ~ -: ~ . " jj. " , " , . '~ Code Section 4-601' specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any Code amendment must comply 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, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the 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 Infill development. . 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; f~~')' ''''~ . 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 g'eographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights- of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when, appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-bea'ch 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; '. . 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 Devo'n Avenue and Bayside Drive. Beachfrontand public property located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of RecreationlOpen Space shall be excluded from the Community Redevelopment District. . 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. j '::;. .." . 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 mcd04b02 14 4/16/02 ,,-~~~tj~~)>"/.~''')!}I'''~I~ ~ " .,..I.},'';~~ *..~':>. f' . . ,C,; c': <J':\"~<)"'.<tt \: ::'.'T'J"..<;'..: " ;. ~", , . '.", 't, 1 .'.. I '~~ .." . I ' ~ I.,.. " . " OJ, '.., I > \ . I : :.. . ~I' . .11 : I ':-~:), :>: . , . ','- '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's Community Development Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed In the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan, category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment. . 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 al! proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual c~utter 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, and provide for highway safety and to allow the identification of business locations. . Objective 4.2 - All development and redevelopment initiatives within the City 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. : !;Jr.1, .....It,) . 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 othor 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. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: , 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 ~ ' m'any instances. the proposed amendments promote more site-specific solutions. mcd04b02 . 15 4/16/02 ; r. . ~ ~,:{itc:,~,:: '.:,::,',..':;:~.:,! ;~;;;~~:: .,::;' ~/:, :;:\;";",, "~: "';,., ": ' ,:,;,' ~,: ; '", : :'; i\',~. ::,1' '~;':~':,:.;,', ': ." , I ~. ~ :, . , ,,' 'I . .' . .;"-,:';'.1';,, ~,'" ?",;'><., ":':::,\l ;),;;;.::::;:ti . . \ . . ....:...,.:./..~. '!:.i ~.:l:.\ '~~i"':.'~'.:. ~/J~~<<':~~;-:l;:L::.':.;':'/:;'.,:.\ I> " , .'~ .,It). . , ~ :; +.-j ~., , These solutio.ris ultimately promote economic development and maintain high standards for development, which are essentialln a community undergoing redevelopment. Planning Department staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6928-02, which makes revisions to the Community Developm~nt Code. One resident representing the developer of the Clearwater Mall and the Drew 19 shopping center, stated his clients are requesting that the COB consider: 1) giving staff the flexibility to raise the maximum perrT)itted area proposed for attached signage from up to 5% of the building facade to up to 6%; 2) the height of signs at elevated intersections/overpasses be measured from the top of the guard rail, not from the crown of the road; and 3) more flexibility to have freestanding signs higher than the maximum of 14 feet under the Comprehensive Sign Program, including one sign on each frontage to be up to 35 feet, keeping the same ratio that. the height, could not be more than 1.5 times the width. Discussion ensued , regarding how staff calculates freestanding or pylon signs. Ms. Tarapani said staff opposes establishing a separate height for large sites, as it would provide that owner or developer with something that other sites in the City do not enjoy. She suggested the COB consider keeping the 14 foot high maximum in place. In response to a question, she said if directional signs cannot been seen from the adjacent 'property, they do not count as additional square footage with respect to sig~age. One resident said he felt the proposed amendments are a step in the right direction. His biggest c'o.ncern was with the aesthetics of signa'ge. He felt signs should be large enough to serve the purpose of advertising a business. He was in favor of the up to 6% cap for attached signage on building facades. . He expressed concern that staff must work with small as well as large developers regarding signage. He felt the 1 % cap should be increased 2 %. , Discussion ensued regarding staff's flexibility to grant the maximum allowable signage. It was suggested the 1 % cap for small businesses is too low and that downtown district may need to be looked at differently than other parts of .the City. It was remarked that the City should keep signage consistent throughout .the City, but that small businesses and developers should have the opportunity for flexibility on an Individual case basis. It was remarked that staff should have the flexibility to determine if a business should be granted the maximum signage allowable. . Ms., Tarapani said staff makes decisions regarding the majority of applications submitted under the Comprehensive Sign Program. If the case would normally come to the COB, the sign program also would come.to the COB as part of the application package. When the Community Development Coordinator makes a decision on an application, the decision can be appealed to the COB for review. Staff considers all applicable criteria Including special area plans, general standards, etc. when reviewing an application and making a finnl decision. i ' mcd04b02 16 4/16/02 ~ Ms. Douga,lI-Sides said the City is in Htigation regarding all facets of the City's current sign code regulations. She expressed concern regarding height 'limitations suggested. Staff recommends no changes be proposed to the Code based on one particular parcel owner's needs/requests at this time. Member 'Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission that the ,maximum permitted area proposed for attached signage in the, Code be increased from up to 5 % of the building fagade to up to 6 % of the building fagade City-wide. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran,' Plisko, Doran, and Milam and acting Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. .' . .1 . . ~ (., ~ O. I '" , ~." . . < . ~ - . j." I, "', :1 ", ' : t -.' >; ~ , _ :., ," : j. l\'{ ~ :' Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it is necessary to change the language regarding how signage at elevated intersections is measured from the crown of a road versus from the top of a guard rail. Ms. Tarapani said staft's proposed modification. to Section 86 of the Code relates to 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. ".....) ~~'11-;.>:" , Member Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission staff's modification which addresses the Commission's concern that properties located along elevated intersections would all be 14 feet above the highest point of the road regardless of where the business is located along the elevated roadway. The' . motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Plisk'o, Doran, and Milam and acting Chair Hooper voted ."aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. . , Member Moran moved to recommend to the City Commission proposed amendments as recommended by staff to the Community Development Code as , presentedl except that the section regarding maximum permitted area proposed for . attached signage in the Code be increased from up to 5 % of the building fac;:ade to up to 6% of the building fac;:ade City.wide. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Pliska, Doran, and Milam and acting Chair Hooper voted "aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. F. D~RECTOR'S ITEMS: ElectIon of Officers - ChaIr and Vlce.Chalr Consensus was to postpone this item to the next meeting in May. Acceptance of Marc Mariano, Planner, as expert wItness Q' Member Pliska moved to accept Marc Mariano as an expert witness in the fields of general and transportation planning. The motIon was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mcd04b02 17 4/16/02 ::~', J' ~r':::'~'i' :f,~.; ~ 'i '.J" Ii, ','> '., , i't.~,:i::<,\'.::',". ;.'.' I;'; \\" .', .. . , :", ',.h :~ ,,' . ./ F .' Cc'i:. ":~" , , , " ".1'. >: I .... . ""0 ',,': 'r, > . " . ..' . .' ~., I '. '> 'J- ..' , " "OCt.' ' . , I' c. I . I. l' .. ' >," , , T ~.', ' ~ > c ... : : ~ ' c J ',."' ': 'I., :. ", -'. I'. :.: . .' ':.:_~, :' <"~ .~~~f ", l {. 0,:,'1 'j I, I.. ..t ,I +' \ . ,I' . .;. Discussion of July COB meeting date , Discussion ensued regarding ch,anging the July meeting to July 16, 2002, , du~ to staffing issues. Other Business Concern was expressed that the window signs at the Cigar Store on Druid Road and Fort Harrison Avenue are inappropriate. The signs advertise alcoholic beverages on a propertythat is less than 100 feet of a school, and the business had indicated that alcohol sales was an incidental product to his business. Concern also was expressed that the business has ,created an i!1c3gal 'parking space on the , property and, has placed an A-frame sign on the sidewalk' advertising products ' ,within his establishment. Staff will research the matter and report back to the COB next month: . Window signage is regulated in the Code. ' . . . , , Ms. Dougall~Sides gave an update regarding Renaissance Square Apartments and the Clearwater Group limited (former Sunshine Mall site) appeal. The parties involved worked out their differences and Renaissance Square, Apartments, owners issued a motion to dismiss its appeal. I. . , 'G.' 'ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m. ~G~~ Chair. ' Community Development Board , .' mcd04bo'2: 18 "I .'. ~ .. '~;f';~i~S,"':" ::; "~~,J..I";'" ,.1:;' '~~~"i.~,\';." ~,;",,' ",," , "I. . 4/16/02 :"::'~IL.~jl'l.....~' )~':\""J' :;'~.~;'~'Vt~/{",~.:;~~hh.~~~~~(7'~~~~\t-;.>: .~, "! 'I' ", . ' , . , ", . c. Cc T . .~~>~~<.'...~)~ ..:~.:~; "I:;.~:' .; \:".':\:.;"IJ'~~:u:Y': :~:;F, .